Can a Group III syn such as XL-7500 be better than M1?

[The Critic]

Is it possible for a high quality, Group III synthetic to better than a Group IV PAO synthetic such as M1?

After seeing the recent report in the UOA section of Amsoil XL-7500 5W-20, it seems as though its performance was just as good, if not better in terms of wear and TBN retention compared to M1.

In that case, if you were comparing M1 5W-20 and Amsoil XL-7500 5W-20, can the Amsoil offer the same performance but better TBN retention?

Note: Amsoil XL-7500 5W-20 is $3.75/quart with case purchase using a PC account.

Michael

 

[sgtgeek]

Yes.

 

[radiometer]

It seems to me that a lot of criticism was heaped upon Group III oils before their performance was evaluated. While I don't like being fooled by an oil company and I refused to consider using Group IIIs for a number of years I'm now taking a new look as UOAs come on line for our study.
You know what you're getting with Amsoil. You know what you're getting with the Mobile Grp IIIs. You know what you're getting with Schaeffers new synthetic product, the 9000 5W-40 because they are up front with it (or, at least Carpy was with the Mobil products).
We can now begin to study the results and come to our own conclusions.

[ March 25, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: krholm ]

 

[Ugly3]

quote:

---

Originally posted by krholm:
It seems to me that a lot of criticism was heaped upon Group III oils before their performance was evaluated. While I don't like being fooled by an oil company and I refused to consider using Group IIIs for a number of years I'm now taking a new look as UOAs come on line for our study.
You know what you're getting with Amsoil. You know what you're getting with the Mobile Grp IIIs. You know what you're getting with Schaeffers new synthetic product, the 9000 5W-40 because they are up front with it (or, at least Carpy was with the Mobil products).
We can now begin to study the results and come to our own conclusions.

---

Study, data, conclusion, - what refreshing words!

 

[jthorner]

It is nice to see people looking at the available results and data in attempting to make decisions rather than simply being Pavlovian.

Mobil-1 as the most common PAO based oil has not, IMO, shown itself to produce lower wear as indicated by UOAs than do any number of oils including the Group IIIs.

John

 

[Terry]

Yes, especially Amsoils 100% petroleum based 7500 series oils. The 5w-20 is fantastic in oil analysis results in a broad spectrum of honda and ford engines.

I just love calling Amsoil petroleum based, that must really get in AJ's knickers !!!

 

[HOndaGuy]

If you want a group 3 syn, use the mobil 7500 5w20 which you can get for 2.69 a quart. Why pay 4 bucks for an oil that isn't really synthetic and overpriced? I love amsoil, but refuse to buy crap that is group 3 based at a group 4 price. Ill stick with the mobil 1 5w20(still love 0w20 even thought they wont make it now).

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

It seems to me that a lot of criticism was heaped upon Group III oils before their performance was evaluated.

---

Never was the performance questioned per se, only the history behind the fake synthetic verses real synthetic BBB controversy.

This could have been averted simply using other but appropriate terms such UHVI, high-end, or super-finished petroleum oils. No, Castrol had to push it and attempt to make what was not chemically a synthetic a synthetic by repeating the mantra. Repeat the mantra enough and people will beieve it and accept this "forced" definition as true

.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Is it possible for a high quality, Group III synthetic to better than a Group IV PAO synthetic such as M1?

---

Only if the formulation of the real synthetic is corrupted.

I assume by better you mean overall performance in all aspects. I think the answer is no, not in all aspects. You still need an ester or AN in GR3 formulations for additive solubility and different additives at that. In terms of oxidative stability and Cold Cranking peformance, no GR3 will never attain the same peformance specs as GR4/5 fluids.

For the average Joe daily driver and 3-7k OCI's, he wouldn't notice any difference.

 

[Terry]

Mola, I guess this makes it very clear that if SPF formulates and markets an oil as SYNTHETIC it can be counted on to be just that ?


?Honesty in formulating and marketing, how will you stay in business !?

 

[MolaKule]

If we say it's synthetic, then yes you can be assured its all synthetic components.

SPF only had had three products that contained mineral oils; one is the AutoGlide ATF Blend (group II+, III, IV, V), the Chain Saw oil Blend (same as above), and a special GL1 tranny fluid Blend made up for an older transmission that had to have mineral oils for seal compatibility (Group I, IV).

 

[TooSlick]

I think you'll find the Amsoil XL series compares very favorably with Mobil 1 for drain intervals up to 10,000-12,000 miles. Beyond that the oxidative stability of a PAO basestock would result in less thickening....The TBN of the XL formulations is listed as 10.2 - the most recent test of the GF-4 rated, Mobil 1 I saw (in the 3MP test) showed a TBN of 9.6. So those are very close ....

I also believe you'll find the XL series oils generate less valve train wear than Mobil 1, as do many other off the shelf synthetics like the German Castrol. FWIW, the four ball wear test results of the XL series compare favorably with their more expensive PAO based lubricants.


Tooslick