HD 360 and Amsoil sample.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many times the placebo effect takes hold.

For instance...unless you have a hydraulic clutch, the oil shouldn't have anything to do with the pressure the clutch lever has. Even with a hydro-clutch, the action will only change if you change out the clutch sump to a lighter oil.

I suspect the "feel" of other mechanical issues is also effected this way.
 
Quote:


Many times the placebo effect takes hold.

For instance...unless you have a hydraulic clutch, the oil shouldn't have anything to do with the pressure the clutch lever has. Even with a hydro-clutch, the action will only change if you change out the clutch sump to a lighter oil.

I suspect the "feel" of other mechanical issues is also effected this way.




Not sure what HD primary oil is but it now has Amsoil MCV 20W50.
 
This does appear to be a great Amsoil UOA...

Now, I must ask the question...

Is Amsoil using a petroleum base for this oil? I read (in these pages I believe) that Amsoil is using a group III dino base in some of their products.

The excellent wear metal counts in this Amsoil sample make me strongly suspect that this motorcycle oil may have a group III petroleum base.

Does anyone have any data on this?

Dan
 
Why would the wear metal counts be an idicator of Group III basestocks? Please explain with good details.

The Amsoil XL line of automotive motor oils are using a Group III basestock, but that is all the information that is available. I believe Pablo stated that the premium oils (that is about all of the oils except for the XL line and the 15w-40 blend) contain Group IV & V and nothing else.
 
I researched this some after I posted above, and cannot determine whether they are using group III bases in the motorcycle oils or not. They are definitely using group III bases in some of their oils, according to their own corporate website.

My reasons for suspecting that this motorcycle oil does have a petroleum base are

1) the oil does appear to have sheared a grade, according to the chart on the main BITOG page. 16.6 @100 is a 40 weight, and

2) the oil did a fine job of protecting this engine. We don't see the high iron counts which group IV and V synthetics tend to show, which is (a good case can be made) evidence of corrosion in the engine.

Maybe this oil is a group IV. If it is, it's got all of the other group IV motorcycle UOA's beat--at least as far as the archives here show.

So again, this oil is basically "acting" like a high quality dino oil, which the records here show protects better than group IV and V oils.

Dan
 
Quote:



This does appear to be a great Amsoil UOA...

Now, I must ask the question...

Is Amsoil using a petroleum base for this oil? I read (in these pages I believe) that Amsoil is using a group III dino base in some of their products.

The excellent wear metal counts in this Amsoil sample make me strongly suspect that this motorcycle oil may have a group III petroleum base.

Does anyone have any data on this?

I researched this some after I posted above, and cannot determine whether they are using group III bases in the motorcycle oils or not. They are definitely using group III bases in some of their oils, according to their own corporate website.

My reasons for suspecting that this motorcycle oil does have a petroleum base are

1) the oil does appear to have sheared a grade, according to the chart on the main BITOG page. 16.6 @100 is a 40 weight, and

2) the oil did a fine job of protecting this engine. We don't see the high iron counts which group IV and V synthetics tend to show, which is (a good case can be made) evidence of corrosion in the engine.

Maybe this oil is a group IV. If it is, it's got all of the other group IV motorcycle UOA's beat--at least as far as the archives here show.

So again, this oil is basically "acting" like a high quality dino oil, which the records here show protects better than group IV and V oils.

Dan




First - No Amsoil is not using petroleum, or group III base oils in any of the top oils. The XL line as mentioned is made with group III base oils.

Second - the oil did shear a bit but is not out of grade. I'm sorry but a 16.6 is a 50 weight.

http://www.infineum.com/information/api-viscosity-2004.html

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you may have some biases, or prejudices. As I have stated before your sample world might be a bit small. People look up to your posts and believe what you write, I can tell by the responses. However - just in these last two posts in this thread you make at least two critical errors.

Lastly There is no way you can make such a strong statement about one base oil protecting better than another from the all the UOA's posted on BiTOG. Again this is not personal nor is it an attack on your professionalism.
 
As for what the MCV formula is, well Amsoil as with all oil companies is not handing the formula out. But just looking at the NOACK volatility of 3.89% tells you Amsoil is not slipping Grp I or II petroleum or even a good group III oil in. The high flash point and the shear stability tests say it's a very stout blend of base oils. I have no idea the ester/PAO percentage, but the cold temp properties confirm some heavy synthetic base oil.
 
Pablo,

I'm just connecting the dots here. It's not rocket science. The best UOA's on the board tend to be from petroleum based oils. Not a scientifically determined test, but the anecdotal evidence is abundant and undeniable.

I'm not selling anything. That should at least lend back a touch of that credibility you wish to take from me.

I'll say again, if the Amsoil in this UOA is a group IV oil, it is safe to say that Amsoil has finally figured out what Mobil and Redline have not been able to figure out thus far, which is how to keep the corrosion under control with a group IV or V base stock.

If this particular UOA is testament to the quality of Amsoil's motorcycle oil, then the other UOA's here should be given as much consideration. And in the overwhelming majority of cases those UOA's favor petroleum bases for wear metal mitigation.

So again... I really have to wonder if there isn't a significant amount of petroleum base in this oil. It sheared to a degree (the BITOG chart says it's a 40 weight) and it protected better than any Amsoil I've seen yet. So it makes me wonder...
wink.gif
laugh.gif


Dan
 
Quote:


The best UOA's on the board tend to be from petroleum based oils. Not a scientifically determined test, but the anecdotal evidence is abundant and undeniable.

And in the overwhelming majority of cases those UOA's favor petroleum bases for wear metal mitigation.





This is simply is not true. Not in the least. I can show you UOA after UOA, some at 15K+ intervals, with Fe, Pb, Sn, Cu, Al ppm wear rates per mile traveled that simply cannot be matched by petroleum oil. But I don't even claim the wear rates are better with any base oil, because as you say it's all anecdotal. And to use such a false hypothesis to claim a formula is one way or another, well, just makes no sense to me.
 
Pablo... the guys who have actually researched the motorcycle UOA's here know that it is true. There's no use in you and I batting this back and forth. Those who are curious can check the archives and draw their own conclusions.

And I still bet there's no small amount of petroleum in the Amsoil product which is the subject of this thread. Of course they'll say such information is "proprietary"...
tongue.gif


Dan
 
I find it quite possible that Amsoil would be using a change of base to accomplish the task of living up to their marketing spiel for this product, which btw, is unsurpassed corrosion protection and longevity.
Actually, I think ftm has probably nailed this one. I also think that there is plenty of evidence available that lends itself to showing some grp II/III products, be they in combination with IV/V content, or by themselves, provide every bit as good, and many times better, than their exclusively grp IV/V competitors.

I find it funny how some want to defend the content of grp IV/V with a vengeance, as if even the thought of a mere association with grp III or, heaven forbid, grp II base was blasphemous.
But I think marketing strategies will change, as the conformation to what the true mfg's are already doing, takes a better hold. And formulators must surely conform...or raise price point. (shrug...its certainly harder for marketing spiel to trump reality)
And I'm talking base oil production as a whole, not a specific products content.

Can you point us to the MSDS of this product, Pablo?
 
Quote:


I find it quite possible that Amsoil would be using a change of base to accomplish the task of living up to their marketing spiel for this product, which btw, is unsurpassed corrosion protection and longevity.
Actually, I think ftm has probably nailed this one. I also think that there is plenty of evidence available that lends itself to showing some grp II/III products, be they in combination with IV/V content, or by themselves, provide every bit as good, and many times better, than their exclusively grp IV/V competitors.

I find it funny how some want to defend the content of grp IV/V with a vengeance, as if even the thought of a mere association with grp III or, heaven forbid, grp II base was blasphemous.
But I think marketing strategies will change, as the conformation to what the true mfg's are already doing, takes a better hold. And formulators must surely conform...or raise price point. (shrug...its certainly harder for marketing spiel to trump reality)
And I'm talking base oil production as a whole, not a specific products content.

Can you point us to the MSDS of this product, Pablo?




Lots of "I think"'s
wink.gif


I'm not defending for the sake of defending, I'm defending because what is written is simply not true. Clue: The secret is in the additive package AND the base oil. LOOK at the specs!

MSDS: http://www.amsoil.com/msds/mcv.pdf

Product specs: Amsoil MCV
 
From this page on the Amsoil corporate site:

http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/article_xl7500.aspx

Q: Are Group III basestocks synthetic?

A: Yes, they are synthetic. Group III base oils are highly processed oils and were classified as synthetic in 1999.That year, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ruled in a complaint by Mobil Oil Corp. against Castrol North America Inc. Castrol claimed its product, Syntec, was a synthetic oil even though it had used Group III base oils since 1997. The ruling by NAD said Castrol presented evidence that constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Syntec, a Group III based formulation, is synthetic motor oil.


So since Amsoil now corporately considers group III oils "synthetic" we can't really say that the mention of "synthetic base stock" on the MSDS rules out a group III base, now can we?
tongue.gif
wink.gif


Dan
 
Pablo...

Here's the MSDS for the XL 7500, an oil which Amsoil acknowledges has a group III base--> http://www.amsoil.com/msds/xl_series.pdf

They call the base of the XL 7500 "synthetic" on the MSDS.

So... the link you provided above has no meaning.

What we need is an independent confirmation of the base type of this MCV motorcycle oil. And by independent, I don't mean from an Amsoil salesman or the corporate website.

Short of that, I will continue to strongly suspect that the excellent and atypical performance of the subject oil of this thread is owing to a strong petroleum content.

Dan
 
Quote:


So... the link you provided above has no meaning.

What we need is an independent confirmation of the base type of this MCV motorcycle oil. And by independent, I don't mean from an Amsoil salesman or the corporate website.

Short of that, I will continue to strongly suspect that the excellent and atypical performance of the subject oil of this thread is owing to a strong petroleum content.





Well if you totally ignore the part about all the other oils made with PAO, I guess it has no meaning.

I do agree that an independent FULL analysis will provide the proof that I am correct.

You can believe whatever you want, but the silly notion that a well formulated synthetic oil can’t perform excellently without “strong petroleum content” is simply incorrect. I suppose even my own good UOA’s must have been because I was sneaking some conventional oil in the crankcase when no one was looking.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong...but hasn't there been some arbitration that states an oil only need have 30% of it's content be made up of what is considered "synthetic" base to be labeled as a "synthetic" oil?

And if that oil has used =/> 30% PAO, it can be coined as a PAO based synthetic?

And if all this is true, then how hard is it to see that Amsoil marketing-speak has adhered to it?
And when they state a fluid is "PAO based", doesn't that only mean that we can be assured that at least 30% of that formula is PAO, and then qualified to be called a "PAO based synthetic"?

Quote:


I'm not defending for the sake of defending, I'm defending because what is written is simply not true.



I' still wondering just what untrue written words you are referring to?
 
Quote:


You can believe whatever you want, but the silly notion that a well formulated synthetic oil can’t perform excellently without “strong petroleum content” is simply incorrect. I suppose even my own good UOA’s must have been because I was sneaking some conventional oil in the crankcase when no one was looking.




I think the question was concerning the grp III content of the fluid. And the reason was because the posted UOA showed low Fe wear numbers. It was speculated that this low wear number was similar to low Fe wear numbers from previously posted UOA's of high grp III content fluids, and the possiblity exits that this fluid also contained a good amount of grp III.
And Amsoil has went the extra mile to boost the anti corrosion/oxidation properties of this fluid with something, as indicative of both the posted UOA and the marketing for that particular product.

I feel you simply deduce the whole thing differently than some of us do, Pablo. Especially in light of the fact that you have no more idea what the fluid is formulated with than we do.
And so what if they used grp III to boost this fluids qualities? I think only those who would doubt this being possible, or doubt grp II's worth for such a task, would be those who are hung up on, "PAO and Esters are the holy grails of engine oils, and we will market the fact that all others are lesser fluids till the cows come home", types of marketing spiels.

Wait...are you saying that grp III is conventional oil? Or am I confused here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top