Originally Posted by StevieC
Their ASTM test results by an independent lab are posted on their site and pictures of various components posted. But I know you along with others won't believe that because of Bias, and that's fine.
From the other thread...I've even left the typos...
Originally Posted by Shannow
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2880.pdf
Let's walk through the claims...
wear - claim is against the industry standard certificated wear test...results comparible with their competitors. (used SS 0W20 - sequence IVA allows you to test the thinnest oil in a rnage, and then certify the other, thicker oils off the thinnest, but not the other way...BTW, doesn't that tell you something about viscosity and wear...by the industry standard wear test ?)
LSPI - 100% - that's 100% of tests run with zero ring land failures...OE oils claim exactly the same (scarcely neutered in that regard eh ?)
protects turbochargers - better by 72%...than the specification, not competitors oils, who ALL also have to beat the test.
Cleaning power
* 50% more detergents - than XL series
* 90% better sludge protection...than the standard (why didn't they compare it to the neutered XL, seeing as that's what they compared their first claim to ?...because IT beat the standard also)
Engine Masters Challenge...hmmm....there's something about that challenge...sponsorship etc (BTW, I buy every single engine masters challenge mag...they are $17 down here).
Extended oil changes...they've changed their metric from 25,000 miles (just like Mobil used to claim, and comparable to M1 0W40 capabilities in MB and BMW certifications))...and now include 700 engine operating hours as well. Honestly, any decent synthetic could do 25,000 miles with the stipulation that it had a minimum average speed of 35.7MPH, or no more than 2 hours idling per day, or nor more than a year...they NEAUTERED themselves. (btw, "if you choose" is not a recommendation)
Preserves horsepower … hmmm ...SS "helped" maintain the horsepower...As StevieC states regularly, the main contributor to longevity is design and manufacture.
Limits oil consumption - via NOACK...again, is an against industry specifications, but...note this time they switched viscosity to the 5W20, which Isn't the 0W20, nor their 5W30...it's the lowest NOACK in the lineup, bar the (politically incorrect) 10W-30.
Easier Cold starts - as noted previously, they are claiming that pour point is an indicator of cold startability...that was thrown out by the API decades ago...modern engine tests ? LOL...anyway, they compared their pour point to a conventional, then claim 66 better starting … in degrees F...
* can't use percentages in degrees F
* if their 5W30 was better than the dino, significantly in MRV and CCS, then it MUST be labelled according to the lowers MRV and CCS that the oil meets.
* if you need better than a 5W30, buy a 0W30...if the 5W30 MEETS the specs for a 0W30, then it MUST be labelled as a 0W30
Maintains Protective Viscosity - now that's spin... the STANDARD test limits the oil THICKENING...and all certified oils beat it, and probably handsomely...but later in the paragraph, it's about economy and VVT …
So lets mix some standards, some competitors, some dino, some misapplied specs (4 ball was one, Pour Point is another), cherry pick viscosities and tests, and claim that to certify the above would "neuter" the end result.
BTW, I've only been interested enough to counter the "science" since it as thrust at me earlier as "science"
Oh, and as to "hate" the final argument for those who can't argue...They are, in my opinion decent oils, like ACD...I am looking at their gear oils (since they marketed their engine oils as gear oils for decades)