Lubrication Engineers Tests 5w-30 (TFOUT)
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Yep, that is a bit old. Some update on the comments by Kevin.
Allegedly, LE provided him with some "skewed" or otherwise inaccurate information. He resented this.
He now works as a driveline lubrication specialist for AMSOIL, in the Tech Service department.
Allegedly, LE provided him with some "skewed" or otherwise inaccurate information. He resented this.
He now works as a driveline lubrication specialist for AMSOIL, in the Tech Service department.
Buster and ****,
Here are some May, 2003 TFOUT/ASTM D-4742 results from AMSOIL's G-1971. These are for 10w30 oils, not 5w30.:
I met and had a good conversation with both Kevin and Peter Haines a couple of weeks ago at AMSOIL University in Superior, WI. Peter was with L.E. for 18 years in commercial sales. Both said they were happy with their move north.
Andy
Here are some May, 2003 TFOUT/ASTM D-4742 results from AMSOIL's G-1971. These are for 10w30 oils, not 5w30.:
"The Thin-Film Oxygen Uptake Test evaluates the oxidation stability of lubricating oils. A mixture of the test oil and chemistries found in gasoline engine operation (oxidized/nitrated fuel, soluble metals and distilled water) are placed in a test vessel, which pressureized with oxygen and placed in a heated bath. Anti-oxidant breakdown is evident when the oxygen pressure in the vessel rapidly decreases. At this point, the induction time (break point) of the oil is recorded...AMSOIL ATM didn't reach it's break point in over 500 minutes of testing."
I met and had a good conversation with both Kevin and Peter Haines a couple of weeks ago at AMSOIL University in Superior, WI. Peter was with L.E. for 18 years in commercial sales. Both said they were happy with their move north.
Andy
buster, I personally find it very interesting that conventional Valvoline motor oil outperformed Valvoline synthetic and that Valvoline passed whereis some motor oils that have been highly rated at this web site based on VOAs and UOAs failed. Exactly what this means I don't know but maybe the only true and correct way to test a motor oil is by testing it in fleets of vehicles and in the real world.
I am disappointed that there may be some indication that Lubrication Engineers may not have been completely accurate in some information provided.
I like to take all advertising with a grain of salt but based on all of the published testing that Amsoil has provided (assuming all of that testing is accurate) I think we have to assume that Amsoil may be the best, or at least one of the best, motor oils available. But I personally have not seen Amsoil testing comparing Amsoil with Redline or Royal Purple.
In much of the testing that amsoil has made available it seems like most motor oils (even Mobil 1) seem to be all over the place in the various tests. A motor oil will look good in one test and maybe poor or average in another. If Amsoils tests are completely accurate only the Amsoil seems to appear outstanding in all of the various tests.
I am disappointed that there may be some indication that Lubrication Engineers may not have been completely accurate in some information provided.
I like to take all advertising with a grain of salt but based on all of the published testing that Amsoil has provided (assuming all of that testing is accurate) I think we have to assume that Amsoil may be the best, or at least one of the best, motor oils available. But I personally have not seen Amsoil testing comparing Amsoil with Redline or Royal Purple.
In much of the testing that amsoil has made available it seems like most motor oils (even Mobil 1) seem to be all over the place in the various tests. A motor oil will look good in one test and maybe poor or average in another. If Amsoils tests are completely accurate only the Amsoil seems to appear outstanding in all of the various tests.
Castrol GTX did not do well. I thought this was regarded as one of the top dinos? Can someone explain?
It's not the real world and in an engine
Whens the last time you saw a low cost dino oxidise and thicken out of grade ? Never
Here's real world TFOUT testing
Amsoil 10w-40 Synthetic Ford 3.0 in a Sable for 3888 miles under 85F ambient so not much stress there .
Starting Vi 14.0
Ending Vi 15.2 TBN 7.73
So you are saying you saw oxidative thickening in 4000 miles w/ amsoil?
Nope , analysis showed it to thicken in 3888 milesquote:
Originally posted by novadude:
So you are saying you saw oxidative thickening in 4000 miles w/ amsoil?
Here the 10w-40 ended at 16.8 @ 5751 miles .
16.3 is the starting point for 50wt
Bench tests are one thing . Running different oils and seeing how they actually do in engines are another .
I have to agree with that. Testing of motor oils in fleets of different kinds of vehicles (cars, trucks, SUVs, vans) in the real world is the only real way to test motor oils.
No telling what the results of such testing would be if we could afford to do it. Maybe Valvoline conventional oil, which has not looked so great in VOAs and UOAs here, might come out on top.
No telling what the results of such testing would be if we could afford to do it. Maybe Valvoline conventional oil, which has not looked so great in VOAs and UOAs here, might come out on top.
I do wonder about testing results published by any company. Obviously they want for their own oil to look great. But the results would have to be good otherwise a company could get in trouble. I wonder also how Pennzoil, which looks very good at this web site in VOAs and UOAs, comes in behind Quaker State. And how Valvoline conventional can look pretty good.
In some of the testing done by Amsoil I wonder how Mobil 1 can be all over the place in testing results.
In some of the testing done by Amsoil I wonder how Mobil 1 can be all over the place in testing results.
For what it might be worth (or not), my assessment is that Mobil 1 was an extremely good engine oil prior to the merger of Exxon and Mobil.
In this merger of equals, Exxon was more equal than Mobil-- most of the Mobil managers have retired or gone away. Mobil 1 was reformulated and cost engineered, using Exxon technology.
This came out as Tri-syn. Numbers indicated it was still a good oil, but not as good as it could have been. Indications are that the supersyn formulation is an improvement, at least in many ways.
I do know that anything that AMSOIL publishes is backed by testing, both in-house and by independent lab. I don't have any idea which particular formulation of an oil AMSOIL tests--but assume it is the latest they could get their hands on. If they published incorrect or inaccurate data, I presume that a battalion of lawyers would be on their doorstep. When I was there a couple weeks back, didn't see a single lawyer.
In this merger of equals, Exxon was more equal than Mobil-- most of the Mobil managers have retired or gone away. Mobil 1 was reformulated and cost engineered, using Exxon technology.
This came out as Tri-syn. Numbers indicated it was still a good oil, but not as good as it could have been. Indications are that the supersyn formulation is an improvement, at least in many ways.
I do know that anything that AMSOIL publishes is backed by testing, both in-house and by independent lab. I don't have any idea which particular formulation of an oil AMSOIL tests--but assume it is the latest they could get their hands on. If they published incorrect or inaccurate data, I presume that a battalion of lawyers would be on their doorstep. When I was there a couple weeks back, didn't see a single lawyer.
- Status
Similar threads
