Originally Posted By: buster
This may be irrelevant at this point. Despite what many have always assumed, Amsoil was not always using the latest and greatest adds. I've said this repeatedly but since 2004??? Amsoil has grown and really done a nice job staying up with modern additives. For awhile there, they were a bit behind the majors in terms of using modern additives.
but what if these "modern" additives being used as replacements for previous additives aren't actually performing better?
Lower amounts of phosphorous, due to catalyst contamination, have been supplemented with titanium, and other anti-wear additives. Sure, the newer additives are supposedly catalyst safe, but do they actually perform as well?
Still, NOACK volatility isn't taken into consideration when judging the acceptable levels of ZDDP. This is a huge oversight, especially since PAO base stocks have lower percentages of mass loss in current NOACK testing. Less burn off means less additives that are lost that could potentially contaminate a catalyst.
This may be irrelevant at this point. Despite what many have always assumed, Amsoil was not always using the latest and greatest adds. I've said this repeatedly but since 2004??? Amsoil has grown and really done a nice job staying up with modern additives. For awhile there, they were a bit behind the majors in terms of using modern additives.
but what if these "modern" additives being used as replacements for previous additives aren't actually performing better?
Lower amounts of phosphorous, due to catalyst contamination, have been supplemented with titanium, and other anti-wear additives. Sure, the newer additives are supposedly catalyst safe, but do they actually perform as well?
Still, NOACK volatility isn't taken into consideration when judging the acceptable levels of ZDDP. This is a huge oversight, especially since PAO base stocks have lower percentages of mass loss in current NOACK testing. Less burn off means less additives that are lost that could potentially contaminate a catalyst.
