http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/atm.aspx
So they now meet GF-4 and still retain the 25k mile drain.
So they now meet GF-4 and still retain the 25k mile drain.
New Amsoil GF-4 25k 10w-30 (ATM)
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Imagine this:
So they actually test for API now?
I don't know. I called them today and was told that they only test the XL line and being their top of the line oils are better, they then recommend the other specs. That doesn't sound right to me though. They said testing was expensive.
The Gf-4 spec is a reduction in ZDDP and fuel economy. I know they have been below 800P ppm for awhile. I also called Mobil and they said the M1 EP GF-4 is being tested now. This is eventually what they all will be. I'd expect the S2k to also be GF-4.
*I think the new Amsoil drain interval Pablo posted is much better.
The Gf-4 spec is a reduction in ZDDP and fuel economy. I know they have been below 800P ppm for awhile. I also called Mobil and they said the M1 EP GF-4 is being tested now. This is eventually what they all will be. I'd expect the S2k to also be GF-4.
*I think the new Amsoil drain interval Pablo posted is much better.
Interesting that they use an out of date ASTM D-2602 test method.
And is that a faux API donut on the label?
And is that a faux API donut on the label?
Notice, that the HT/HS score is now 3.2, and it no longer meets the A3/B3 specs.quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
Interesting that they use an out of date ASTM D-2602 test method.
And is that a faux API donut on the label?
No, that is not an API donut on the label; it is simply a picture of an outdated bottle with an API SL/CF text there.
Also, if I recall correctly, isn't volatility no longer as good as before?
But at least it meets API SM, ILSAC GF-4.
Michael
Hi,
as well as using an outdated and obsolete Quality standard (ASTM 2602-86) - it was withdrawn about 1993 I believe this comment raises many issues;
Buster - you said (Amsoil told you this);
"I called them today and was told that they only test the XL line and being their top of the line oils are better, they then recommend the other specs. That doesn't sound right to me though. They said testing was expensive."
Expensive for who? And why are many Amsoil poroducts apparently so expensive when compared to others with official Approvals and Licensed?
And why are Manufacturer Approvals not sought?
Why do Companies like Amsoil continue to use irrelevant comparison data that is difficult if not impossible to quantify. It always seems to me to be Marketing by misinformation and this demeans what is probably a very good product
Michael you said;
"But at least it meets API SM, ILSAC GF-4."
It is sad that the old "meets" or "suitable for use in...." etc. still prevails when their competitors pay for the full barrel of official Approvals and Quality Standard endorsements. Has this product been officially licensed with the API?
This is important and in particular when the engine maker states such as this in their Official documentation (7SE270);
"A Marketer is required to license his oil with API in order to display the symbol. Beware the product that some Marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is not adequate. Only oils licensed by API should be used in Detroit Diesel engines."
I have no experience with Amsoil products and they do (selectively) seem to be quite good - but no better than many others of course!
Some (one or two)are even Listed by at least one engine manufacturer which seems to indicatate that Amsoil selectively submit for such advanced and official testing when the product WILL pass
It is a shame that Amsoil have taken over the Internet's "oil" world - this is a great "switch off" for many, certainly for me
We are indeed fortunate on BITOG that most of the Amsoil "experts" on here are sincere and responsible people. Some like Pablo even realise and discuss the limitations some of their products may have
Even Tooslick (at times) realises that other products from various manufacturers are credible and of excellent quality
Selling any product by bashing their competitors is the second big "switch off" for many
IMHO there are no magic lubricants - from any manufacturer! Published Quality standards used by the Oil Company surely need to be current for the application and should not introduce any avenue for the consumer to have to contest such things as warranty debates, issues and perhaps costs
Doug
as well as using an outdated and obsolete Quality standard (ASTM 2602-86) - it was withdrawn about 1993 I believe this comment raises many issues;
Buster - you said (Amsoil told you this);
"I called them today and was told that they only test the XL line and being their top of the line oils are better, they then recommend the other specs. That doesn't sound right to me though. They said testing was expensive."
Expensive for who? And why are many Amsoil poroducts apparently so expensive when compared to others with official Approvals and Licensed?
And why are Manufacturer Approvals not sought?
Why do Companies like Amsoil continue to use irrelevant comparison data that is difficult if not impossible to quantify. It always seems to me to be Marketing by misinformation and this demeans what is probably a very good product
Michael you said;
"But at least it meets API SM, ILSAC GF-4."
It is sad that the old "meets" or "suitable for use in...." etc. still prevails when their competitors pay for the full barrel of official Approvals and Quality Standard endorsements. Has this product been officially licensed with the API?
This is important and in particular when the engine maker states such as this in their Official documentation (7SE270);
"A Marketer is required to license his oil with API in order to display the symbol. Beware the product that some Marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. This is not adequate. Only oils licensed by API should be used in Detroit Diesel engines."
I have no experience with Amsoil products and they do (selectively) seem to be quite good - but no better than many others of course!
Some (one or two)are even Listed by at least one engine manufacturer which seems to indicatate that Amsoil selectively submit for such advanced and official testing when the product WILL pass
It is a shame that Amsoil have taken over the Internet's "oil" world - this is a great "switch off" for many, certainly for me
We are indeed fortunate on BITOG that most of the Amsoil "experts" on here are sincere and responsible people. Some like Pablo even realise and discuss the limitations some of their products may have
Even Tooslick (at times) realises that other products from various manufacturers are credible and of excellent quality
Selling any product by bashing their competitors is the second big "switch off" for many
IMHO there are no magic lubricants - from any manufacturer! Published Quality standards used by the Oil Company surely need to be current for the application and should not introduce any avenue for the consumer to have to contest such things as warranty debates, issues and perhaps costs
Doug
Looks great, but for me, I like the specs on Amsoil's new ACD SAE30/10W-30 better. ACD about $4 cheaper per gallon. And you get the detergent/dispersant cleaners inherent to HDMOs, no VI improvers. ACD slightly thicker.
The reason I called them today is because I wanted to find out if the Series 2000 would also be GF-4. The person I spoke with wasn't even aware that the 10w-30 was now GF-4, but that I can believe as most tech departments really don't know whats going on until the day it's released. Thats any oil company.
The part about the testing threw me off. I was told that they only fully test (I'm assuming API here) the lower end oils (XL line) and being that they formulate the higher end oils with more additives, they then will meet all other specifications.
I was also told these tests are expensive.
To meet the GF-4 they lowered ZDDP levels, as we've seen and lowered the viscosity to meet the GF-4 specification. Other additives must be present for these oils to meet 15k mile drain intervals.
Volatility is the same, around 5.5% for ATM, 7.5% for M1.
The part about the testing threw me off. I was told that they only fully test (I'm assuming API here) the lower end oils (XL line) and being that they formulate the higher end oils with more additives, they then will meet all other specifications.
To meet the GF-4 they lowered ZDDP levels, as we've seen and lowered the viscosity to meet the GF-4 specification. Other additives must be present for these oils to meet 15k mile drain intervals.
Volatility is the same, around 5.5% for ATM, 7.5% for M1.
Doug - please don't selective leave information out of your posts. I don't think there is anything illegal about using ASTM 2602. (I gotta love that you added the -86). I believe that M1 doesn't even publish CCS and only does the useless pour point test.
Then you go on to bash Amsoil in your normal fashion. Strange that there was no bashing of competitors here that I saw.
To answer your question Buster, I'm not sure why the guy told you that. Who was it? Not only are the oils tested by Amsoil, they are tested by the additive companies.
Then you go on to bash Amsoil in your normal fashion. Strange that there was no bashing of competitors here that I saw.
To answer your question Buster, I'm not sure why the guy told you that. Who was it? Not only are the oils tested by Amsoil, they are tested by the additive companies.
Right, that has always been what I've been told. They simply buy the additive packages (pre-licensed?) from Lubrizol etc. then formulate.
Amsoil will keep the S3k, and new ACD 10w-30 ACEA A3 rated. I'm not sure about the S2k being GF-4. That will be interesting.
Amsoil will keep the S3k, and new ACD 10w-30 ACEA A3 rated. I'm not sure about the S2k being GF-4. That will be interesting.
Hi,
Pablo - I have never ever "bashed" an Amsoil product! And I have very rarely "bashed" Amsoil and certainly not as much as others on here!!
And, I never said that there was anything "illegal" in using a 1986 standard in 2005 - one that was made obsolete in 1993
But you have not answered why!!
Why did they not just use SE/CD too?
I do not hold up ExxonMobil as the epitome in the Oil Marketing field. In fact quite the reverse really and I own them nothing like they owe me!!
However, like Castrol, Shell, Motul, Agip, FUCHS, Elf and many many others they do submit their products for official Manufacturer and Quality Standards endorsement!
And they use comparative Standards that are that - comparative
None of these organisations have infested the Internet either
Pablo as usual you have taken the wrong intent from my post as you always have and probably always will - my intention was to simply highlight that Marketing needs to be forthright and honest! Otherwise why have standards?
Would GM get away with saying that their 2006 cars "meet" or "exceed" current safety standards without official testing. I doubt it!
We live in 2005 and formulations are being devised for the future not the past! Since 1986 we have had six "S" and about eight "C" changes
Perhaps a few of us need more sea changes!!!
Doug
Pablo - I have never ever "bashed" an Amsoil product! And I have very rarely "bashed" Amsoil and certainly not as much as others on here!!
And, I never said that there was anything "illegal" in using a 1986 standard in 2005 - one that was made obsolete in 1993
But you have not answered why!!
Why did they not just use SE/CD too?
I do not hold up ExxonMobil as the epitome in the Oil Marketing field. In fact quite the reverse really and I own them nothing like they owe me!!
However, like Castrol, Shell, Motul, Agip, FUCHS, Elf and many many others they do submit their products for official Manufacturer and Quality Standards endorsement!
And they use comparative Standards that are that - comparative
None of these organisations have infested the Internet either
Pablo as usual you have taken the wrong intent from my post as you always have and probably always will - my intention was to simply highlight that Marketing needs to be forthright and honest! Otherwise why have standards?
Would GM get away with saying that their 2006 cars "meet" or "exceed" current safety standards without official testing. I doubt it!
We live in 2005 and formulations are being devised for the future not the past! Since 1986 we have had six "S" and about eight "C" changes
Perhaps a few of us need more sea changes!!!
Doug
They have been using the ASTM D-5293 test protocol , according to the G-1862, "Lubrication II" reference materials in my files. So that should be updated just to be technically accurate.
As Doug well knows, these ASTM test designations are updated periodically, even in cases where the actual test protocol does not change. For example, the ASTM D5800, Noack Volatility test is the same as the previous test, ie a one hour test @ 250C. I would not be surprised to find the D-2602 and D-5293 methods yield comparable results.
As for my running commentary on EOM, I though old Harry Truman said it best: "I don't give folks ****, I just tell the truth and they think it's ****!"
As Doug well knows, these ASTM test designations are updated periodically, even in cases where the actual test protocol does not change. For example, the ASTM D5800, Noack Volatility test is the same as the previous test, ie a one hour test @ 250C. I would not be surprised to find the D-2602 and D-5293 methods yield comparable results.
As for my running commentary on EOM, I though old Harry Truman said it best: "I don't give folks ****, I just tell the truth and they think it's ****!"
Hi Tooslick,
you said it all like a true Amsoil professional!
Did Harry T sell Amsoil too then???
Sadly though none of the serious points I raised have been answered!!! Then, I suppose you guys are not the Policy Makers - you just sell the stuff and provide entertainment for us here on BITOG
Got a "running commentary" on FUCHS or Motul too Ted?
Doug
you said it all like a true Amsoil professional!
Did Harry T sell Amsoil too then???
Sadly though none of the serious points I raised have been answered!!! Then, I suppose you guys are not the Policy Makers - you just sell the stuff and provide entertainment for us here on BITOG
Got a "running commentary" on FUCHS or Motul too Ted?
Doug
Now that is funny.
Doug - serious point:
The Internet is the Internet. Amsoil invented the Internet. Oh I mean AlGore invented the Internet, but simultaneously AlAmatuzio invented Amzoil and it got out of control. I'm sorry it bothers folks.
Serious point #2. API "standards" are about analogous to to safety standards as my butt is to my face....well maybe not a good example either, but the politically derived lowbar, hostage bovine scat API standards cannot be compared to the criticality of the protection of human life. An oil company can and should be able to sell a product they deem to be worthy and superior to standards without paying cash to the company that holds the standards.
The Internet is the Internet. Amsoil invented the Internet. Oh I mean AlGore invented the Internet, but simultaneously AlAmatuzio invented Amzoil and it got out of control. I'm sorry it bothers folks.
Serious point #2. API "standards" are about analogous to to safety standards as my butt is to my face....well maybe not a good example either, but the politically derived lowbar, hostage bovine scat API standards cannot be compared to the criticality of the protection of human life. An oil company can and should be able to sell a product they deem to be worthy and superior to standards without paying cash to the company that holds the standards.
My speculation several months ago was they went with a lighter basestock blend. I sure can't wait to see the longer OCI's roll in. I may drop this is the 850. Just to see it thicken up to an 80 weight
(not)
The ACD SAE30/10W-30 (as jbas says) is going in the 240 next!
The ACD SAE30/10W-30 (as jbas says) is going in the 240 next!
"without paying cash to the company that holds the standards."
What about...UL listing, Better Business Bureau, AAA (Auto Club) etc? Not to mention a ton of financial groups (CPAs, CFAs, et al) and manufacturing organizations. The better firms tangible want higher ethics/standards.
What about...UL listing, Better Business Bureau, AAA (Auto Club) etc? Not to mention a ton of financial groups (CPAs, CFAs, et al) and manufacturing organizations. The better firms tangible want higher ethics/standards.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky