NEW Amsoil White Paper on Gear Oils
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
i cant believe RP sheared so horribly. maybe thats why it was so thick to begin with?? i guess for 3-5 bucks more amsoil is worth it!!
I think this is very useful information for those people interested in 75W90 GL5 gear oil. It seems pretty clear to me, which products perform better (if even slightly) than others in each category. The only thing better than this study would be an independent SAE or Triboligist society study. I also wish that they would included all 75W110 and straight SAE 110 GL5's in the study as well.
The average man on the steet wouldn't have heard of Schaeffer's.
That's why they are not in the test paper.
That's why they are not in the test paper.
I don't think Amsoil is different than any other oil company in the "claims" department.
Sorry - I did not mean to come across as personal. But it seemed like the gauntlet was thrown down with unsubstantiated claims.
Why no Schaeffer's? General public has not heard of them or LE or a whole bunch of other oil companies. No sense making your potential customers aware of worthy competitors?
Why doesn't a HUGE company like Exxon Mobil list Amsoil (or anyone really) in their tests?
Sorry - I did not mean to come across as personal. But it seemed like the gauntlet was thrown down with unsubstantiated claims.
Why no Schaeffer's? General public has not heard of them or LE or a whole bunch of other oil companies. No sense making your potential customers aware of worthy competitors?
Why doesn't a HUGE company like Exxon Mobil list Amsoil (or anyone really) in their tests?
“Where's the Schaeffer's gear oil test? Is Amsoil afraid of a superior product? Favorable test results by omission? I believe these are legitimate questions. What about it Salesrep, are you surprised your product wasn't tested. I'm not...”
Yes Schaeffers has always been missing from Amsoil’s tests. Not surprised. Like any other Company Amsoil is going to test products that they know will perform versus xyz competitors. It would make no business sense to test a product that may be superior in that exact product. Conversely Amsoil may whup said products sister.
“If Schaeffer's gear is superior, why don't they do a white paper and test against Amsoil and prove it?”
We have with a variety of different products from an array of competitors. I would put our 167,293 (now 75-90) and 239s series against any in the world and I am sure they have products they would say the same about.
Don
“The average man on the steet wouldn't have heard of Schaeffer's.
That's why they are not in the test paper.”
I think that one would find that in many geographic regions Schaeffer’s carries tremendous brand name recognition and growing.
Pablo
“Why no Schaeffer's? General public has not heard of them or LE or a whole bunch of other oil companies. No sense making your potential customers aware of worthy competitors?”
Don
“The average man on the steet wouldn't have heard of Schaeffer's.
That's why they are not in the test paper.”
I think this is at the crux or crossroads of marketplaces.
Amsoil tends to be more general consumer driven. The case buyer or the individual customer if you will. Their sales structure is such that almost by definition is designed to sell your “neighbor”. While they make products for industry and heavy equipment, this is not their niche or likely their primary target.
Schaeffers along with companies like LE, Cen-pe-co, Hydratex, Primsose, Lubriplate develop, manufacture, and have a sales structure in place for products in industry, fleet, agriculture, mining, etc. as a primary focus.
All one has to do is look at the product line card from each to determine which market each serves.
Yes Schaeffers has always been missing from Amsoil’s tests. Not surprised. Like any other Company Amsoil is going to test products that they know will perform versus xyz competitors. It would make no business sense to test a product that may be superior in that exact product. Conversely Amsoil may whup said products sister.
“If Schaeffer's gear is superior, why don't they do a white paper and test against Amsoil and prove it?”
We have with a variety of different products from an array of competitors. I would put our 167,293 (now 75-90) and 239s series against any in the world and I am sure they have products they would say the same about.
Don
“The average man on the steet wouldn't have heard of Schaeffer's.
That's why they are not in the test paper.”
I think that one would find that in many geographic regions Schaeffer’s carries tremendous brand name recognition and growing.
Pablo
“Why no Schaeffer's? General public has not heard of them or LE or a whole bunch of other oil companies. No sense making your potential customers aware of worthy competitors?”
Don
“The average man on the steet wouldn't have heard of Schaeffer's.
That's why they are not in the test paper.”
I think this is at the crux or crossroads of marketplaces.
Amsoil tends to be more general consumer driven. The case buyer or the individual customer if you will. Their sales structure is such that almost by definition is designed to sell your “neighbor”. While they make products for industry and heavy equipment, this is not their niche or likely their primary target.
Schaeffers along with companies like LE, Cen-pe-co, Hydratex, Primsose, Lubriplate develop, manufacture, and have a sales structure in place for products in industry, fleet, agriculture, mining, etc. as a primary focus.
All one has to do is look at the product line card from each to determine which market each serves.
Seems Amsoils tested gear lube is pretty good compared to the other tested lubes. I still think the foaming is bad in the Redline. And I wonder how the foam and oxidation test relates to oil in the differential .
On my first reading this looks like a nice document. Unfortunately, Pablo, in my view this was a wasted opportunity. There are many Amsoil critics (and you know that I am one of those people) that have continually criticised the lack of Amsoil published information. The thing is that if you guys had put this document together as an SAE paper, it would, first of all, have made a good paper but secondly, in my opinion, would have given Amsoil's reputation a tremendous boost. Not my business, just my opinion.
I think I would like to see additional test comparisons such as p&c, FZG visual, etc.
I think I would like to see additional test comparisons such as p&c, FZG visual, etc.
In my opinion it would not matter what AMSOIL did/does...it's never enough for the nah sayers.
Do I now replace the Redline in my Corolla manual g/box, Kluger(Highlander) diff and tfr box and replace with Amsoil equivalent?
Roger
Roger
I was a little disapointed that they did not do Warren Unilube's Semi-Synthetic gearlube since they make this stuff for AutoZOne,Walmart,AAP, and a bunch of other's as well it is easily the most widely available and used semi-synthetic in North America.
BoiseRob,
When a project is in its planning stages many things must be considered. Overall expenditures is one. Since we knew which tests were to be included in the White Paper and the costs for those tests, we then worked backwards to determine how many oils we could test and stay within our budget. That is where the 14 oils in the White Paper came from. The testing was for 75W-90 synthetic oils but also included 80W-90 petroleum oils for comparison as the White Paper states. Since the AMSOIL technical department gets many calls and very few are from Schaeffers, we determined that our money for testing could be better spent. That is the only reason for not testing Schaeffers. As others have posted, if it’s important for Schaeffers to be included in a gear lube White Paper then maybe they (Schaeffers) should determine which oils they would like to test.
INDYMAC & txtruck,
Thank you for your comments regarding our White Paper, we do listen. The reason we chose SAE 90 oils (i.e.: 75W-90 and 80W-90) is that a heavier viscosity would only provide more wear protection. It has been my experience that when company X makes two or three viscosities of gear lube they use the same additive concentrations for each one. This means that only the viscosity is different. This would not affect many of the tests in the White Paper. So testing other viscosities would not offer much difference.
Salesrep,
You are correct. Since I worked for LE before working for AMSOIL, I would agree with your statement that Schaeffers, LE, Hydrotex etc are in different industries than AMSOIL. This too was part of our reasoning for not including them in the study. The average guy on the street may not know Schaeffers or LE but since I’ve been in the industry for almost 30 years I do know about Schaeffers.
Whitewolfe,
Thank you for your comments. The tests we decided to run were determined by evaluating the environment inside the differential in severe service and then choosing the ASTM, SAE or Federal test standard that most closely matched that requirement. FZG is normally done on industrial gear lubes and would not offer much in terms of value for automotive gear lubes. In fact many engine oils would score the highest on an FZG test. I’m not sure what test you are referring to when you say the P&C? Can you elaborate here? Thanks.
KD
When a project is in its planning stages many things must be considered. Overall expenditures is one. Since we knew which tests were to be included in the White Paper and the costs for those tests, we then worked backwards to determine how many oils we could test and stay within our budget. That is where the 14 oils in the White Paper came from. The testing was for 75W-90 synthetic oils but also included 80W-90 petroleum oils for comparison as the White Paper states. Since the AMSOIL technical department gets many calls and very few are from Schaeffers, we determined that our money for testing could be better spent. That is the only reason for not testing Schaeffers. As others have posted, if it’s important for Schaeffers to be included in a gear lube White Paper then maybe they (Schaeffers) should determine which oils they would like to test.
INDYMAC & txtruck,
Thank you for your comments regarding our White Paper, we do listen. The reason we chose SAE 90 oils (i.e.: 75W-90 and 80W-90) is that a heavier viscosity would only provide more wear protection. It has been my experience that when company X makes two or three viscosities of gear lube they use the same additive concentrations for each one. This means that only the viscosity is different. This would not affect many of the tests in the White Paper. So testing other viscosities would not offer much difference.
Salesrep,
You are correct. Since I worked for LE before working for AMSOIL, I would agree with your statement that Schaeffers, LE, Hydrotex etc are in different industries than AMSOIL. This too was part of our reasoning for not including them in the study. The average guy on the street may not know Schaeffers or LE but since I’ve been in the industry for almost 30 years I do know about Schaeffers.
Whitewolfe,
Thank you for your comments. The tests we decided to run were determined by evaluating the environment inside the differential in severe service and then choosing the ASTM, SAE or Federal test standard that most closely matched that requirement. FZG is normally done on industrial gear lubes and would not offer much in terms of value for automotive gear lubes. In fact many engine oils would score the highest on an FZG test. I’m not sure what test you are referring to when you say the P&C? Can you elaborate here? Thanks.
KD
The White Paper was well done IMHO and I appreciate it very much. I for one embrace this measurable definitive type of testing versus marketing hype for sure.
Sorry I meant Physical and chemical characteristics.
As far as the FZG visual is concerned (and I'm talking about the A/8.3/90) then it's not confined to industrial oils but is also commonly used for both gear oils and ATFs.
I know that strictly speaking it is a scuffing test but sometimes the results can be quite surprising.
As far as the FZG visual is concerned (and I'm talking about the A/8.3/90) then it's not confined to industrial oils but is also commonly used for both gear oils and ATFs.
I know that strictly speaking it is a scuffing test but sometimes the results can be quite surprising.
Thanks for clearing things up Witewolf.
In place of the FZG test (strictly scuffing) we did a 20% over torque L-37 rig test that determines more than just scuffing. They rate the gears by CEC methods and look for ridging, rippling, pitting etc. As you know, there are some that think of bench testing as only a pre evaluation to real life situations. The L-37 rig test utilizes a Dana 60 diff and subjects it to extreme conditions. The White Paper shows that the bench tests correlate to real life since AMSOIL gear lube survived the L-37 20% over torqe rig test. It would be interesting to do the FZG just to see, don't think it's in the budget after doing this White Paper.
KD
In place of the FZG test (strictly scuffing) we did a 20% over torque L-37 rig test that determines more than just scuffing. They rate the gears by CEC methods and look for ridging, rippling, pitting etc. As you know, there are some that think of bench testing as only a pre evaluation to real life situations. The L-37 rig test utilizes a Dana 60 diff and subjects it to extreme conditions. The White Paper shows that the bench tests correlate to real life since AMSOIL gear lube survived the L-37 20% over torqe rig test. It would be interesting to do the FZG just to see, don't think it's in the budget after doing this White Paper.
KD
Bruce - If you are saying Amsoil cheated the tests, then I say get the he## off of BITOG because there is NO CALL for that type of garbage here. I don't want to think you are saying Amsoil cheated and used a pumped up formula, different for each test. If you are, man, be clear about it.
Cool your jets amsoil are not dummys before this test they would have (at least I would have) run a dry run and if my product needed inprovement any where I would make that improvement before the "real" test I have no problem with that and it ought to be obvious.
And
""If you are saying Amsoil cheated the tests"" where do you even get that thought???????
I fully beilive there data and SAID no where I dought it so back off
Cool your jets amsoil are not dummys before this test they would have (at least I would have) run a dry run and if my product needed inprovement any where I would make that improvement before the "real" test I have no problem with that and it ought to be obvious.
And
""If you are saying Amsoil cheated the tests"" where do you even get that thought???????
I fully beilive there data and SAID no where I dought it so back off
- Status
Similar threads
