New Motorcycle White Paper

CompSyn

Thread starter
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
325
Location
Pacific NW USA
 Originally Posted By: RWEST
Wow, who'da guessed - Amsoil ranks number 1 in every category....
Sure! But in the 2006 Motorcycle White Paper, notice Amsoil wasn’t #1 in ALL the categories. I think they just published a couple of their top rankings in the current Action News. It’ll be interesting to see the full study when it comes out.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,007
Location
Dallas, TX
I'd love it if I could find a local retailer that carries it. I really don't like the idea of paying to have motor oil shipped, and I'm sure not driving all the way to Arlington to pick it up.
 

CompSyn

Thread starter
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
325
Location
Pacific NW USA
 Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
I'd love it if I could find a local retailer that carries it. I really don't like the idea of paying to have motor oil shipped, and I'm sure not driving all the way to Arlington to pick it up.
I agree, shipping cost is pain. But I believe if you go the Preferred Customer rout, it offsets shipping costs.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
3,023
Location
USA-Michigan
Here is the link to the new version... http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf from the presidents desk
 Quote:
Most notable is the fact that some of the oils tested did actually test better than they originally had. As indicated, we can’t be sure that those formulations improved because of the results we revealed, but I strongly suspect that is the case. It may very well be that we shamed them into improving. It wouldn’t be the first time.
 

CompSyn

Thread starter
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
325
Location
Pacific NW USA
Awesome! Thanks!!! Been waiting for this one. I like this quote from the 2nd edition paper:
 Originally Posted By: Amsoil, Inc.
The testing used to evaluate the lubricants was done in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures. Testing was finalized in May 2009. Test methodology has been indicated for all data points, allowing for duplication and verification by any analytical laboratory capable of conducting the ASTM tests. A notarized affidavit certifying compliance with ASTM methodology and the accuracy of the test results is included in the appendix of this document. Five different laboratories were used in the generation of data listed within this document. In all cases blind samples were submitted to reduce the potential of bias.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
48,000
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
You know people "without bias" will still say the data is fabricated. I will give these folks some ammo: Amsoil doesn't actually do much of a sample size of any one given lube. They buy a bottle of what the public gets.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
233
Location
Pittsburgh,Pa.
Have used the 20W50 in my Road King since new in 2000. I still use 10W40 in the primary and Severe gear 75W90 in the transmission like the recommendations when it was new. I have never burned a drop of oil and am sold on the Amsoil quality. At least they do these tests. I have never seen any other manufacturer do their own comparison against Amsoil.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
158
Location
PA
In my area, the Amsoil m/c oil is so easy to get. Two Yamaha dealers and a Honda dealer stocks it. There are probably 10 other bike repair shops who sell it. I know a couple of them who use it exclusively.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,047
Location
East Central Missouri
It's nice to see some of the popular oils tested and how they stack up against each other. However, I always wonder how exactly the tests translate to my particular application. In my mind, they are torture testing these oils to the point of failure....and something that many are not like to encounter. On the other hand - if you're the kind of guy that could tear up an anvil in a sand box with a rubber hammer, then you'd want the toughest oil that you could possibly get. I'm not an Amsoil user, but I like to check their white papers from time to time to find which oils NOT to use. Good reading anyway.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2002
Messages
90
Location
Olympia, WA
It's a decent contribution, but I'd be careful about deducing anything too serious from it. I'd rather have information from a peer reviewed journal than a test released from a manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,967
Location
Kitsap, WA
most notable point in the document: "Quantity of zinc content alone does not indicate its performance. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that oils with higher concentrations of zinc provide better wear protection. Additional testing must be reviewed to determine an oil’s actual ability to prevent wear.The wear testing further in this document reflects the general lack of correlation between zinc levels and wear protection. Due to this lack of correlation, zinc levels are not included in the scoring and summary of results contained in the review"
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,047
Location
East Central Missouri
 Originally Posted By: wileyE
most notable point in the document: "Quantity of zinc content alone does not indicate its performance. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that oils with higher concentrations of zinc provide better wear protection. Additional testing must be reviewed to determine an oil’s actual ability to prevent wear.The wear testing further in this document reflects the general lack of correlation between zinc levels and wear protection. Due to this lack of correlation, zinc levels are not included in the scoring and summary of results contained in the review"
There is something to that..... many of us have been watching the UOA's on the new CJ Rotella and they look as good or better than the previous CI even though they have lower levels of zinc/phosporus. And... if I read the following correctly, the JASO MA requirement for phosphorus is now 800 - 1200..... (sheet 5, table 4). JASO Docment
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
434
Location
Arizona, USA
It's like a lot of things in life: more of X doesn't necessarily mean better Y. But people have been conditioned to believe X provides Y, so they insist on X. Producers comply because it's easier to give the customer what they demand even when it's not really what they need. And of course some producers help perpetuate the belief of X provides Y as a means of differentiating based on the label rather than the actual price/performance. I'm in a cynical mood today. ;\)
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
18,449
Location
East of IGO
 Originally Posted By: wileyE
most notable point in the document: "Quantity of zinc content alone does not indicate its performance. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that oils with higher concentrations of zinc provide better wear protection. Additional testing must be reviewed to determine an oil’s actual ability to prevent wear.The wear testing further in this document reflects the general lack of correlation between zinc levels and wear protection. Due to this lack of correlation, zinc levels are not included in the scoring and summary of results contained in the review"
Remember that if for example 1000 ppm zinc {of course with all the other adds that balance the zinc} gives you more than all the protection you need there will most likley not be any advantage from 1500 ppm zinc.
 
Top