http://pqiadata.org/AMSOIL0W20.html
What are your thoughts on this? Doesn't seem very impressive to my eyes. Very high NOACK and a low TBN.
What are your thoughts on this? Doesn't seem very impressive to my eyes. Very high NOACK and a low TBN.
PQIA Tests Amsoil OE 0W-20 Thoughts?
- Thread starter Farmer
- Start date
- Status
This is the entry level oil from them.
Yes the OE range is the base model and there are 2 tiers of oil above.
I should imagine both the XL range and Signature Series would yield a better result by good margins.
Having said that, It has been mentioned on this forum that the advantage boutique oil companies like Amsoil have less of an advantage over the majors these days as the overall quality of a lot of over the shelf oils is so good. I tend to agree with this so the gap is narrowed to the SS series.
I should imagine both the XL range and Signature Series would yield a better result by good margins.
Having said that, It has been mentioned on this forum that the advantage boutique oil companies like Amsoil have less of an advantage over the majors these days as the overall quality of a lot of over the shelf oils is so good. I tend to agree with this so the gap is narrowed to the SS series.
Wow, is 14.2% NOACK even possible with a full synthetic base? These results look more like a blend to me. Even Maxlife 0w20 blend has a lower NOACK @ 13.6% http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/maxlife.pdf
Here is amsoil's test results for this oil: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g3404.pdf it is supposed to only be 12.6% NOACK, but all the other specs are in line with PQIA's results.
Here is amsoil's test results for this oil: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g3404.pdf it is supposed to only be 12.6% NOACK, but all the other specs are in line with PQIA's results.
Claimed NOACK is 12.6%. NOACK tests are known to be highly erroneous; therefore, PQIA might have got it wrong in only one try. The only way to make sure is to repeat the test at least ten times or so and take the average.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Poor Noack result and decent TBN for a synthetic at this price point, period. I don't see other oils getting any benefit-of-doubt when they score poorly in any test, Amsoil should be no different.
Originally Posted By: wemay
Poor Noack result and decent TBN for a synthetic at this price point, period. I don't see other oils getting any benefit-of-doubt when they score poorly in any test, Amsoil should be no different.
Who said anything about benefit-of-doubt?
If the test is known to produce inconsistent results, then a one-off isn't meaningful. That's not benefit-of-doubt. That's just acknowledging reality.
...which, to be fair, also doesn't happen much around here...
Poor Noack result and decent TBN for a synthetic at this price point, period. I don't see other oils getting any benefit-of-doubt when they score poorly in any test, Amsoil should be no different.
Who said anything about benefit-of-doubt?
If the test is known to produce inconsistent results, then a one-off isn't meaningful. That's not benefit-of-doubt. That's just acknowledging reality.
...which, to be fair, also doesn't happen much around here...
Fail. Shame on you Amsoil. This oil is specifically listed to meet Dexos 1 specifications. Dexos limit on NOACK is 13%. Amsoil lists it on the PDS as 12.6, yet here it is failing at 14.2.
14.2% +- 2.5%?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Claimed NOACK is 12.6%. NOACK tests are known to be highly erroneous; therefore, PQIA might have got it wrong in only one try. The only way to make sure is to repeat the test at least ten times or so and take the average.
All the oils PQIA tests for NOACK are one offs and therefore their results are wrong across the board? For the record I'm not trying to start a fight, just asking a question. I would have thought they had that figured out by now.
Claimed NOACK is 12.6%. NOACK tests are known to be highly erroneous; therefore, PQIA might have got it wrong in only one try. The only way to make sure is to repeat the test at least ten times or so and take the average.
All the oils PQIA tests for NOACK are one offs and therefore their results are wrong across the board? For the record I'm not trying to start a fight, just asking a question. I would have thought they had that figured out by now.
Overpriced and way overrated.
Originally Posted By: zuluplus30
Fail. Shame on you Amsoil. This oil is specifically listed to meet Dexos 1 specifications. Dexos limit on NOACK is 13%. Amsoil lists it on the PDS as 12.6, yet here it is failing at 14.2.
For the benefit of those who are unaware...
http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand1/
This oil, nor any other Amsoil product, are dexos1 approved.
Fail. Shame on you Amsoil. This oil is specifically listed to meet Dexos 1 specifications. Dexos limit on NOACK is 13%. Amsoil lists it on the PDS as 12.6, yet here it is failing at 14.2.
For the benefit of those who are unaware...
http://www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand1/
This oil, nor any other Amsoil product, are dexos1 approved.
The oil I use in both my 2015 2500HD and 2006 Cadillac are not dexos1 "approved" either, but claim meeting dexos1. The oil I use in my 2013 semi truck is not on the Detroit Diesel "approved" list but claim to meet 93K218 spec. And the list goes on. And none of them are Amsoil. I don't concern myself if an oil is on any "approved" list. This approval thing is highly overrated. Kinda the same level as "official oil of NASCAR" kind of thing in my book.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Claimed NOACK is 12.6%. NOACK tests are known to be highly erroneous; therefore, PQIA might have got it wrong in only one try. The only way to make sure is to repeat the test at least ten times or so and take the average.
All the oils PQIA tests for NOACK are one offs and therefore their results are wrong across the board? For the record I'm not trying to start a fight, just asking a question. I would have thought they had that figured out by now.
Here are the data from ASTM D 5800-08 for Noack. There are three procedures.
Quote:
14.1.1 Repeatability—A quantitative measurement of precision associated with single results obtained by the same operator with the same equipment in the same laboratory within a short interval of time. In the normal and correct operation of the test method, the following values were exceeded in only one case in twenty.
Repeatability = 5.8 % X average M/M evaporation loss (2)
14.1.2 Reproducibility—A quantitative measure of preci- sion with single results obtained in different laboratories on identical test material. In the normal and correct operation of the test, the following values were exceeded in only one case in twenty.
Reproducibility 5 18.3 % X average M/M evaporation loss (3)
Quote:
24.3.1 Repeatability—The difference between two tests re- sults obtained by same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test materials would, in the long run, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty.
Repeatability = 0.095X0.5 (10)
where:
X = average of the two determinations under consideration.
24.3.2 Reproducibility—The difference between two single and independent results obtained by different operators work- ing in different laboratories on identical test materials would, in the long run, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty.
Reproducibility = 0.26X0.5 (11)
where:
X = average of the two determinations under consideration.
Quote:
33.2 Repeatability—The difference between successive re- sults obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test materials would, in the long run, in the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty:
Repeatability, % evaporation loss = .81 (12)
33.3 Reproducibility—The difference between two single and independent results obtained by different operators work- ing in different laboratories on identical test materials would, in the long run, in the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty:
Reproducibility, % evaporation loss = 1.62 (13)
I'm not familiar with the reporting convention used in procedures B and C, so I'll leave that to the statisticians in the group to interpret.
Assuming procedure A, 12.6 and 14.2 are within the reproducibility of the method.
Full ASTM Method here:
http://www.pentasflora.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/D5800-NOACK-Volatility.pdf
Ed
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Claimed NOACK is 12.6%. NOACK tests are known to be highly erroneous; therefore, PQIA might have got it wrong in only one try. The only way to make sure is to repeat the test at least ten times or so and take the average.
All the oils PQIA tests for NOACK are one offs and therefore their results are wrong across the board? For the record I'm not trying to start a fight, just asking a question. I would have thought they had that figured out by now.
Here are the data from ASTM D 5800-08 for Noack. There are three procedures.
Quote:
14.1.1 Repeatability—A quantitative measurement of precision associated with single results obtained by the same operator with the same equipment in the same laboratory within a short interval of time. In the normal and correct operation of the test method, the following values were exceeded in only one case in twenty.
Repeatability = 5.8 % X average M/M evaporation loss (2)
14.1.2 Reproducibility—A quantitative measure of preci- sion with single results obtained in different laboratories on identical test material. In the normal and correct operation of the test, the following values were exceeded in only one case in twenty.
Reproducibility 5 18.3 % X average M/M evaporation loss (3)
Quote:
24.3.1 Repeatability—The difference between two tests re- sults obtained by same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test materials would, in the long run, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty.
Repeatability = 0.095X0.5 (10)
where:
X = average of the two determinations under consideration.
24.3.2 Reproducibility—The difference between two single and independent results obtained by different operators work- ing in different laboratories on identical test materials would, in the long run, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty.
Reproducibility = 0.26X0.5 (11)
where:
X = average of the two determinations under consideration.
Quote:
33.2 Repeatability—The difference between successive re- sults obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test materials would, in the long run, in the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty:
Repeatability, % evaporation loss = .81 (12)
33.3 Reproducibility—The difference between two single and independent results obtained by different operators work- ing in different laboratories on identical test materials would, in the long run, in the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed the following value in only one case in twenty:
Reproducibility, % evaporation loss = 1.62 (13)
I'm not familiar with the reporting convention used in procedures B and C, so I'll leave that to the statisticians in the group to interpret.
Assuming procedure A, 12.6 and 14.2 are within the reproducibility of the method.
Full ASTM Method here:
http://www.pentasflora.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/D5800-NOACK-Volatility.pdf
Ed
Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Wow, is 14.2% NOACK even possible with a full synthetic base? These results look more like a blend to me. Even Maxlife 0w20 blend has a lower NOACK @ 13.6% http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/maxlife.pdf
Here is amsoil's test results for this oil: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g3404.pdf it is supposed to only be 12.6% NOACK, but all the other specs are in line with PQIA's results.
OE isn't a full synthetic base. Both it and XL are group III, the only one with a true synthetic base is the Signature Series. The OE and XL lines are designed to better compete with off the shelf brands.
Wow, is 14.2% NOACK even possible with a full synthetic base? These results look more like a blend to me. Even Maxlife 0w20 blend has a lower NOACK @ 13.6% http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/maxlife.pdf
Here is amsoil's test results for this oil: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g3404.pdf it is supposed to only be 12.6% NOACK, but all the other specs are in line with PQIA's results.
OE isn't a full synthetic base. Both it and XL are group III, the only one with a true synthetic base is the Signature Series. The OE and XL lines are designed to better compete with off the shelf brands.
edhackett said:
Originally Posted By: zuluplus30
Fail. Shame on you Amsoil. This oil is specifically listed to meet Dexos 1 specifications. Dexos limit on NOACK is 13%. Amsoil lists it on the PDS as 12.6, yet here it is failing at 14.2.
Where does it say that it meets the dexos spec?
From what I can see Amsoil only recommend it for a dexos application.
There is a difference.
Where's the shame?
Fail. Shame on you Amsoil. This oil is specifically listed to meet Dexos 1 specifications. Dexos limit on NOACK is 13%. Amsoil lists it on the PDS as 12.6, yet here it is failing at 14.2.
Where does it say that it meets the dexos spec?
From what I can see Amsoil only recommend it for a dexos application.
There is a difference.
Where's the shame?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: edhackett
I'm not familiar with the reporting convention used in procedures B and C, so I'll leave that to the statisticians in the group to interpret.
Assuming procedure A, 12.6 and 14.2 are within the reproducibility of the method.
Full ASTM Method here:
PQIA uses Method B as does most of the industry. This method has a reproducibility in this range of +- 1.0%, therefore a result of 14.2 could be from 13.2 to 15.2. Also, the specification is 15% max (not 15.0%), so one need only report to two significant figures. Hence a result of 13.2 can be reported as 13%.
This product was not held to dexos1 specifications because it did not claim to meet or be approved under this specification - it was only recommended by the manufacturer for dexos1 requirements.
Tom NJ
I'm not familiar with the reporting convention used in procedures B and C, so I'll leave that to the statisticians in the group to interpret.
Assuming procedure A, 12.6 and 14.2 are within the reproducibility of the method.
Full ASTM Method here:
PQIA uses Method B as does most of the industry. This method has a reproducibility in this range of +- 1.0%, therefore a result of 14.2 could be from 13.2 to 15.2. Also, the specification is 15% max (not 15.0%), so one need only report to two significant figures. Hence a result of 13.2 can be reported as 13%.
This product was not held to dexos1 specifications because it did not claim to meet or be approved under this specification - it was only recommended by the manufacturer for dexos1 requirements.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The oil I use in both my 2015 2500HD and 2006 Cadillac are not dexos1 "approved" either, but claim meeting dexos1. The oil I use in my 2013 semi truck is not on the Detroit Diesel "approved" list but claim to meet 93K218 spec. And the list goes on. And none of them are Amsoil. I don't concern myself if an oil is on any "approved" list. This approval thing is highly overrated. Kinda the same level as "official oil of NASCAR" kind of thing in my book.
Yeah...we're well aware of your stance -- that it's all a big money grab. You're totally cool with an oil company self-certifying their product, and subsequently using creative legal language ("recommended", "complaint") in their product data sheets.
The oil I use in both my 2015 2500HD and 2006 Cadillac are not dexos1 "approved" either, but claim meeting dexos1. The oil I use in my 2013 semi truck is not on the Detroit Diesel "approved" list but claim to meet 93K218 spec. And the list goes on. And none of them are Amsoil. I don't concern myself if an oil is on any "approved" list. This approval thing is highly overrated. Kinda the same level as "official oil of NASCAR" kind of thing in my book.
Yeah...we're well aware of your stance -- that it's all a big money grab. You're totally cool with an oil company self-certifying their product, and subsequently using creative legal language ("recommended", "complaint") in their product data sheets.
- Status
Similar threads
