starburst and TBN

[Bryanccfshr]

You claim that there is a consistent 20% non compliance in the API field testing system and the whole of proof you provide to back that up is a broken link?

For such a preposterous broad accusation you have better be better prepared than that.

Classic.

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

Even with the Ea0 filters, the more miles you drive on the oil, the more particles in the 2-10 micron range will be in the oil. And studies have shown that these particles also contribute significantly to engine wear.

Using the same Ea0 filters, it could be the case that changing the oil twice as often with SM/GF-4 oil is better for your engine than running the expensive hign TBN oils for twice as long. Further SM/GF-4 are tested to provide better fuel economy, all those that are uncertified can only claim they do.

---

Agree 100%.

 

[TimVipond]

If the other link does not work for you, try this one for " API Audit: One in Five Motor Oils Off-spec" http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000076081.cfm .

 

[Hong_Kong_Phooey]

that's a good post, but somewhat misleading at a glance.

For one, it appears to be over 5 yrs old.

Secondly, 84% of the products tested were within spec.

Seems API is a fair, if not perfect, indication of quality.

Finally, go AMSOIL!
I, for one, still opt for more reasonably priced and readily attainable products.

The oil analysis' and anecdotal testimony of numerous oil freaks here at BITOG indicate that even house brand API certified dino is a good product.

So the chosen paths are unlikely to change much...
Would be interesting to see an independent audit of Amsoil goods. What ever happened to those Hastings filters they were selling a while back.? Seems I recall A wee bit of a fuss over some QC on those.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

" API’s annual aftermarket audit is conducted under the authority of its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, using funds from assessments paid by its 561 licensees. At approximately $500 per physical and chemical audit, roughly 15 percent of the annual $2 million licensing fee income was expended in 2001 for this function, $175,000 funded five engine tests, and another $1 million underwrote API’s administration of the licensing system. The balance is used to maintain reserves and fund new category development and testing (matrix) programs, thereby eliminating API member company special assessments."

This alone is a good reason to stick with oils that have the API /ILSAC certifications. By displaying the API trademark symbols a consumer can be assured that the oil is subject to audits and the manufacturing facility is subject to inspection by the API.
Something else to consider is that the automakers are insisting on these controls on the oils that they recommend because they have a part in the specifications that the oils must meet. The level and intensity of API scrutiny is relatively new to the oil market and the more shady blenders are less likely to maintain an API certification under the inspection program.

I will give props to AMSOIl for producing an API oil in the xl line. It seems to be one of the better performers that Amsoil has.

 

[98LSC32V]

How is the XL line of Amsoil oils one of it's better performers? It's a very good group 3 synthetic but not near the quality of the other group 4 PAO Amsoil oils in terms of performance.

 

[TimVipond]

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Wear control and fuel economy are my primary performance criteria. By having the Starburst and from UOA observation I am satisfies that the XL gives superior fuel economy and better wear control.
I put a lot more faith in ILSAC test sequences and UOA's than I do in marketing to purchase a "premium " Product.

How do you consider the other lines as superior and what proof do you have that they are?

 

[98LSC32V]

Amsoil has detailed specs on all their oils, the PAO based oils look vastly superior on paper.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Amsoils more expensive oils look better on paper. They must be better. Got it.

(note: No disrespect for our "paying" amsoil sponsors is intended)

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Let's see. TSO
Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
11.2

Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
56.9

High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity cP, X°C, X s-1 (ASTM D4683) 3.4

A road warrior line 0w30 this oils viscosity's are too high to meet ILSAC fuel efficiency requirements and no amount of friction modification can compensate for that.


HDD
Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
11.5

Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
64.6

High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity, cP, 150°C, 1.0 x 106 s-1 (ASTM D-4683) 3.5

This oil is fuel efficient 5w30 designed for a diesel over the road truck. It does have an excellent formulation for extended drains in difficult circumstances but it is again not nearly as fuel efficient as an ilsac oil in it's grade.

XLF 5w30
Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
10.5

Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
58.2


High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity
@ 150°C and 1.0 X 106 s-1, cP (ASTM D-4683) 3.2

And ILSAC GF4 licensed oil this is proved to meet fuel economy and wear tests requirements as established by Japanese and American automakers. This would be my pick of all Amsoils offerings since my vehicles require ILSAC oils and I know that this oils meets a set of rigorous standards and is subject to random testing by the API.

The ASL Is very close in viscosity to the XLT and "may" provide equivalent mileage benefits , It's a shame that Amsoil wouldn't try to certify this formulation because there is no way to know for sure.

Amsoil markets to a niche that wants extended drains and that is their definition of performance. They make some very nice formulations for that purpose. But rather than depending on 4 ball tests to tell me the better oil I prefer to rely on scientific methods such as the ILSAC sequence tests. In regards to extended drains it is a simple observation to see that the gap is closing between the extended drains that Amsoil can provide and what an ILSAC oil can provide.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Quote:

---

What oils display a starburst energy conserving rated label, AND are high TBN capable of long drain intervals?

---

To get back to the original question,
To have the starburst the oils must meet the API SM additive ceilings on ZDDP.
Another factor to consider for long drains is that not oils have TBN loss in the same linear fashion and therefore gross virgin TBN number is a poor way to determine the ability to make an extended drain interval.
Many oils with virgin TBN's between 7-8 can make 10k mile+ OCI's. While some with TBN's of 10+ may degrade faster.
Do not discount sump volume, service type and mechanical condition of the engine. No oil can make up for severe service, poor mechanical condition or contamination.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

that's a good post, but somewhat misleading at a glance.

For one, it appears to be over 5 yrs old.

Secondly, 84% of the products tested were within spec.

Seems API is a fair, if not perfect, indication of quality.

---

Yep, it's a 5 year old article, and only 5 percent had significant deviations.

Unless some kind of equiavalent sampling was made of Non-API brands, we'll never know for sure if they are any better.

 

[TimVipond]

"...and 5 percent (30 oils) had “significant” deviations.

According to API, “significant” deviations “are so far outside compliance limits that they could potentially raise short-term or long-term engine operability concerns.”"

Wonderful, now we only have a 1 in 20 chance of using an API certified oil that is bad for our engines. So if Wal-Mart has 1000 bottles of API certified oil, then 50 of them might cause problems. No thanks.