I don't blindly trust boutique blenders. I have ethics issues with Lucas and Penngrade on top of their products just not being anything special. I'm also not a big fan of LAT. Amsoil has a dyno cell in house with which they run tests more abusive than Sequence III-G or IVA and analyzed to tougher standards. HPL tests their oils to the most abusive environment they've encountered in the field which is well beyond the loads in API's tests. I like transparency.
They don't purchase exactly the same add packs. For example, HPL orders their add packs in a group III carrier while the typical approved API add packs are in a group I carrier. Typical API formulas have cheap ~35 SSI OCP where HPL uses much more shear stable (~3 SSI star) VII or no VII. They then top treat and test extensively, adjust, test, adjust, test, until they find the performance they're after. It's the difference in formulating to price point vs a performance point.
Again.... when your own standards are much stricter than API's standards, why would you waste the time, money, and resources testing to API's mediocre standards?
Here's how the certs work. The additive company puts together an add pack with the most cost effective base oil and VII blend they think will meet the standard, and submits it for testing. A couple add packs may have a little higher than the minimum standard in mind. The cost of Haltermann EEE fuel alone for the engine tests is insane. Imagine 90 hours at 3900 rpm with fuel that costs ~$22/gal. The additive companies take on that cost. When it passes, it's an approved add pack, but only to the formula used for the testing. If that recipe dictates a group III base oil with a 35-50 SSI OCP VII, the blender has to follow that in order to carry the license for the cert. There's not much wiggle room. Want to add some ester to the oil to improve solubility, oxidation resistance, and cleaning ability? If it's not in the testing criteria for that add pack, you can't do it and keep the cert. Want to top treat more MoDTC for oxidation resistance and lower friction further while decreasing LSPI risk, even if you're still within S/SA limits? Nope, recipe won't allow it. Want to use a star polymer to make it more shear stable in light of potential fuel dilution? Prohibited! You see the problem? You're forced into a small box. It's why most of the major brands' formulas are so close to one another. If you want to make a better product, you have to abandon the cert.
So we've acknowledged that the certification testing actually has cost associated with it. These discussions usually make it sound like a nascar sponsorship where you write the big check and get the API endorsement and Amsoil simply hasn't written the check because they focus on delivering superior product rather than certification/endorsements. They also, don't do the testing which we suppose they would handily pass because "superior product." (Marketing can replace certification testing.)
I guess we could rely on project farm pinewood derby oil races:
I grasp the cost. When I worked in the injector factory the calibrated/synthetic diesel fuel working fluid we consumed was enormously expensive (but the motor oil we used was off-the-shelf). I'm sure amsoil and hpl have a test dyno in house and that their testing budget is miniscule (yet budgetarily burdensome) compared to the big motor oil suppliers. The test sequence cited below requires one to scrap a set of sleeves and rings. How often can we really do that?
On one hand, I get that Warren probably isn't sinking much development cost effort into their Mag1, Kirkland, Fram, and Supertech lines. Sure, they purchase a recipe from their AP supplier. I'm not convinced the big diesel oil four live in the same "small box." Economy of scale allows otherwise. Chevron delveloped Delo 600, surely with their AP supplier, unique (for now) to them. VOAs for big diesel suppliers come back slightly different in the details. If they were all the same, the OP wouldn't be limited in his choices of F1 certified 5w-40s (they'd all carry the same certs.) I'm sure big oil develops to cost or performance, but more likely both. I'm sure Amsoil is doing the same.
In one breath, this forum hates on Rotella because of their marketing budget. (It's a horrible oil but marketing feeds us lies!) When rebate Delo XSP/Rotella T6/Delvac Extreme/ESP can be had for $10 per gallon, how much of that really goes to marketing (vs development or production)? When Schaefers or Amsoil sell a diesel oil for $45 a gallon, how much of that goes into marketing and/or their multilevel marketing systems? We're asked to believe that the 4x price delta is because the ingredients are 4x more expensive and the product development effort (which results in product performance) is also 4x so the performance will be 4x?
Amsoil, for instance, claims that it exceeds the performance of
DFS 93K222 (a pass-fail test) by 4x or 6x, which leads us to believe that other oils just barely pass. The fine print tells us the comparison was against worst-case representations. On one hand, I'm not smart enough to interpret the
marketing testing data as it has been distilled for our consumption. On the other hand, I feel like the presentation is shady.
https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/dd13-engine-scuffing-test.pdf
Within the diesel bro smoky truck community, I feel less marketed to by Delvac and Delo than I do by Amsoil.
In the end, I'm sure amsoil makes a fine product, I just think the marketing and discussions around the product seeks to insult our intelligence as consumers. The Gale Banks four part video series doesn't really help.
I guess to the OP, he needs to decide how much the F1 certification matters to him, including presumed warranty implications. If it matters, pick a viscosity and narrow down your choices.