Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
None yet.... I prefer a couple of months with it before commenting. The Mobil 1 served me well, but I've grown a dislike for the leadership at Exxon-Mobil's motor oil division.
Thoughts on Mobil 1 Extended Performance vs. Amsoil, etc?
- Thread starter BTLew81
- Start date
- Status
ATM 10w30 will easily do 10K OCI or 1 year. Napa Gold will do fine, Amsoil EaO will do better.
TSO has an ester based proprietary additive package with different FM's and a higher % of ester base oil than ASL/ATM - but both are PAO based.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd like to try Amsoil. Can you describe the differences between Amsoil 10w30 (ATM) vs. (XLT) Being both 10w30, are they like Mobil 1's "EP" line?
In other words, what's the difference?
As noted the XL series are Group III based and is recommended for 7500 miles or the car's max OCI, whichever is longer.
ATM is a PAO based 10w30 oil with ester additives, very low in VII. An excellent oil.
I thought "all" Amsoil oils were PAO based. Something Mobil got ragged for?
So "ATM" Amsoil might take me to a 10K OCI? Assuming good driving habits, car condition etc...? I'm currently using Napa Gold filters and have a 4qt sump. Thanks.
I'm not sure why you thought that, they are pretty clear about it.
The ATM is listed as being able to run 25k miles or one year in normal service and 12.5K or one year in severe service. If your using ATM you should be using an EaO filter for Amsoil's maximum OTC.
JGMazda, XPR and drewJP,
JGMazda - you had that quote from an Amsoil article - if you look at that entire article it seems pretty apparent that Amsoil statement "based on PAO" means it contains PAO, but can also contain any and all of their other base stocks. They emphatically say in that article that they do not limit themselves to any set base stock - they go on to say that they view their base stocks as they do their additives - little of this, little of that - whatever recipe works best for the application.
There's plenty written in Lubrication articles (objective third parties) that are stating that pretty much every big player in the Synthetic game are converting their Synthetic. product lines over to pure grp III or "PAO based" - ie, PAO + grp III. The reason - PAO is significantly more expensive - PAOs only marginally outperform grp III on some metrics and equally perform or under perform on others (depending on the processing level of the grp III) - and grp IIIs bring advantages in how it interacts w/ additives, etc.
Not trying to pick a fight - but the grp III grenade gets lobbed a lot, and there's not many that can still lob it (I suppose the RedLine guys could still lob it - maybe the Royal Purple guys also), and there's no reason to lob it given grp III's performance.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that there may be (a few) oils that perform as well as PAO based Amsoil, but I doubt anything outperforms it.
JGMazda - you had that quote from an Amsoil article - if you look at that entire article it seems pretty apparent that Amsoil statement "based on PAO" means it contains PAO, but can also contain any and all of their other base stocks. They emphatically say in that article that they do not limit themselves to any set base stock - they go on to say that they view their base stocks as they do their additives - little of this, little of that - whatever recipe works best for the application.
There's plenty written in Lubrication articles (objective third parties) that are stating that pretty much every big player in the Synthetic game are converting their Synthetic. product lines over to pure grp III or "PAO based" - ie, PAO + grp III. The reason - PAO is significantly more expensive - PAOs only marginally outperform grp III on some metrics and equally perform or under perform on others (depending on the processing level of the grp III) - and grp IIIs bring advantages in how it interacts w/ additives, etc.
Not trying to pick a fight - but the grp III grenade gets lobbed a lot, and there's not many that can still lob it (I suppose the RedLine guys could still lob it - maybe the Royal Purple guys also), and there's no reason to lob it given grp III's performance.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that there may be (a few) oils that perform as well as PAO based Amsoil, but I doubt anything outperforms it.
Certainly there are excellent Group III oils, that in real world situations provide protection equal to any PAO in 99% of applications. I think the main "grenade that gets lobbed" are the premium PAO-prices for a product that admittedly costs less to produce. Followed by the abundant excuses as to why companies are right in charging increased prices and throwing in unrelated, unprovable assertions that are not related to its formulation...
That's why I think it's great that, say for instance, Pennzoil/QS offer their Group III based synthetic oils at steep discounts either on sale or via rebate.
And incidentally, some are saying that Royal Purple is out of grenades, here.
I'm not trying to say Group III oils are worse than PAO's. I'd rather have a great performing oil in my engine than boast I have a high priced PAO that does not do as well.
I hope you didn't think I was hung up on that.
I just though Amsoil's website should group their oils better. Like Mobil's "EP" or "HM". Then again, why have two 10w30 oils if you are going to make a top-of-the-line synthetic?
I think most people who go with an Amsoil or Redline oil want their best product period. Don't you? IMHO, sometimes the marketing dept. confuses the issues with too many options. You'll notice the Redline website lists all their oils by viscosity grade. One does not need to read long explanations. Anyhow...
The other point I was trying to make was this: If I am paying for the best- then I should get it. If it's PAO? Then that's what it should be. If it's some mystical blend like "GC" made by elves, then by all means, Give it to me.
I think where the confusion starts is when do we just look at results (used oil analysis) and not rely on price?
I read here like everyone else about the whole Mobil group III issue. I guess that's why I'm looking at Amsoil or Redline. I'd like to extend my OCI and from what I understand, a PAO type oil fits that category better. I'm just trying to find a company that sells a great product. Not worried about price.
Actually Amsoil has 5 10w30's XLT, ATM, ACD, ASE and WCT. The oils are for different applications and different markets.
XLT - fully certified API SM 10w30 is for new cars and people nervous about extended drains. It's also a product for quick lube places.
ATM - full synthetic product meeting the physical requirements of API SM (but NOT certified) for extended drains.
ACD - is an SAE 30 oil with no VII's, meeting the requirements of 10w30. It's a dual rated HDEO with high P and high Zn and high TBN.
ASE - small engine oil, severe service operation of small engines of all varieties.
WCT - marine oil for wet and salty environments
Different products for different applications. Read about them here, and maybe this list will make it a bit more clear:
http://www.amsoil.com/products/motoroils/index.aspx?zo=515729
Buster wrote, "Can't go wrong with either but Amsoil IS better. All things considered, I'd put M1 at #2 overall for a long drain synthetic."
I'm just a newbie and barely know my left from my right when
it comes to cars, so please excuse this question. But how can Mobil 1 be a good long-use oil
when others on the board have written that used oil analysis of Mobil 1
have shown high levels of iron, lead, and other engine wear
metals and low levels of TBNs?
Just trying to better understand.
I'm just a newbie and barely know my left from my right when
it comes to cars, so please excuse this question. But how can Mobil 1 be a good long-use oil
when others on the board have written that used oil analysis of Mobil 1
have shown high levels of iron, lead, and other engine wear
metals and low levels of TBNs?
Just trying to better understand.
It's a good question so don't feel bad.
Mobil 1 is a very good oil. It does well in every independent test Amsoil puts it through. Their PCMO's, MC oils and Gear Oils are all excellent. The main problem people have with it is the slightly higher wear numbers people see when using it, oil consumption in some cars and noise. Unlike Redline, which gets a constant pass, Mobil 1 has been bashed for it. It's volatility is also suspect.
I can't confirm these numbers, but in a independent test for deposit control (TEOST), Mobil 1 destroyed all Castrol products. It is also one of the only oils to meet Honda's HTO-06 spec for Turbo applications.
Don't let it fool you when someone runs M1 for 4,000 miles in a Toyota and compares it to a conventional oil and draws conclusions from those results. In cases like that, a synthetic oil is not needed, nor will you see a difference. Where M1 would stand out is over a longer drain intervals and in high/low temp situations or turbo charged engines.
Amsoil shows lower wear, oil consumption and has better filters.
Buster wrote, "The main problem people have with Mobil 1 is the slightly higher wear numbers people see when using it, oil consumption in some cars and noise."
Wow, Mobil 1 is noisy? When I switched from conventional oil to Mobil 1, I was amazed at how much quieter my engine ran. The difference was striking. If Mobil 1 is considered a loud synthetic, I can't wait to try Pennzoil Platinum at the next oil change, and AMSOIL maybe a year after that.
Wow, Mobil 1 is noisy? When I switched from conventional oil to Mobil 1, I was amazed at how much quieter my engine ran. The difference was striking. If Mobil 1 is considered a loud synthetic, I can't wait to try Pennzoil Platinum at the next oil change, and AMSOIL maybe a year after that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked