What's behind the HTO-06 specification?

[AzFireGuy79]

Just because you dont see them on the side of the car does not mean they are not under the hood. There are a few race teams out there that are sponsored by Brand X oil yet are running Amsoil. This is actually more common with Redline but Amsoil gets in on the action too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: StevieC
They sponsor racing teams, they had a commercial recently, they market by sending out mail out to their customers etc. Mainly they just put that money back into the product, and the product speaks to this IMO.



I just hadn't seen them in Indy cars, Nascar, F1 or other forms of racing. It does seem like they should get certified to meet more of the FF standards. Just saying they are good enough requires a lot of faith from the consumer.


Which IMO they must be a good product. A company like Amsoil wouldn't be around since the 70's with sales booming year after year as they are if they didn't make a product that stands up to their claims... I think most people get caught up in marketing and not performance. Look at Castrol, they market like a SOB and they don't have the best product on the market although they make the ads seem like they do!

Now who's thinking with their dipstick?

Of course one could say the same for ExxonMobil; the most profitable company of all time.

Yet their product does not receive that sort of attention (positive attitude you are painting for AMSOIL) on this website.

If a company's product quality was gauged by their success, ExxonMobil would be untouchable.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

Anyone think a 5w20 could possibly meet this spec?

 

[d00df00d]

If it's strictly a deposit formation test, then I can't see why not.

 

[steve20]

"""They would have to do it again every time they change the formula""".....

someone should tell Mobil-1


Steve

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: steve20
"""They would have to do it again every time they change the formula""".....

someone should tell Mobil-1


Steve


Yes, they should.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
What's behind the HTO-06 specification?


Mainly additional monetary extraction inserted at the manufacturing/producer level. It's done lots of places. What would be a big indicator (if one could get the blender data) is whether or not any change in formulation took place to meet the spec. If there was none, then one could surely suggest that this was just an ante that was to be paid to get the approval and an invitation/access to the aftermarket sales.

One passive indicator would be if you have a series of the same engine design ..over a decent time span ..and, all of a sudden, they require the new spec as a "must do" to meet warranty requirements.

 

[pzev]

Originally Posted By: StevieC

Which IMO they must be a good product. A company like Amsoil wouldn't be around since the 70's with sales booming year after year as they are if they didn't make a product that stands up to their claims... I think most people get caught up in marketing and not performance. Look at Castrol, they market like a SOB and they don't have the best product on the market although they make the ads seem like they do!

Now who's thinking with their dipstick?

Fanyboy much? Seriously...how many free cases of Amsoil have you been sent?

Try to limit the assumptions and oppinions please....they either have taken and passed the test, or they haven't. We shouldn't be saying "but they would pass".....nobody knows for sure, and we won't know until they fork over the dough and take the test. Perhaps its my research backround....but you never take matters like this on faith.



the overt "fanboyism" on this board is ruining bitog. Its no longer a matter of empiricism, but of speculation and undying devotion to products that are arguably no better than one another. I am sure StevieC has shared valuable info....but it seems every other word out of his mouth is how great amsoil is. Seriously, we get it....but you have no place interjecting amsoil in a thread devoted to oils meeting a certain spec that amsoil DOESN'T MEET!

I bet dollar store oil will pass the HTO-06 test, but they are too busy spending money on marketing and research to bother with such a silly certification.

Yeah right....

 

[StevieC]

I was asked a question I answered a question... I in noway turned this into an Amsoil thread, I just added to it.

 

[buster]

Honda tested about 6 commonly available synthetics and found only one passed with flying colors. The others failed. One barely passed.

 

[benjamming]

flying colors? barely passed? What does that mean? You missed adding the adjective to go with the "failed" statement. This isn't a high and high-high level situation. If a spec is the standard, & a product meets the spec, then everything else is marketing, i.e. useless. Exceeds a spec is marketing drivel.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: buster
It's a high temperature deposit test, an area Mobil 1 does very well in.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Files/Acura_RDX_Mobil_1_Brochure.pdf

Is that all it's about? HTO-06 seems like a pretty redundant and useless specification. How about an HTHS standard or a protection standard.

 

[Max_Wander]

it just looks to me like Honda/Acura just arbitrarily chose a test based on a characteristic where Mobil 1 stands out, in this case volatility and burn off. Then they made up a spec that singled out only the characteristic of their marketing partner, ExxonMobil's product and put it up against clearly inferior nameless competitor products.

Originally Posted By: "Acura Marketing Deptartment"

As the world’s leading synthetic motor oil, Mobil 1
outperformed its competitors and received the
highest rating of all oils tested. Acura recommends
that you always use Mobil 1 5w30 or an equivalent
oil that meets the Acura HTO-06 standard.


If this was truly a blind performance based study, and not grotesque corporate sex, they could easily leave out the worthless suggestions like "as the world's leading" from their official documents.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
it just looks to me like Honda/Acura just arbitrarily chose a test based on a characteristic where Mobil 1 stands out, in this case volatility and burn off. Then they made up a spec that singled out only the characteristic of their marketing partner, ExxonMobil's product and put it up against clearly inferior nameless competitor products.

The test focuses on turbocharger deposits, not volatility and burn-off. Honda came out with the spec. for their turbocharged engines and did not feel comfortable with recommending just ILSAC GF-4 or API SM specs.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: benjamming
flying colors? barely passed? What does that mean? You missed adding the adjective to go with the "failed" statement. This isn't a high and high-high level situation. If a spec is the standard, & a product meets the spec, then everything else is marketing, i.e. useless. Exceeds a spec is marketing drivel.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. To me, that's like saying if someone has graduated high school, all other degrees are just fluff.

With oil specs, a greater margin of success usually means a greater tolerance for a variety of conditions, which in turn means a greater probability that the oil will work as advertised in the real world. That seems significant to me.

 

[benjamming]

d00df00d,

Nope that's not what I am saying at all. I am talking about meeting a requirement or not meeting a requirement. If a requirement is a high school degree, then a doctorate doesn't necessarily make them super-duper qualified. For example, I'm not going to pay them more b/c they exceeded the requirement. The point is that a spec should be crafted such that it is all that is needed to determine efficacy. Anything above that is superfluous.

I think that many times requirements are left lacking & therefore folks are accustomed to looking for more than the requirement specifies.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
it just looks to me like Honda/Acura just arbitrarily chose a test based on a characteristic where Mobil 1 stands out, in this case volatility and burn off. Then they made up a spec that singled out only the characteristic of their marketing partner, ExxonMobil's product and put it up against clearly inferior nameless competitor products.

The test focuses on turbocharger deposits, not volatility and burn-off. Honda came out with the spec. for their turbocharged engines and did not feel comfortable with recommending just ILSAC GF-4 or API SM specs.


I see. How are volatility and burnoff not related to turbocharger oil coking?

 

[buster]

Quote:
Is that all it's about? HTO-06 seems like a pretty redundant and useless specification. How about an HTHS standard or a protection standard.


Why would they mention HT/HS?

Use an oil that doesn't meet this spec in the RDX and you'll find out how useless it is.

 

[Max_Wander]

...huh? I mentioned HTHS because, in my stupid opinion, it would probably be a more appropriate focus when determining standards for a turbo engine lube. What about using the likes of redline, amsoil, Fuchs, Lubromoly and every other decent lube manufacterer with an oil in their product lineup that is well suitable for turbo applications? Will the acura engine suddenly be 'TEOST'?

(sorry about that pun) I know the Acura dealer would probably poop their drawers and throw the book at an RDX owner for trying to get interior trim warranty work done, but in the interest of the engine, where's the detriment?

Okay, what about Subaru, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Nissan which all have considerably higher powered turbo engines, have been doing turbo engines for a lot longer, all the while without any 'special certifications' that only corporate buddies qualify for. And that's not getting into the european turbo expertise, in which the ACEA already has well established lube standards for turbo engines. Remember, some of these engines, esp. the Japanese ones are run on nothing but plain jane "energy conserving" bulk 5w30 and even 5w20 without clogging and siezing the turbo. Even their turbo engines of yore used to pump SG group 1 oils through the turbo bearings and still managed decent lifespans. I just can't undderstand why Mobil 1 5w30 which can't keep from shearing into a 20wt contaminated with 10+ppm iron levels in a low output Corolla, would be pushed and officially forced down the oil fill hole of a late model, heavy, turbo-engined vehicle. It just does not make sense.

 

[buster]

I think you are wasting too much energy on over thinking this, no offense. Just use an oil that meets HTO-06 and be done with it. LOL


Quote:
I just can't undderstand why Mobil 1 5w30 which can't keep from shearing into a 20wt contaminated with 10+ppm iron levels in a low output Corolla, would be pushed and officially forced down the oil fill hole of a late model, heavy, turbo-engined vehicle. It just does not make sense.


It seems Mobil 1 is great at preventing deposits, but does has average wear control. Two separate issues.