Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't think I changed the subject, just pointing out the obvious. Point is - although the usual guys want to twist it - you can get a small but noticeable change in MPG using oils with a lower viscosity at any given temperature. I don't think Amsoil is cheating, lying, conniving or otherwise falsifying the results in any way.
 
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?


It should.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.


Exactly.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.


That's not the point of the this thread. I have no doubt in my mind that ANY 5w40 oil would have produced similar results when compared to 15w40 like it was in this test.

I personally don't like going down in viscosity for the sake of fuel economy. The engine manufacturer specified a certain oil thickness FOR A REASON.

Just my
49.gif
on the matter
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I don't think any of the viscosities selected are outside those recommended (?)


Definitely within the recommended viscosity spec... for that specific temperature.

Like i said though, the same can be had with a Conventional oil so besides the extended drain ability of the Synthetic, (which is what they should be advertising) it's a pointless test.

CumminsN14oilviscosityspec.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.


Bingo!


Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I don't think any of the viscosities selected are outside those recommended (?)


Definitely within the recommended viscosity spec... for that specific temperature.

Like i said though, the same can be had with a Conventional oil so besides the extended drain ability of the Synthetic, (which is what they should be advertising) it's a pointless test.

CumminsN14oilviscosityspec.jpg



Exactly! Its an adverstisement. Put a SOPUS product, or a Mobil product in the sump and expect similar results. All this was is an attempt by a marketing dept do show Amsoil gave better mpg, when in reality it was the change in viscosity that was responsible for the gains. IMO that would be the letter "D", in the word FUD. And I'll still bet they did everything they could by changing shift points etc to tweak the results a bit more. Once again JMO.

As a side note Amsoil isn't the only company that uses FUD in their advertising.
 
The question is not so much whether the SAE test method is valid, but rather, what should we conclude.

Do we conclude:

1. AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy ( as the title of the article says), or

2. Lower Viscosity Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

3. Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

4. Lower Viscosity Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

5. All of the above

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The question is not so much whether the SAE test method is valid, but rather, what should we conclude.

Do we conclude:

1. AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy ( as the title of the article says), or

2. Lower Viscosity Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

3. Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

4. Lower Viscosity Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

5. All of the above

Tom NJ


I know what Amsoil wants us to conclude. LOL
 
Hi,
Artem - About 1998 I went down this path with my Detroit Series 60 500hp powered heavy trucks used OTR

Stage 1 was on mineral 15W-40 engine lubricant, Stage 2 a semi-synthetic 15W-40 and finally Stage 3 a 5W-40 synthetic. At Stage 3 I converted all vehicles to synthetic drive line lubricants

It is very difficult to obtain accurate operational fuel economy with heavy trucks. There are simply too many variables even with my Reefers! I kept the best records possible and over my entire Fleet and no discernable differences occurred!!!

The benefits were in extended OCIs, less downtime and in some areas, reduced maintenance costs. I also completed tear down inspections

The fuel economy benefits of synthetic drive-line lubricants accrue mostly in short haul operations

In heavy vehicle drive-lines there is a lot of lubricant to get up to operating temperature - in my case a total of around 30+ quarts(32+ litres) in each vehicle.

In OTR operations the drive-line lubricant temperatures reduced by around 20C on synthetics - this extended seal and bearing life
 
Thanks for the info Doug, i figured the fuel economy difference would be very small, even with lighter viscosity oils. Auto manufacturers going down to 0w20 obtain what, like 0.5 mpg difference? (coming from 5w20)
grin2.gif


I agree that the main benefit is from extended drain ability and some better anti-wear.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The question is not so much whether the SAE test method is valid, but rather, what should we conclude.

Do we conclude:

1. AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy ( as the title of the article says), or

2. Lower Viscosity Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

3. Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

4. Lower Viscosity Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

5. All of the above

Tom NJ


Or we can add one more:

6. Test drivers that know that it would be desirable if the synthetic oil vehicles would obtain better mileage.

Remember years ago when Motor Trend magazine..... sort of already famous for "fall for anything" reporting tested a magnetic in line fuel gadget and got way better mileage??
Now, if the driver had not so badly wanted the gadget to work, his results would have matched the rest of the world: Worthless.

Just publishing this study, in my eyes, lowers the credibility of Amzoil claims even lower, similar to the "4 ball" results.
 
Originally Posted By: fsskier

Just publishing this study, in my eyes, lowers the credibility of Amzoil claims even lower, similar to the "4 ball" results.



You're not alone!
 
Come on, it's a "study" in the AMSOIL rag, not an SAE/Lancet publication, but a fluff piece for the already interested/initiated/converted.

Don't know how that detracts from what anyone thinks of the company, when any company is free to pay money to put their statements in the middle of your evening news without your participating in their koolaid.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Come on, it's a "study" in the AMSOIL rag, not an SAE/Lancet publication, but a fluff piece for the already interested/initiated/converted.

Don't know how that detracts from what anyone thinks of the company, when any company is free to pay money to put their statements in the middle of your evening news without your participating in their koolaid.


Thanks Shannow. Some of the guys saying that stuff look for such reasons, if you know what I'm saying. If one really reads the ad, I mean word for word, Amsoil is NOT saying much different than the fact filled posts here. They clearly state what viscosities they compared (no hiding there). They say it's a very small sample and the numbers are the numbers. At least no one here says "Amsoil just made up the numbers" - so I think BITOG is making real progress. Amsoil states the variables make this pretty tough and they strictly follow the ASTM.
 
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
In heavy vehicle drive-lines there is a lot of lubricant to get up to operating temperature - in my case a total of around 30+ quarts(32+ litres) in each vehicle.

The other way around with quarts and litres. It is not significant, though. You main point is valid and important: larger amount of the fluids and thermal dynamics, e.g. thermal mass transfer, etc.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
SAE/Lancet

Loved it. Good Dr. Haas to the rescue
smile.gif
 
6.54% is a huge claim. I think every other company out there claim is around 1-2%? Just makes me look at Amsoil with a bit more skepticism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top