opinions on the new amsoil heavy duty diesel oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think its a waste of money. I'm a semi mechanic for UPS. I've seen engines go over a million miles on Delo dino oil. I've seen yard shifter trucks that use the 5.9 or 6.7 (funny how they went to the 6.7 the same year Dodge did) Cummins go well over 20K hours using bulk dino.
 
I Would tend to Agree with Skyactiv . Though may be the advantage may be Arctic starting temps. Amsoil makes a fine product if you feel the need to spend lots of extra money.
 
I use the amsoil in my ope and it's about the same cost. Regular dino doesn't hold up to the full oci. The tbn is pretty much depleted and I don't like that. So I use the amsoil and run it to the full oci and it saves me the time and hassle of having to change the oil as much. Not that it's hard, but when you're at the 95hr mark and you have three 10hr days in front of you, you really don't want to mess with changing oil.
 
I don't think Amsoil's cost is too extreme, especially when compared to similar products. Their ADN 10w30 CK4 is $20.70 a gallon. Their ADP 15w40 CK-4 is $20.95 a gallon. And it is only the CK-4 products from Amsoil making that 4x claim. Now true, you go to their top of the line products and you pay a little more. And it is pretty disingenuous to compare a synthetic pricing to a conventional one, especially when talking about different classifications like CJ4 to CK4 which is what is going on here. Of course the syn is going to be higher. I think folks have a hard time grasping on that Amsoil has a wide range of stuff so that the prices are variable depending on what you are getting. Now, I don't use Amsoil's diesel oil, I pretty much am on Schaeffer, and will use Delvac as an alternative occasionally, so I am not a shill for the Amsoil stuff. And now that we are in CK-4 territory regarding specs now, that pretty much is going to mean a syn blend at a minimum to get to those tighter specs.

Even Schaeffer, my primary brand I use, is claiming a 85% less wear for their new CK-4 15w40 compared to a dino 15w40. Given what the CK-4 specs are, I can believe that somewhat. So Amsoil's claim is in line with Schaeffer's claim. All of the major oil brands are making similar claims regarding their new CK-4 oils.
 
Lab test claims can be misleading. I'd like to see the raw data developed in the Amsoil testing; I want to analyze and understand the protocol, methodology, etc. I don't know enough about the DD test to make a determination if this warrants my attention.

I've always been skeptical of lab tests just for the sake of marketing. Often, while lab testing will indeed show a disparity of some measureable criteria, it rarely will manifest into real world issues. And just because the Amsoil products do so well here, does not mean that other top-end products won't also do well. What does "competing brand" really represent? Apples to apples ...

I am not saying Amsoil lied or tainted the test; I generally believe they make an effort to be above-board. I just question the applicability of the test to real world conversations, and also question if they tested against other top-tier competitors.

I have emailed them and requested the full raw data results.
 
Last edited:
Delo is proven in equipment running on tires that cost more than the average pickup.
 
I believe the question asked about a specific brand of oil, and not about "which oil do you think is best etc...."

Your reply reminds me of when folks used to ask about Mobil1, and Amsoil folks jumped in with their comments.


Originally Posted By: totegoat
Delo is proven in equipment running on tires that cost more than the average pickup.
 
Originally Posted By: ofelas
I believe the question asked about a specific brand of oil, and not about "which oil do you think is best etc...."

Your reply reminds me of when folks used to ask about Mobil1, and Amsoil folks jumped in with their comments.


Originally Posted By: totegoat
Delo is proven in equipment running on tires that cost more than the average pickup.


Opinions happen, believe whatever you want.
 
I suppose there are. But the oil that the OP was referring to, the alternatives have to meet the new CK-4 specs, as that is the spec the oil he referred to meets, or it is not a valid comparison. On that front, the alternative choice are more limited and maybe not all that much cheaper. And when it comes to the wear the OP was referencing, all the majors are claiming similar performance from their new CK-4 oils. Amsoil just seems to be parroting the same thing they are.

There are less expensive alternatives to dexos1 or API SN or ILSAC GF-5 regarding gas engine oils. I bet I could find a API SL oil that is considerably cheaper. But of course it would be, as it meets an inferior spec. There are cheaper CJ-4 diesel oils, but of course, as they don't meet the new CK-4 spec. But on that new CK-4 spec front, even Amsoil's pricing is pretty close to off the shelf CK-4 synthetic and syn blend prices I have seen thus far.
 
I got some info back from Amsoil regarding these two fluids and the topic at hand. Ryan Lawrey emailed me from their tech service center.

First, Amsoil was unwilling to share the raw data with me. I only got a synopsis sheet and some written words. That really limits my ability to make more detailed conclusions. We'll have to go at face value here and understand the limitations of the conclusions. Amsoil presumably paid a third-party entity to perform this test, but again I have no direct info of any such like. I can only guess, as they won't share the raw data, nor even the test observations.

One has to understand the test protocol.
The DDC DFS 93K222 is a test to check for the effect of lubricity in terms of three criteria, using a DD13 engine:
1) cylinder wall scuffing
2) top ring weight loss
3) Fe rate increase of 25ppm in UOA data (note this is WEAR RATE INCREASE, not total accumulation)
- The test is run for "up to" 200 hours or until a violation of the above criteria occurs.
- The minimum "pass" threshold is 30 hours. IOW, you can "pass" at 30 hours, and every hour after that is "better" than passing. (Amsoil "passed" with the HD at 150 hours; the Signature at 200 hours at the max limit of the test).
- The test is run at 244 degF (118 C) for the gallery oil temp. The coolant is run at 221 degF (105 C). (note, this is typical of many SAE and ASTM tests; those who fear "hot" oil are needlessly worrying about minutia, because 250F is NORMAL oil testing temps, for hour upon hour upon hour. If your engine oil gets up to 275F for a few minutes for an uphill pull, and then drops right back down to 215F, you're fine; don't spaz out.)
- The first 30 hours is run at 50% throttle loading; the next 170 hours run at 80% rated load. In context, this would be like running down the interstate at 50% load for 1800 miles, then uphill at 80% load for a remaining 10,200 miles. (this presumes an average 60mph speed; 200 hours is 12k miles total).

This is an ALT (accelerated life-cycle test). They purposely infuse a harsh condition for extended constant hours to fast-forward the results. It's done all the time in labs to give a desired outcome. And at times, it's very helpful. Sometimes, it's not a real indication of how things work because inputs are not always run on an even keel (aka the infamous GM filtration test, but I digress ... ). I would presume this test is at least somewhat helpful if you ran OTR rigs heavily laden; TT would likely get more out of this info than us normal guys. Why? Because your Powerstroke or Duramax does NOT run at 80% WOT for 170 straight hours! No - most of you drive your rig slightly loaded down to the boat dock or pull your 5ver a few weekends a year. The rest of the time you're probably running lightly loaded. The take-away concept here is that just because this test shows some manner of useful info, do NOT presume it's applicable to all situations and all manner of use. Hence, the results only speak to certain test conditions as inputs deriving one output result. It's completely wrong to presume that your situation will reveal similar results.

How does this test communicate relevant info to us? By implication of a relative pass/fail nature. But we cannot easily replicate the test nor the measurables, in general, home. None of us are ever going to drive with a 15k pound back-hoe on a trailer, from DC to Sacramento on I-70, for 7 days non-stop, uphill the entire way at 80% throttle. Nor will we pull an engine apart to check for cylinder scuffing or ring weight loss; we don't have the time/money to do this. However, we can do UOAs. Even Amsoil uses UOAs for OCI extensions. I don't have the written test methodology, but if I understand the SWRI document, they use the UOA Fe ppm as a trigger to suspect scuffing. Once they pass a 25ppm Fe rate increase, they then pull the engine apart to check the physical condition of parts. That in mind, a "pass" of the DDC test is considered acceptable for any fluid that goes longer than 30 hours in duration. The test is simply pass/fail. If any of the criteria are violated, it's a "fail". The contending fluids can "pass" at 30 hours, or more, but never less.


Amsoil's two lubes (PAO syns) were run against the test conditions, and "passed" with flying colors. They ran these against a conventional off-the-shelf (yet undisclosed brand) 15w-40 lube. They essentially did two things; they ran against the test standard and they also ran against a dino oil.

But ask yourself a few things ...
How would another syn competitor fare? Probably very well. Apples to apples is what I like to see.
How many times do you run 80% of rated max power for SEVEN non-stop 24-hour days?
How would this test have differed if the loading was more "normal" to real life conditions?


Don't freak out here. You're not going to get cylinder scuffing in your Cummins or Powerstroke running a dino lube to 10+k miles. Remember they manipulate the conditions to cause a severely accelerated wear rate. Our typical UOAs show wear rates DROPPING during the first 15k miles, even using conventional lubes. This is why I preach that real world use is not often replicated in lab tests. This would ONLY apply to you if your wear RATE jumped by 25ppm per unit of measure. IOW, if your engine sheds 15ppm in 10k miles, then your wear rate is 1.5ppm/1k miles. So to trigger the DDC "failure" point, your engine would have to start shedding 26.5ppm per 1k miles! You'd have to experience 318ppm accumulated in 12k miles to trigger the scuffing condition failure associated with the DDC test. Kind of puts this test in perspective does it not?


The Amsoil lubes did really well. So would most any other syn I suspect. And the conventional did well, too; it surpassed the test by 20% under the most unnatural conditions most of us will never see.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation of the 93k222 test, Dave. I knew that the test was linked to cylinder scuffing in a DD13 but that's all. I wonder what RPM they use in the test.

I have a DD13 and have always run near 80k lbs with it, and if the wind isn't blowing too bad, it's only at 40-50% load when I watch it. A strong cross wind changes things as it's making the engine work like climbing a grade. The % load I see is at 1100-1200 RPM. If I were to drop a gear and cruise at 1400-1500 RPM, it would show a lower % of load being put on the engine. To go over 60% load, requires a considerable grade and it doesn't stay there for long. Running in OTR use with only 80k lbs will never stress it like that test. An Australian road train would be a different story, and that's why the oil companies test there so much.
 
According to the data form I have the test parameters include:
These will be listed as stage 1 and 2 (the 50% for 30 hours; the 80% for 170 hours)
(you can do the metric conversions, but the data is relevant and most does not change)
* rpm: 1800 / 1800
* fuel flow in kg/hr: 32 / 71
* intake air temp: 35c / 35c
* coolant temp: 105c / 105c
* oil temp: 118c / 118c
* fuel temp at inlet: 38c / 38c
* air temp at manifold: 75c / 87c
* coolant pressure kPa: 250 / 250
* exhaust pressure at tailpipe kPa: 105 / 125
* coolant flow L/min: 340-360 / 340-360

So they are running 1800 rpm at 50% load, and also 80% load. That's a pretty high rpm with such a high rated load. Helps accelerate wear.


Like you said, to run 80% load at 1800 rpm for 170 straight hours is SEVERE loading, to a point where few real world condition would ever likely last that long.


And remember that the trigger for scuffing observation comes after Fe already starts a precipitous rise in the test. As long as your UOA shows your Fe on a downward trend (typical of most UOAs we see here for anything less than 20k miles), then you're not even at the beginning phase of wear escalation. People need to quit freaking out when they see marketing-driven one-page docu-drama advertisements. ALWAYS seek to understand the test parameters and criteria, and then THINK your way to the conclusion. Don't let marketing folks think for you.


This is just more proof of how great a quality synthetic oil can be, AFTER you pass a point where a conventional lube is exhausted. But until you get to that point where the dino is usurped, it's all moot. Those who OCI in a "normal" fashion (even in hard daily use) just won't see the payback from syns. Those of us who use our daily driven light-duty trucks should never fear this kind of treatment or concern. Even using a Ram/Chev/Ford pick-up like a workhorse, they just likely don't rise to this kind of lab-induced abuse.


I must confess that I tend to think in terms of my own world; I have a Dmax 3500 Silverado. I pull my RV with it. But it's nothing like a OTR heavy rig, or mining equipment, etc. The lubes I used (Rotella, Delvac, Delo, VPB, Tection Extra, etc) are made for much heavier use than I'll ever put my truck through. If you recall, I did a UOA several years back where I absolutely flogged my truck on purpose on vacation. Pulled the RV into the Rockies, down into UT and AZ in blazing hot summer, etc. A 6500 mile round trip. I ran WOT as many places as I safely could, just to load it as much as possible. I ran 70mph into the headwinds, just to load it up. And yet the UOA I got back was completely normal! So normal that another member here with a similar truck to mine, doing a similar vacation for similar miles, got the same results. Yet he ran 15w-40 RL syn and a bypass filter. I ran 10w-30 dino Rotella and Wix FF. Same results from two totally different lube approaches. And I even allowed my sump level to drop to the add mark; about 2 quarts below full! I totally tried to abuse my stock truck, and it never flinched. Admittedly, had we run those same routes multiple times, perhaps for 40k miles, then my oil would be condemned whereas his would still be viable. But UNTIL your dino oil is done in, it suffers no loss of capability relative to other choices. The point at which any lube is truly condemn-able is much further than most BITOGers will ever tread.


I am not bashing these Amsoil products; they're top notch. It's just that most folks who use them will NEVER, EVER get the value out of them. They won't even get the full value out of a dino oil. We often hear the whole "cheap insurance" argument. That's hogwash. There is PLENTY of usable reserves in a dino lube for most typical OCIs. And people see the marketing-driven dribble about how these oils are "4x and 6x better" than some test ... a test they don't understand nor have any desire to learn about. A fool and his money are soon parted. I am not picking on the OP here; be sure of that. I'm harassing ANYONE who dumps ANY lube out prematurely, and then claims it's "cheap" to do so. One man's cheap is another's waste. I do use synthetic fluids, but I used them in a manner in which I get the value from them.

More easily put; it's not that the syn lubes are a waste of money, it's how they are wasted in shorting their abilities.

Caveat Emptor.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
According to the data form I have the test parameters include:
These will be listed as stage 1 and 2 (the 50% for 30 hours; the 80% for 170 hours)
(you can do the metric conversions, but the data is relevant and most does not change)
* rpm: 1800 / 1800
* fuel flow in kg/hr: 32 / 71
* intake air temp: 35c / 35c
* coolant temp: 105c / 105c
* oil temp: 118c / 118c
* fuel temp at inlet: 38c / 38c
* air temp at manifold: 75c / 87c
* coolant pressure kPa: 250 / 250
* exhaust pressure at tailpipe kPa: 105 / 125
* coolant flow L/min: 340-360 / 340-360

So they are running 1800 rpm at 50% load, and also 80% load. That's a pretty high rpm with such a high rated load. Helps accelerate wear.


Like you said, to run 80% load at 1800 rpm for 170 straight hours is SEVERE loading, to a point where few real world condition would ever likely last that long.


And remember that the trigger for scuffing observation comes after Fe already starts a precipitous rise in the test. As long as your UOA shows your Fe on a downward trend (typical of most UOAs we see here for anything less than 20k miles), then you're not even at the beginning phase of wear escalation. People need to quit freaking out when they see marketing-driven one-page docu-drama advertisements. ALWAYS seek to understand the test parameters and criteria, and then THINK your way to the conclusion. Don't let marketing folks think for you.


This is just more proof of how great a quality synthetic oil can be, AFTER you pass a point where a conventional lube is exhausted. But until you get to that point where the dino is usurped, it's all moot. Those who OCI in a "normal" fashion (even in hard daily use) just won't see the payback from syns. Those of us who use our daily driven light-duty trucks should never fear this kind of treatment or concern. Even using a Ram/Chev/Ford pick-up like a workhorse, they just likely don't rise to this kind of lab-induced abuse.


I must confess that I tend to think in terms of my own world; I have a Dmax 3500 Silverado. I pull my RV with it. But it's nothing like a OTR heavy rig, or mining equipment, etc. The lubes I used (Rotella, Delvac, Delo, VPB, Tection Extra, etc) are made for much heavier use than I'll ever put my truck through. If you recall, I did a UOA several years back where I absolutely flogged my truck on purpose on vacation. Pulled the RV into the Rockies, down into UT and AZ in blazing hot summer, etc. A 6500 mile round trip. I ran WOT as many places as I safely could, just to load it as much as possible. I ran 70mph into the headwinds, just to load it up. And yet the UOA I got back was completely normal! So normal that another member here with a similar truck to mine, doing a similar vacation for similar miles, got the same results. Yet he ran 15w-40 RL syn and a bypass filter. I ran 10w-30 dino Rotella and Wix FF. Same results from two totally different lube approaches. And I even allowed my sump level to drop to the add mark; about 2 quarts below full! I totally tried to abuse my stock truck, and it never flinched. Admittedly, had we run those same routes multiple times, perhaps for 40k miles, then my oil would be condemned whereas his would still be viable. But UNTIL your dino oil is done in, it suffers no loss of capability relative to other choices. The point at which any lube is truly condemn-able is much further than most BITOGers will ever tread.




I'm surprised at the low power level they are running for the lubricant stress test. The basic durability test that Cummins runs on their engines is to take the highest rated engine for any given family, then overfuel it to achieve 110% of rated power, and let it run for 500 hours. Of course oil samples are taken at regular intervals and the oil is changed when condemnation points are reached, but I can't remember what those are. The longest, most overpowered test I ever ran at Cummins was on the C-series natural gas engine at 10% overspeed/10% overfuel. This engine was normally rated at 250 HP @ 2400 rpm, and we uprated it to 305 HP @ 2640 rpm, and ran it for 1500 hours. Management wasn't worried about whether or not the engine would go the distance, only on the exact date the test would be completed.

Out of the set of parameters for the scuffing test in DNewtons note, the numbers that surprise me are the manifold air temperatures of 75 and 87C. This must be some kind of acceleration factor, because normal intake manifold temperature for air-air intercooled heavy duty diesels running at rated power is ~40C. The IMT they are running for the part power conditions seems abnormally high. The higher air temperature would cause higher piston, ring, and liner temperatures, and consequently thinner oil films on the liner. Perhaps this is the factor they are manipulating to generate scuffing. Especially if they are restricting the airflow while maintaining fueling to produce richer air-fuel ratios.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
According to the data form I have the test parameters include:
These will be listed as stage 1 and 2 (the 50% for 30 hours; the 80% for 170 hours)
(you can do the metric conversions, but the data is relevant and most does not change)
* rpm: 1800 / 1800
* fuel flow in kg/hr: 32 / 71
* intake air temp: 35c / 35c
* coolant temp: 105c / 105c
* oil temp: 118c / 118c
* fuel temp at inlet: 38c / 38c
* air temp at manifold: 75c / 87c
* coolant pressure kPa: 250 / 250
* exhaust pressure at tailpipe kPa: 105 / 125
* coolant flow L/min: 340-360 / 340-360

So they are running 1800 rpm at 50% load, and also 80% load. That's a pretty high rpm with such a high rated load. Helps accelerate wear.


Like you said, to run 80% load at 1800 rpm for 170 straight hours is SEVERE loading, to a point where few real world condition would ever likely last that long.


And remember that the trigger for scuffing observation comes after Fe already starts a precipitous rise in the test. As long as your UOA shows your Fe on a downward trend (typical of most UOAs we see here for anything less than 20k miles), then you're not even at the beginning phase of wear escalation. People need to quit freaking out when they see marketing-driven one-page docu-drama advertisements. ALWAYS seek to understand the test parameters and criteria, and then THINK your way to the conclusion. Don't let marketing folks think for you.


This is just more proof of how great a quality synthetic oil can be, AFTER you pass a point where a conventional lube is exhausted. But until you get to that point where the dino is usurped, it's all moot. Those who OCI in a "normal" fashion (even in hard daily use) just won't see the payback from syns. Those of us who use our daily driven light-duty trucks should never fear this kind of treatment or concern. Even using a Ram/Chev/Ford pick-up like a workhorse, they just likely don't rise to this kind of lab-induced abuse.


I must confess that I tend to think in terms of my own world; I have a Dmax 3500 Silverado. I pull my RV with it. But it's nothing like a OTR heavy rig, or mining equipment, etc. The lubes I used (Rotella, Delvac, Delo, VPB, Tection Extra, etc) are made for much heavier use than I'll ever put my truck through. If you recall, I did a UOA several years back where I absolutely flogged my truck on purpose on vacation. Pulled the RV into the Rockies, down into UT and AZ in blazing hot summer, etc. A 6500 mile round trip. I ran WOT as many places as I safely could, just to load it as much as possible. I ran 70mph into the headwinds, just to load it up. And yet the UOA I got back was completely normal! So normal that another member here with a similar truck to mine, doing a similar vacation for similar miles, got the same results. Yet he ran 15w-40 RL syn and a bypass filter. I ran 10w-30 dino Rotella and Wix FF. Same results from two totally different lube approaches. And I even allowed my sump level to drop to the add mark; about 2 quarts below full! I totally tried to abuse my stock truck, and it never flinched. Admittedly, had we run those same routes multiple times, perhaps for 40k miles, then my oil would be condemned whereas his would still be viable. But UNTIL your dino oil is done in, it suffers no loss of capability relative to other choices. The point at which any lube is truly condemn-able is much further than most BITOGers will ever tread.






Out of the set of parameters for the scuffing test in DNewtons note, the numbers that surprise me are the manifold air temperatures of 75 and 87C. This must be some kind of acceleration factor, because normal intake manifold temperature for air-air intercooled heavy duty diesels running at rated power is ~40C. The IMT they are running for the part power conditions seems abnormally high. The higher air temperature would cause higher piston, ring, and liner temperatures, and consequently thinner oil films on the liner. Perhaps this is the factor they are manipulating to generate scuffing. Especially if they are restricting the airflow while maintaining fueling to produce richer air-fuel ratios.


A_Harman, thanks for the info. Please forgive my ignorance, but since they list both intake temp and intake manifold temp, I assumed that the intake temp was the air temp being ingested into the turbo and then (obviously) there's the intake manifold temp. If I'm wrong, where is the intake air temp (not at manifold) measured?

I saw your post just before leaving a customer in Florida and watched the intake temp along with the % load on engine when I pulled onto the road. I drove about 15 miles to the interstate and weighed the truck (weighed in at 79,260).

With an ambient temp of 79F and loafing along at 1100 rpm, my intake temp was staying at 122-124F and putting 39-41% load on the engine. This was on nearly flat land. While gently accelerating up to 60 mph, the intake temp easily went into the low 140s using no more than 1300 rpm in each gear. I assumed that these temps were intake manifold temps...am I all messed up in that?

Edit- this is with the Detroit DD13 used in the test.
 
Last edited:
What a difference the ambient temp makes. Driving during the night with outside temps in the low 50s, driving exactly the same as I posted above, my intake temperature was only at 91-93F. Same 1100 rpm, 40% load and although I didn't mention it above, was only making 6 psi boost.

My point was that I believe that the intake air temp at the manifold could easily be the same in real world conditions as what they run in the Detroit test, unless the temps I see aren't at the intake manifold. Except that a good driver isn't going to use such high rpm (1800) to climb a mountain, I'd say running in warm/hot weather a driver could match the test parameters (minus the duration).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top