2008 Duramax LMM Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil 5W40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
83
Location
Vermont
2008 Duramax 6.6L........This truck is in the category for certain model years with Chevy,Dodge,and Ford turbo diesels which are dilution monsters for when they go into regeneration mode,the fuel runs thru the motor.This truck has all the emission equipment in tact and is bone stock with the exception of a dual remote bypass system. It is a constant short tripped work truck pulling a trailer every day,at times carrying 5-7 tons of material,and is started 5*7 times per day.

For the first 61,200 miles,Delo 400 oil was used with an oem AC Delco filter.At that mileage,the bypass system was installed along with Amsoil 5W40 Premium Diesel oil,an EaO26 oil filter and the EaBP100 bypass filter.Oil was in use for 13 months and 8,961 miles.

This is my first ever oil analysis on a diesel engine. Can someone explain my soot # of .6%. Is that good?What would be a bad # ?
 
Lots of fuel there, but otherwise looks good. The viscosity seems reasonable for that much fuel contamination. To answer your question about the soot, that 0.6% is fine. The acceptable amount of soot varies by manufacturer and each model. I don't know what GM would use as a condemnation point, but with my Detroit, 4.5% is the soot limit (assuming that it's an oil meeting their spec). Others may be quite different.
 
Wear rates are very good; typical of Dmax engines.
The soot is low; often there is a limit between 3.0-3.5%; you're well below that. No all companies have established soot limits, but those that do use between 3-3.5 as their guide. Also, your oxidation is low; that's good too.

However, as mentioned above, the fuel is high in your sample; I'd recommend changing the oil soon. Generally, I don't like to use oil conditions as a trigger for an OCI (tbn, vis, fp, etc), but this lube sample has a LOT of fuel in it. These are the engines that even Amsoil modified their extended OCI statements for. Whereas they typically will allow runs out to 25k miles in some conditions, I think they limit this application to 7.5k miles, or something like that? You've not damaged your engine; don't panic. But as the fuel continues to go up, it will alter the lube to a point where wear will increase, and unless you're doing UOAs every 1000 miles, you're not going to catch it in time. So this is the one circumstance where you'll hear me advocate for an OCI predicated on a lube condition and not wear. This is because the shift of wear rates can happen very quickly as the fuel crosses past 5-6%. After that point, it's a bit of a gamble. It's not a question of "if" but when, and you don't want to get caught with your pantaloons lowered.

Honestly, if you're OCIs are going to be around 7-9k miles, there's no way you'll ever get the value out of Amsoil products. Just go back to any decent API spec'd dino lube and motor on. And don't fear the "cold" temps of your state; it does not get cold enough to warrant synthetics. If that is your fear, just go get a 10w-30 HDEO in dino; there's plenty to choose from now. Or find a 10w-30 semi-syn on sale; I recently got some VPB semi-syn 10w-30 for $10/gallon. There's no need to spend a lot on oil when your OCI are going to be limited in duration.
 
Thank you dustyroads and dnewton3 for the replies.Oil and full flow filter was changed right after that report with Amsoil Heavy Duty oil in 5W40. I thought iron would be lower with the bypass system. Happy that even with 6.3% dilution that the oil was still a 40W. I have seen reports of 7% FD in power strokes and have heard some as high as 10%.

As for going to dino lube,as my screen name suggests,that is like going backwards for me. A UOA will not show it,but the levels of protection that a higher end oil such as Amsoil provides is in a whole other class compared to dino. There is just no comparison.

Total capacity for oil in this truck is 18 quarts. Changing the oil I get 14 from the sump and 1 quart from the full flow filter.With this much dilution,going forward,I will drain 10 quarts at 5000 miles to get rid of fuel,do a UOA and evaluate.
 
The standard Dmax sump holds 10 quarts for an OCI. Where in the world are you getting an 80% increase??? How big of a BP system are you running?
crazy2.gif



I am going to disagree with your assessment regarding the PAO/dino topic. I've got about 550 UOAs from Dmax engines and I can assure you, in "normal" OCI durations, there is ZERO (none, zip, nada) advantage to using a "syn". The wear rates just do NOT bear what you claim, at all. What is it that you think a UOA won't show in terms of protection? Please define "protection" so that we can have a conversation in quantifiable terms. If not wear metals, then what? I would ask you to show evidence that, in normal OCI durations, there's any tangible benefit to using a PAO.

You are incorrect; there is a VERY VALID comparison. To the contrary, there is essentially no contrast.

You are welcome to do as you see fit; no argument there. Do what makes you sleep better at night. But don't expect me to swallow that line of baloney without first biting down and calling you out on it.
 
Last edited:
It is not a pickup truck,it’s a 4500 series truck which takes just under 15 quarts stock. The extra oil lines,full flow filter which is larger than stock and the bypass filter adds 3 quarts.

We obviously disagree and there is no harm in that. Dino oils contain wax which will crystallize in cold weather and they will never protect in high heat/high temp conditions compared to a good Group III oil,let alone a PAO/Ester based Group IV/Group V oil.

With a turbocharger spinning 100,000 plus rpms with temps well north of 500 degrees, dino oil cannot make the grade. Slowly,little by little, the turbo shaft will varnish and coke up creating more heat. The same thing will happen to rings and pistons. Over time performance will diminish,deposits will build,timing chains will under perform, fuel mileage goes down and more.
Now add fuel dilution into the mix,in my case a ridiculous 6 plus percent. The oil starting as a 40 grade is now somewhere in the 30’s. The extremely hot turbo thins the oil further.Do you want a 20 something weight oil running thru the precious turbo? Keep this up and over time,it will surely fail.

The Amsoil SS line of oils contain expensive esters. They are super lubricating adhering to metal internals forming a tough layer of protection. Between that and the base stock ,it has proven to be a tough very shear stable oil. Todays diesels are complicated expensive marvels of engineering. Oil is cheap in comparison and the better oils will provide longevity and a cleaner more efficient running engine over its lifetime .
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
It is not a pickup truck,it’s a 4500 series truck which takes just under 15 quarts stock. The extra oil lines,full flow filter which is larger than stock and the bypass filter adds 3 quarts.

We obviously disagree and there is no harm in that. Dino oils contain wax which will crystallize in cold weather and they will never protect in high heat/high temp conditions compared to a good Group III oil,let alone a PAO/Ester based Group IV/Group V oil.

With a turbocharger spinning 100,000 plus rpms with temps well north of 500 degrees, dino oil cannot make the grade. Slowly,little by little, the turbo shaft will varnish and coke up creating more heat. The same thing will happen to rings and pistons. Over time performance will diminish,deposits will build,timing chains will under perform, fuel mileage goes down and more.
Now add fuel dilution into the mix,in my case a ridiculous 6 plus percent. The oil starting as a 40 grade is now somewhere in the 30’s. The extremely hot turbo thins the oil further.Do you want a 20 something weight oil running thru the precious turbo? Keep this up and over time,it will surely fail.

The Amsoil SS line of oils contain expensive esters. They are super lubricating adhering to metal internals forming a tough layer of protection. Between that and the base stock ,it has proven to be a tough very shear stable oil. Todays diesels are complicated expensive marvels of engineering. Oil is cheap in comparison and the better oils will provide longevity and a cleaner more efficient running engine over its lifetime .


I was unaware that the mid-duty trucks had a larger sump. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I learned something there.

I must say, you have your marketing hype down pat. Now, show me that it actually matters, please. Show me the data that indicates a normal application is better served by these PAOs.

What is it that you claim cannot be seen in a UOA, that puts the syn in a "whole other class"?
Don't regurgitate info you've read about the lube characteristics. Rather, show me real world data that proves what you claim please.
I don't want to hear about how you can recite talking points off of a sales brochure.
I want to have a detailed, analytical discussion based on tangible facts that are produced from real world conditions that represents situations we folks actually operate in.

You brought up "cold weather". OK - I would agree that at some point a PAO will flow better than a dino. But at what temps does that really start to matter in terms of cold start performance? It might make a difference when the ambient temps are down below -30F, but it also depends on a whole host of other things like the type of starting aids (block heaters, CR injection, intake heaters, etc). I've started my Dmax in -17F with dino 10w-30, and it cranked over just fine and the UOAs showed no undue wear from using that lube in really cold temps.

You brought up the turbo heat; typical of the uninformed argument point. You need to understand the topic of thermal transfer to have this discussion. You must have an understanding of volumetric lube flow, heat exchange rates, sump temps and terminal heat range to really have a meaningful discussion here. Just because EGTs can easily get up to 1300F pre-turbo, does not mean the oil is getting that hot at the source. While I do agree that a PAO will resist oxidation more so than will a conventional oil, it's a matter of thermal exchange in terms of the engine/turbo/cooler design that manages the oil temps; it's NOT the instantaneous temp at a turbo housing. In most modern diesel engines, the oil temps are maintained well below a critical limit.

Fuel dilution? So what? A PAO, or group III, is no more resistant to thinning in this regard than is a conventional lube. No engine oil has the ability to resist fuel dilution. That you brought this up clearly indicates you don't understand the topics of solubility and dilution. Plus, your UOA (and many others I might add) is proof that just because a lube thins, does not automatically mean wear is affected. I do agree that at some point, dilution will affect wear, and that is why I said for you to change oil soon. But is your precious top-tier PAO stopping the dilution? Nope. It's being affected at the same rate that any other lube would be affected. Your point is not only moot, but illogically based.


Don't get me wrong. I like syns; I use syns in some of my applications. They offer benefits that I believe make them worth the investment. But I don't blindly adhere to a mantra of PAOs are "always the best, all of the time". There are many conditions where a syn does not "better" a dino oil, dependent upon the operational and maintenance conditions imposed.

Again - don't puke out marketing hype to me. Don't link some silly biased lab test. Rather, show me real world data that confirms that your conditions are only served adequately by using PAOs with BP filters. What testing have you performed? What baseline exists for comparison/contrast? What variation exists in your system? What R&R can you discuss? You want to convince me you're right? Prove it with data, not a diatribe against some perceived inferior product that makes you feel better about the choices you made. You said you used to run Delo with a normal Delco filter; what were your UOA results from those runs? You're spending probably 4x more money by using the PAO/BP set-up. Are you getting 4x the OCI? Or are you getting 4x less wear? Show us the data please.

For comparison/contrast, look at my UOAs;
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4527295/1/Rotella_10w-30_T4;___11.5k_mil
After 9k miles in my sump, the 10w-30 dino I ran the exhibited the same amount of Fe as yours. Even at the extreme, running down to 8 quarts, it was 32ppm, but you have almost 2x the volume of fluid, so if I added the same quantity, I'd be at half that value. And I was running HARD into winds for the bulk of my trip, with EGTs running between 1100-1300 all day! My Dmax engine ran as hard as any truck will ever run, on dino 10w-30, and yet performed completely in line with "normal" macro data averages. Your truck ran 2x the volume of fluid, on PAO with BP, and yet got the same results. Additionally, because you run BP, it's quite likely that the BP element is actually scrubbing some of the wear particles from the stream, and while that is a good thing on one hand, it also skews the data and under-reports the actual wear data! But perhaps you don't want to pit your UOAs against mine; fine. Show us your wear data from using the Delo/Delco combo then. Show us how much "better" your planned program is doing, for spending all that extra money.

Don't try to sway me with inane talking points.
Prove it to me with real world data.
I have more than 550 Dmax UOAs, and over 12k total UOAs in my statistical database.
I'll know if you're serious or not about understanding "protection" by your answer.

Again - your UOA here is just fine; nothing wrong with the engine. But that's NOT because you decided to spend a ton of money on Amsoil products. It's because the Dmax engine is very well engineered and the lube system operates well with just about any qualified lube, not just "top tier" ones.
 
Last edited:
Amsoil has a lot going for it, but statistically that engine is more likely to suffer injector death or bust a crankshaft than suffer an oil related failure by a huge margin.

Lot of trucks that go 1 mil+ on $13/gal Delvac Dino.
 
My goodness friend, we can go back and forth forever on this and I will never convince you that ANY modern synthetic will protect better than dino oils. I will agree that much of what the oil blenders print is marketing, but, for you to say that in normal drain intervals, they do not make a difference, I do not know what to tell you. I am in bed with a lubrication engineer within the petroleum industry who will NEVER step into any type of forum. You do not want to see tests because they are skewed, so, you will never believe them. As mentioned, this is my 1st ever report on a diesel engine, so, I have no uoa on Delo oil. Amsoil usually hires Southwest Research in Texas for 3rd party testing. They test for NASA and the military. Do you think they would risk their reputation to fudge results for little bitty Amsoil?

Plenty of technical papers out there on filtration and lubricants proving they DO make a difference. Talk to owners of fleets and owner operators of big rigs who have switched to synthetics. UPS, coast to coast uses Mobil 1 because it saves them a ton of money in repairs. Taxi fleets, ambulance ,garbage trucks, limos,the list goes on and on.

Dino oils do not have the properties to protect in heat in any modern engine, its just not there. It’s like comparing a bias type tire to a high performance radial. They both get the job done, but, which is better? Agreed, dino may have a place for some. Such a place may be a vehicle that was on its last legs or on a lease where its not going to be yours.

I have taken apart commercial equipment(not mine) run hard all day. The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic. Two years later, took that motor apart where hours on the engine was almost identical and the difference was night and day. The combustion chamber, piston tops, and ring lands of the true synthetic were spotless compared to regular Mobil 1 synthetic which had carbon deposits in all areas. Which engine do you think will run more efficiently and last longer over time even though both were running well?

I read the link to your uoa. Just because we both have a Duramax engine, the uoa should not be directly compared to each other or anyone else for that matter as there are too many variables in the way they are used/driven, oils, terrain, emissions equipment and so on.
So you were contemplating going another year on that oil where you used two quarts in 2400 miles??? Of course GM is going to tell you that that is almost acceptable. No truck/car and especially a Duramax with 55k on the clock should use that much oil. Your oil most likely vaporized due to the heavy work load placed upon it and probably oxidixed as well. Not good for internals.I know you will not, but, I would have at least switched brands if synthetics are a no no for you. You may be pleasantly surprised on your next trip like that.

I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.

I really do not want to go back and forth. We have very different opinions concerning dino vs synthetics, let’s just agree to disagree. You are a very smart man and on top of your game with your truck/records. On my next uoa,I would still like to hear your opinion if you do not mind. Respect.
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I have taken apart commercial equipment(not mine) run hard all day. The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic. Two years later, took that motor apart where hours on the engine was almost identical and the difference was night and day. The combustion chamber, piston tops, and ring lands of the true synthetic were spotless compared to regular Mobil 1 synthetic which had carbon deposits in all areas. Which engine do you think will run more efficiently and last longer over time even though both were running well?

Can you name which oils are true synthetics, other than Amsoil?
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Amsoil has a lot going for it, but statistically that engine is more likely to suffer injector death or bust a crankshaft than suffer an oil related failure by a huge margin.

Lot of trucks that go 1 mil+ on $13/gal Delvac Dino.


All diesels should be using a fuel additive to add lubricity to the fuel pump as well as the injectors.I alternate between two products. Three years ago I ran into an GM engineer at the dealership. In talking to him,he stated that you can spend $700 over 10 years or $7000 in 10 years.

Are broken cranks on mainly tuned motors?
 
Good thing my truck(Freightliner) with a big cam 350 didn't know it had dino oil in it. Had it known, it wouldn't have gone 1 mil. miles before I had to get a major in-frame done. Syn. oil never saw the inside of my truck. It's not just the OCI but also the ROI that helps someone make the right decision. That and have a open mind to understand both sides of a discussion.

I do some things that help me sleep better for my S2000(much larger oil filter & a mix of oil with high ZDDP) and I know I'll never have enough proof for some, but all I have to do is convince myself. And so far I'm sleeping well, hope you do to.

ROD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kschachn

Can you name which oils are true synthetics, other than Amsoil?


Hmmm,I know you are well aware of the answer,but,Royal Purple and Redline stick out. Any oil that is Group IV using a synthetic base stock. Don't want to spend that much,Mobil 1 EP is a very good oil although I would not run it for its 15k mile claim without analysis. I would have to give Schaeffers a real hard look as well if I were to leave Amsoil,but,again,its performance would be checked via analysis.

Even the Amsoil I use in our cars,marketing states 25k miles or one year.Analysis proves that it would be wise for me not to come close to that number.Thats is on the older formula,we shall see how the new formula performs,it may prove to be better.

There are other HP Group III oils that actually perform better in certain areas,however,Amsoil is very hard to beat in the over all arena of performance.I forgot all about Mobil's Annual Protection which may very well prove to be right up there with Amsoil,time will tell although doubt is in my head with Amsoils new formulation.
 
Originally Posted By: rrounds
Good thing my truck(Freightliner) with a big cam 350 didn't know it had dino oil in it. Had it known, it wouldn't have gone 1 mil. miles before I had to get a major in-frame done. Syn. oil never saw the inside of my truck. It's not just the OCI but also the ROI that helps someone make the right decision. That and have a open mind to understand both sides of a discussion.

I do some things that help me sleep better for my S2000(much larger oil filter & a mix of oil with high ZDDP) and I know I'll never have enough proof for some, but all I have to do is convince myself. And so far I'm sleeping well, hope you do to.

ROD


Rod,your freightliner is is in a class much higher than the Dodge,Ford,and GMC turbo diesels. What they did to our trucks(2007.5-2011),would never and did not happen to your class of trucks. The bigger rigs are already plumbed for bypass filtration as manufacturers know these systems are usually installed. Do you have one? Are you the guy with a bypass system on your S2000? i sleep well too thank you....:)
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Amsoil has a lot going for it, but statistically that engine is more likely to suffer injector death or bust a crankshaft than suffer an oil related failure by a huge margin.

Lot of trucks that go 1 mil+ on $13/gal Delvac Dino.


All diesels should be using a fuel additive to add lubricity to the fuel pump as well as the injectors.I alternate between two products. Three years ago I ran into an GM engineer at the dealership. In talking to him,he stated that you can spend $700 over 10 years or $7000 in 10 years.

Are broken cranks on mainly tuned motors?


Nope. Just a DMax thing. Replaced 3 engines out of a fleet of 41. Factory trucks, no signs of any other issues in the engine. Look it up. Just happens apropos of nothing. Bad forgings or something.

I love Amsoil too. Had some superior UOAs off of Amsoil. I'm running Schaeffer's now since it is also a superior product that is demanded by a lot of our customers with high performance engines. Good UOAs there too.

Amsoil is supposed to have been tested to handle fuel dilution the best where oils are concerned, so there is still purpose, but hard tab to pay for such short OCI.
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao

... but, for you to say that in normal drain intervals, they do not make a difference, I do not know what to tell you.
That's probably because you have no data to back up your claim, whereas I have more than 550 UOAs from all manner of Dmax applications that definitively proves my point. See this article ...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
HINT: Pay really close attention to the Duramax info.


... As mentioned, this is my 1st ever report on a diesel engine, so, I have no uoa on Delo oil.
So you are willing to call something better (Amsoil) or inferior (dino oils) even though you've never tested the alternative? That's just about as biased as someone could ever be. You have ZERO data to show how well the Delo/Delco did, but you're adamant about stating how much better a syn is in a normal application. You are the poster child of the uninformed in this regard.

Amsoil usually hires Southwest Research in Texas for 3rd party testing. They test for NASA and the military. Do you think they would risk their reputation to fudge results for little bitty Amsoil?
Did it ever occur to you that the testing done does not always relate to real world experiences? For example, some of the testing such as Amsoil's referrence to DD DFS93K222 scuff test. Amsoil did admirably, and indicates that a dino oil "failed". But that was AMSOIL'S determination, not the lab's determination! Additionally, the "test" is akin to running the first 30 hours at 50% load, then the balance of the test, up to 200 hours, at 80% load! That's simply not representative of real world wear. It is an ALT; accelerated lifecycle test. Those tests are notorious for absurd conditions that are not replicated in real life. Therefore, the results are not applicable to real world use. REAL WORLD DATA from thousands upon thousands upon thousands of UOAs shows that normal applications are not "better'ed" with syns in most all cases.

Plenty of technical papers out there on filtration and lubricants proving they DO make a difference. Talk to owners of fleets and owner operators of big rigs who have switched to synthetics. UPS, coast to coast uses Mobil 1 because it saves them a ton of money in repairs. Taxi fleets, ambulance ,garbage trucks, limos,the list goes on and on.
Yup - plenty of tests. Plenty of biased ALTs, as I described above. Not unlike the insane bias of the infamous GM filter tests that so many folks don't bother to buy, read and digest, as just one example. Or the "bus study" that details how much filtration has effects, but most ignore the fact it was run decades ago on diesel two-stroke engines (know to heavily produce soot and have fuel dilution issues), as opposed to our modern, common-rail, four-stroke clean running engines. Very, very few SAE papers are based on real world conditions that are directly applicable to our operational lives that most BITOGers endure.

Dino oils do not have the properties to protect in heat in any modern engine, its just not there.
I just don't by that bovine manure. Please, rather than blabber words, post up the evidence where all dino oils are failing miserably and syns are succeeding. Please show the UOAs of such which would substantiate your claim.
It’s like comparing a bias type tire to a high performance radial. They both get the job done, but, which is better? Agreed, dino may have a place for some. Such a place may be a vehicle that was on its last legs or on a lease where its not going to be yours.
Don't look now, but the vast majority of cars/trucks/tractors/generators/etc are run on dino oil. You'd better hurry up and tell those bazillion owner's all around the globe their engines are about to expire. Better tell XOM, SOPUS, Ashland/Valvoline, Castrol, etc all to stop selling dino oils for fear of a class-action lawsuit around the world.

I have taken apart commercial equipment(not mine) run hard all day. The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic. Two years later, took that motor apart where hours on the engine was almost identical and the difference was night and day. The combustion chamber, piston tops, and ring lands of the true synthetic were spotless compared to regular Mobil 1 synthetic which had carbon deposits in all areas. Which engine do you think will run more efficiently and last longer over time even though both were running well?
Mobil 1 is not a "full synthetic"? Geez ... you'd better alert all the M1 lovers here that their PAO isn't as good as your PAO. Further, that's going to be some horrific news to the rest of the market. In fact, Mobil was the company involved many years ago in trying to restrict the word "synthetic" against other non-PAO lubes. And now you claim Mobil 1 is not a "full synthetic"? Oh, the horror!
grin.gif

I, too, have taken engines apart. I pulled the heads on a Vulcan V-6 that ran Mobil 1 exclusively for 5k mile OCIs using a Pure One filter. There were nice OEM cross-hatch hone marks still in the cylinders. I also had to pull the heads off our VG30E Villager engine; we ran dino oil for 5k mile OCIs with normal everyday filters such as M/C and Fram. Guess what? Beautiful cross-hatch marks in the cylinders. The syn did nothing over and above the dino lubes. Neither did the filters matter.


I read the link to your uoa. Just because we both have a Duramax engine, the uoa should not be directly compared to each other or anyone else for that matter as there are too many variables in the way they are used/driven, oils, terrain, emissions equipment and so on.
Clearly you don't understand the difference between micro and macro data analysis. We most certainly can compare/contrast results from separate units. It's done all the time. All around the world. It's what Six-Sigma concepts are based upon. It's used in the production of stuff such as: toothpaste, municipal water supplies, tires, refrigerators, firearms, ammunition, plastic food containers, light bulbs, etc, etc, etc, etc. Clearly you have zero idea of which you speak here. Again - read this article:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
And when you're done, read it again. Read it until you understand it, as many times as it takes.




So you were contemplating going another year on that oil where you used two quarts in 2400 miles??? Of course GM is going to tell you that that is almost acceptable. No truck/car and especially a Duramax with 55k on the clock should use that much oil. Your oil most likely vaporized due to the heavy work load placed upon it and probably oxidixed as well. Not good for internals.I know you will not, but, I would have at least switched brands if synthetics are a no no for you. You may be pleasantly surprised on your next trip like that.
I've run syns before. I've run dinos and semi-syns also. The oil consumption rate is based upon the fuel consumed. When lightly loaded, my Dmax uses almost no lube; when loaded heavily it will consume lube. And it's not just mine; it's most all of them. It's clear you don't understand this topic either. Interesting to me how you will take Amsoil's word of how great they are, but when GM makes a formal oil-consumption statement, you want to ignore it. Additionally, some amount of oxidation is actually good for the engine; it promotes the TCB layers. See SAE 2007-01-4133; buy it and read it.

I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/
Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.



I really do not want to go back and forth. We have very different opinions concerning dino vs synthetics, let’s just agree to disagree. You are a very smart man and on top of your game with your truck/records. On my next uoa,I would still like to hear your opinion if you do not mind. Respect.
You are right; we'll agree to disagree.
You stick to the syn mantra.
I'll stick to real world data and tangible results.




As I have said many times before, I'm not against synthetics. I am, however, very willing to challenge marketing hype and mindless regurgitation of irrelevant information when it's spread.

If you're happy spending that kind of money, and getting no better wear rates than any other normal application, then by all means do it. Just don't try to convince me that your way is the ONLY way to protecting an investment. You've still given no real world proof that your claims are substantiated.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/ Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.

Dave - I have three comments about Blackstone but will preface my comments with UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED:

1. Blackstone is not ISO certified and posts none of its certifications (if it has any) on its website. While that in and of itself is not a problem it can mean that standardized and repeatable processes are not in use nor are those processes audited by an independent third party. Other labs are quite happy to post all of the certifications they hold as well as all of the ASTM methodologies used and not just a few.

2. Blackstone has issues with fuel dilution in the methodology they use to measure it. Do they use gas chromatography? I seem to recall is a "low tech" method.

3. Blackstone has issues with soot in the methodology they use to measure it. Unless I am misreading it, the ASTM method they use (assuming they are using the same test for soot as they do for insolubles since they do not differentiate) has been deprecated so either they are using an outdated standard or they have not updated their testing methods on their website. Either of these conditions lends creedence to the first point.

Now, again I will say that if any or all of these issues have been sorted, I retract my statements and will be quite happy to be updated with new information.
 
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
Hmmm,I know you are well aware of the answer,but,Royal Purple and Redline stick out. Any oil that is Group IV using a synthetic base stock. Don't want to spend that much,Mobil 1 EP is a very good oil although I would not run it for its 15k mile claim without analysis. I would have to give Schaeffers a real hard look as well if I were to leave Amsoil,but,again,its performance would be checked via analysis.

Even the Amsoil I use in our cars,marketing states 25k miles or one year.Analysis proves that it would be wise for me not to come close to that number.Thats is on the older formula,we shall see how the new formula performs,it may prove to be better.

There are other HP Group III oils that actually perform better in certain areas,however,Amsoil is very hard to beat in the over all arena of performance.I forgot all about Mobil's Annual Protection which may very well prove to be right up there with Amsoil,time will tell although doubt is in my head with Amsoils new formulation.

How would you know I'm well aware of that answer?

Intersting comment about the Mobil 1 AP, are you equating base stock somehow to TBN retention? Or are you evaluating it on a different basis somehow?

Just wondering, are you an Amsoil rep?
 
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/ Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.

Dave - I have three comments about Blackstone but will preface my comments with UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED:

1. Blackstone is not ISO certified and posts none of its certifications (if it has any) on its website. While that in and of itself is not a problem it can mean that standardized and repeatable processes are not in use nor are those processes audited by an independent third party. Other labs are quite happy to post all of the certifications they hold as well as all of the ASTM methodologies used and not just a few.

2. Blackstone has issues with fuel dilution in the methodology they use to measure it. Do they use gas chromatography? I seem to recall is a "low tech" method.

3. Blackstone has issues with soot in the methodology they use to measure it. Unless I am misreading it, the ASTM method they use (assuming they are using the same test for soot as they do for insolubles since they do not differentiate) has been deprecated so either they are using an outdated standard or they have not updated their testing methods on their website. Either of these conditions lends creedence to the first point.

Now, again I will say that if any or all of these issues have been sorted, I retract my statements and will be quite happy to be updated with new information.


Finally someone is on the money!!!!!! 2015_PSD you are 100% right. Here are some further points as an industry insider.

1. Labs LOVE to blast ISO certs EVERYWHERE. Certification is a big component for those in the front lines of UOA sales.

2. No, they use flashpoint. You are 100% correct, highly inaccurate and outdated for modern fuels.

3. I was unaware Blackstone can test for soot, at all. I'd only trust E2412 aka FTIR.
 
Just random points.

1. Fuel dilution is a thing that chews up the motor and creates deposits. It's not something that affects the engine instantly, it's a gradual thing.

2. Oil quality affects ring seal big time, Amsoil will seal a cylinder better than some cheap oil.

3. Oil's have to fight FD and acid. M1 is a good example as it has great acid fighting abilities and does not shear as easily to fuel dilution.

4. If you removed that DPF and EGR, your fuel dilution which thanks for getting done by GC!!!! Would drop to 1-2%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top