I would be the last one surprised if their base oil was re-refined.
TBN is available up to 100 for sea going ship engines.
TBN is available up to 100 for sea going ship engines.
Amsoil TBN versus M1 / RP in ASTM D2896 Testing
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
You obviously skipped over the point where I said the AMSOIL email was in my inbox today, and skipped to the point where you took it personally. My whole post was that their "factual information" without any actual "facts" is just hot air. I'm not calling the tech line because if they really wanted to convince people, they would share THAT information in their press releases.
Where are the lack of facts? Amsoil tells you what astm test was done and how much they beat their competitors by. Like Stevie says, they would get their yazoos sued to the nth degree if it weren't true. Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil? You also mentioned that SS oil doesn't have the same API constraints as major brand oils but as far as I know the API doesn't limit tbn levels. Also concerning cleanliness, we all know that's probably Pennzoil's only claim to fame besides the old sm Ultra. I believe as far as what facility was used, it was probably Southwest Research in Texas. Cheers.
You obviously skipped over the point where I said the AMSOIL email was in my inbox today, and skipped to the point where you took it personally. My whole post was that their "factual information" without any actual "facts" is just hot air. I'm not calling the tech line because if they really wanted to convince people, they would share THAT information in their press releases.
Where are the lack of facts? Amsoil tells you what astm test was done and how much they beat their competitors by. Like Stevie says, they would get their yazoos sued to the nth degree if it weren't true. Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil? You also mentioned that SS oil doesn't have the same API constraints as major brand oils but as far as I know the API doesn't limit tbn levels. Also concerning cleanliness, we all know that's probably Pennzoil's only claim to fame besides the old sm Ultra. I believe as far as what facility was used, it was probably Southwest Research in Texas. Cheers.
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
Re the "look over there, an ASTM test (StevieC, the OP, and others)….
it's another advertorial...and for whatever reason, people like to believe them...advertisers spend millions of dollars researching how to bypass critical thinking when it comes to separating a mug from his money.
And yet again, it's working, both by the glee with which the OP posts "look another ASTM test showing how superior my koolaid is".
At this point, he will refuse to read my refutation, and he's already asked people to take it up with amsoil, and stop "whining here"...so...
Just like all their other advertorials, they are claiming linearity in measures that aren't linear.
A TBN of 9 is NOT 50 percent more cleaning power than a TBN of 6...anyone who has even the remotest understanding of chemistry would understand that ...but amsoil claim it is, it's an ASTM test, so it's facts and data...and it fulfils the OP's conformational bias, so critical thinking/debinking is "whning".
OK, as to "real world performance"....here's a reasonably dated test, which was a head to head, conducted reasonable well in the same car, with UOAs no less....I've pointed the OP to it a number of times, but he refuses to read anything that doesn't contain "amsoils are te legends of the lubrication universe, and the API know nothing"...
8,000 mile old Amsoil had a TBN of 2.4
8,000 mile Mobil TBN of 5.5 ...over TWICE as much cleaning power at 8,000 miles than amsoil
to even claim that the ratio of the TBNs explains the advertised mileage is plain ridiculous.
but that's how these threads start, and finish
(queue the "I'm not even going to read that/engage you" post now.)
it's another advertorial...and for whatever reason, people like to believe them...advertisers spend millions of dollars researching how to bypass critical thinking when it comes to separating a mug from his money.
And yet again, it's working, both by the glee with which the OP posts "look another ASTM test showing how superior my koolaid is".
At this point, he will refuse to read my refutation, and he's already asked people to take it up with amsoil, and stop "whining here"...so...
Just like all their other advertorials, they are claiming linearity in measures that aren't linear.
A TBN of 9 is NOT 50 percent more cleaning power than a TBN of 6...anyone who has even the remotest understanding of chemistry would understand that ...but amsoil claim it is, it's an ASTM test, so it's facts and data...and it fulfils the OP's conformational bias, so critical thinking/debinking is "whning".
OK, as to "real world performance"....here's a reasonably dated test, which was a head to head, conducted reasonable well in the same car, with UOAs no less....I've pointed the OP to it a number of times, but he refuses to read anything that doesn't contain "amsoils are te legends of the lubrication universe, and the API know nothing"...
8,000 mile old Amsoil had a TBN of 2.4
8,000 mile Mobil TBN of 5.5 ...over TWICE as much cleaning power at 8,000 miles than amsoil
to even claim that the ratio of the TBNs explains the advertised mileage is plain ridiculous.
but that's how these threads start, and finish
(queue the "I'm not even going to read that/engage you" post now.)
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
Those that argue that Amsoil doesn't tell you what they use just aren't looking. if one watches some of Amsoil's corporate videos they will see Mobil, Lubrizol, Infineum, etc brand labeled containers.
Yeah, Shannow, I remember reading that several years ago. It would seem on the Amsoil test that there was something going on to cause that oil to go black at 8000 miles in that engine. I have run various oils, including Amsoil, to over 8000 miles in gasoline engines and never had it turn black. Something was causing a high level of soot to be generated in that engine.
Can't comment on second link, as browser is unable to load that page for some reason.
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
Those that argue that Amsoil doesn't tell you what they use just aren't looking. if one watches some of Amsoil's corporate videos they will see Mobil, Lubrizol, Infineum, etc brand labeled containers.
Yeah, Shannow, I remember reading that several years ago. It would seem on the Amsoil test that there was something going on to cause that oil to go black at 8000 miles in that engine. I have run various oils, including Amsoil, to over 8000 miles in gasoline engines and never had it turn black. Something was causing a high level of soot to be generated in that engine.
Can't comment on second link, as browser is unable to load that page for some reason.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
I mean this argument only holds true with SS, The OE and XL are both API certified. Redline, I believe, is not API certified along with a few other oils and yet hardly any one ever goes nuclear as if though someone's choice of oil actually hurt them in some way. If you don't like amsoil that's fine but why do you attack the people who do? It's literally just oil, you chose the oil you like and I chose mine but because I like amsoil that automatically makes me stupid? Only you say it in a passive aggressive way. Maybe you shouldn't let what other people like bother you so much and just use your oil of choice and just be happy.
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
I mean this argument only holds true with SS, The OE and XL are both API certified. Redline, I believe, is not API certified along with a few other oils and yet hardly any one ever goes nuclear as if though someone's choice of oil actually hurt them in some way. If you don't like amsoil that's fine but why do you attack the people who do? It's literally just oil, you chose the oil you like and I chose mine but because I like amsoil that automatically makes me stupid? Only you say it in a passive aggressive way. Maybe you shouldn't let what other people like bother you so much and just use your oil of choice and just be happy.
Maybe that should be a new topic. "I like amsoil, that automatically makes me stupid?"
Originally Posted by userfriendly
Maybe that should be a new topic. "I like amsoil, that automatically makes me stupid?"
I mean why not lol, I don't understand why people literally get so worked up over amsoil
Maybe that should be a new topic. "I like amsoil, that automatically makes me stupid?"
I mean why not lol, I don't understand why people literally get so worked up over amsoil
Originally Posted by Shannow
Re the "look over there, an ASTM test (StevieC, the OP, and others)….
it's another advertorial...and for whatever reason, people like to believe them...advertisers spend millions of dollars researching how to bypass critical thinking when it comes to separating a mug from his money.
And yet again, it's working, both by the glee with which the OP posts "look another ASTM test showing how superior my koolaid is".
At this point, he will refuse to read my refutation, and he's already asked people to take it up with amsoil, and stop "whining here"...so...
Just like all their other advertorials, they are claiming linearity in measures that aren't linear.
A TBN of 9 is NOT 50 percent more cleaning power than a TBN of 6...anyone who has even the remotest understanding of chemistry would understand that ...but amsoil claim it is, it's an ASTM test, so it's facts and data...and it fulfils the OP's conformational bias, so critical thinking/debinking is "whning".
OK, as to "real world performance"....here's a reasonably dated test, which was a head to head, conducted reasonable well in the same car, with UOAs no less....I've pointed the OP to it a number of times, but he refuses to read anything that doesn't contain "amsoils are te legends of the lubrication universe, and the API know nothing"...
8,000 mile old Amsoil had a TBN of 2.4
8,000 mile Mobil TBN of 5.5 ...over TWICE as much cleaning power at 8,000 miles than amsoil
to even claim that the ratio of the TBNs explains the advertised mileage is plain ridiculous.
but that's how these threads start, and finish
(queue the "I'm not even going to read that/engage you" post now.)
I would like see another test like this one again, but, using the newest oils from Amsoil and Mobil. That test was over ten years ago. The Amsoil Signature Series was just reformulated to address LSPI. The additive package was really changed from the old formula. We have not had enough time to really have a lot of real world feedback and UOAs on the new formula to see how it does.
A similar test to what was done, but, using the newest Signature Series against Mobil Annual Protection would be interesting!
I must admit though, I am disappointed with the newest marketing by Amsoil. Our family used Amsoil from around 2000 to about 2010, so, we have experience with their products. I don't care for the newest marketing because it looks as if they aren't being fair in their comparisons and tests.
What am I referring to? Two examples. Number one, in the performance tests section on Amsoil's website, they ran a test with their All in One Diesel Treatment against Howes diesel treatment. Amsoil says the results show their diesel treatment provides 32 degrees better protection against gelling. Since both products are used to treat diesel fuel and protect against gelling, Amsoil shows the graphs showing the results for the fuel gelling below zero. Their product results on the left, and Howes results on the right. At first glance, it does look impressive. Then, I read the fine print on the bottom. Amsoil says the results were using the Howes diesel treatment recommendation for ABOVE zero degrees. So, I went to Howes website, and read their product page. What I noticed is that Howes has TWO dosage rates, for ABOVE zero degrees and BELOW zero degrees. The treatment rate for below zero is DOUBLE that of the above zero degrees. So, Amsoil said in their fine print of their test that they tested their All in One in below zero degrees against Howes diesel treatment, but, they used the weaker treatment ratio of Howes, which is meant for ABOVE zero.
Had Amsoil used Howes recommended treatment ratio for BELOW zero degrees, the test results most likely would have been different. I felt that was an unfair test.
Example two, also in the performance test section, Amsoil has a test called "Signature Series Motor Oil Outperforms the Competition". In the file, there is a section where Amsoil talks about wear protection. They show the bearings of a Ford F-150 Ecoboost run for 100,000 miles. The bearings look good. Then, to the left, are some more bearings with the title "Competitor's 5W-30" and the bearing has obvious wear. The fine print says that the competitor's oil was a leading synthetic-blend 5W-30. A SYNTHETIC-BLEND!
To be fair, a true apples-to-apples comparison, it seems a full synthetic competitor oil should be used.
Re the "look over there, an ASTM test (StevieC, the OP, and others)….
it's another advertorial...and for whatever reason, people like to believe them...advertisers spend millions of dollars researching how to bypass critical thinking when it comes to separating a mug from his money.
And yet again, it's working, both by the glee with which the OP posts "look another ASTM test showing how superior my koolaid is".
At this point, he will refuse to read my refutation, and he's already asked people to take it up with amsoil, and stop "whining here"...so...
Just like all their other advertorials, they are claiming linearity in measures that aren't linear.
A TBN of 9 is NOT 50 percent more cleaning power than a TBN of 6...anyone who has even the remotest understanding of chemistry would understand that ...but amsoil claim it is, it's an ASTM test, so it's facts and data...and it fulfils the OP's conformational bias, so critical thinking/debinking is "whning".
OK, as to "real world performance"....here's a reasonably dated test, which was a head to head, conducted reasonable well in the same car, with UOAs no less....I've pointed the OP to it a number of times, but he refuses to read anything that doesn't contain "amsoils are te legends of the lubrication universe, and the API know nothing"...
8,000 mile old Amsoil had a TBN of 2.4
8,000 mile Mobil TBN of 5.5 ...over TWICE as much cleaning power at 8,000 miles than amsoil
to even claim that the ratio of the TBNs explains the advertised mileage is plain ridiculous.
but that's how these threads start, and finish
(queue the "I'm not even going to read that/engage you" post now.)
I would like see another test like this one again, but, using the newest oils from Amsoil and Mobil. That test was over ten years ago. The Amsoil Signature Series was just reformulated to address LSPI. The additive package was really changed from the old formula. We have not had enough time to really have a lot of real world feedback and UOAs on the new formula to see how it does.
A similar test to what was done, but, using the newest Signature Series against Mobil Annual Protection would be interesting!
I must admit though, I am disappointed with the newest marketing by Amsoil. Our family used Amsoil from around 2000 to about 2010, so, we have experience with their products. I don't care for the newest marketing because it looks as if they aren't being fair in their comparisons and tests.
What am I referring to? Two examples. Number one, in the performance tests section on Amsoil's website, they ran a test with their All in One Diesel Treatment against Howes diesel treatment. Amsoil says the results show their diesel treatment provides 32 degrees better protection against gelling. Since both products are used to treat diesel fuel and protect against gelling, Amsoil shows the graphs showing the results for the fuel gelling below zero. Their product results on the left, and Howes results on the right. At first glance, it does look impressive. Then, I read the fine print on the bottom. Amsoil says the results were using the Howes diesel treatment recommendation for ABOVE zero degrees. So, I went to Howes website, and read their product page. What I noticed is that Howes has TWO dosage rates, for ABOVE zero degrees and BELOW zero degrees. The treatment rate for below zero is DOUBLE that of the above zero degrees. So, Amsoil said in their fine print of their test that they tested their All in One in below zero degrees against Howes diesel treatment, but, they used the weaker treatment ratio of Howes, which is meant for ABOVE zero.
Had Amsoil used Howes recommended treatment ratio for BELOW zero degrees, the test results most likely would have been different. I felt that was an unfair test.
Example two, also in the performance test section, Amsoil has a test called "Signature Series Motor Oil Outperforms the Competition". In the file, there is a section where Amsoil talks about wear protection. They show the bearings of a Ford F-150 Ecoboost run for 100,000 miles. The bearings look good. Then, to the left, are some more bearings with the title "Competitor's 5W-30" and the bearing has obvious wear. The fine print says that the competitor's oil was a leading synthetic-blend 5W-30. A SYNTHETIC-BLEND!
To be fair, a true apples-to-apples comparison, it seems a full synthetic competitor oil should be used.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by benjy
for Ams price with shipping it should be better!! since they went mum + answer NO questions about base oils i QUIT using it!!
What does base oil have to do with the price of eggs when the finished product performs?
for Ams price with shipping it should be better!! since they went mum + answer NO questions about base oils i QUIT using it!!
What does base oil have to do with the price of eggs when the finished product performs?
Yet another reason why I don't like Amsoil's marketing. Meanwhile Mobil is running numerous simulation and real world tests and performing tear down and ICP analysis.
Amsoil has a history of using silly marketing claims.
4-ball wear
TFOUT
Are among two.
Amsoil also does not officially meet d1G2 due to higher SA levels.
Also, for turbo testing, it's been determined that the Honda Hot Tube test was far more relevant to real world conditions than the TEOST which only tests new oil.
But hey, people have the right to choose whatever brand they want.
Here is a more realistic answer to TBN from Mobil in 2012:
"A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition.
As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil.
Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains.
We hope this information was both helpful and informative. Thanks again for reaching out, and for your continued support of Mobil 1."
Amsoil has a history of using silly marketing claims.
4-ball wear
TFOUT
Are among two.
Amsoil also does not officially meet d1G2 due to higher SA levels.
Also, for turbo testing, it's been determined that the Honda Hot Tube test was far more relevant to real world conditions than the TEOST which only tests new oil.
But hey, people have the right to choose whatever brand they want.
Here is a more realistic answer to TBN from Mobil in 2012:
"A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition.
As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil.
Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains.
We hope this information was both helpful and informative. Thanks again for reaching out, and for your continued support of Mobil 1."
You could have an oil with a starting TBN of 20 if you wanted to but if it has poor oxidation stability it won't mean much.
One of the differences, for better or worse, between AP and SS is the SA figure. Mobil is fully compliant with d1G2 and as a result has lowered SA to .8. It's been that way for quite some time now. Amsoil chose not to go that route and spikes the detergent levels a bit.
One of the differences, for better or worse, between AP and SS is the SA figure. Mobil is fully compliant with d1G2 and as a result has lowered SA to .8. It's been that way for quite some time now. Amsoil chose not to go that route and spikes the detergent levels a bit.
I use lubricants that can trace their base oil back to the manufacture. It's unlikely that Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Petro-Canada etc. use re-refined base oils in their products.
On the other hand, if a manufacture will not disclose their base oil source, we must assume they are hiding facts about their product. ,
On the other hand, if a manufacture will not disclose their base oil source, we must assume they are hiding facts about their product. ,
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
They have a line of API certified oils for folks like you that get all caught up in the oil having this. Not that you would ever use it though, I mean I don't think you could fit through Amsoil's door with that ego.
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
They have a line of API certified oils for folks like you that get all caught up in the oil having this. Not that you would ever use it though, I mean I don't think you could fit through Amsoil's door with that ego.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
Re the "look over there, an ASTM test (StevieC, the OP, and others)….
it's another advertorial...and for whatever reason, people like to believe them...advertisers spend millions of dollars researching how to bypass critical thinking when it comes to separating a mug from his money.
And yet again, it's working, both by the glee with which the OP posts "look another ASTM test showing how superior my koolaid is".
At this point, he will refuse to read my refutation, and he's already asked people to take it up with amsoil, and stop "whining here"...so...
Just like all their other advertorials, they are claiming linearity in measures that aren't linear.
A TBN of 9 is NOT 50 percent more cleaning power than a TBN of 6...anyone who has even the remotest understanding of chemistry would understand that ...but amsoil claim it is, it's an ASTM test, so it's facts and data...and it fulfils the OP's conformational bias, so critical thinking/debinking is "whning".
OK, as to "real world performance"....here's a reasonably dated test, which was a head to head, conducted reasonable well in the same car, with UOAs no less....I've pointed the OP to it a number of times, but he refuses to read anything that doesn't contain "amsoils are te legends of the lubrication universe, and the API know nothing"...
8,000 mile old Amsoil had a TBN of 2.4
8,000 mile Mobil TBN of 5.5 ...over TWICE as much cleaning power at 8,000 miles than amsoil
to even claim that the ratio of the TBNs explains the advertised mileage is plain ridiculous.
but that's how these threads start, and finish
(queue the "I'm not even going to read that/engage you" post now.)
Comparison of from 14 years ago?... Wow what a stretch! If I did that you would be all over me.
Re the "look over there, an ASTM test (StevieC, the OP, and others)….
it's another advertorial...and for whatever reason, people like to believe them...advertisers spend millions of dollars researching how to bypass critical thinking when it comes to separating a mug from his money.
And yet again, it's working, both by the glee with which the OP posts "look another ASTM test showing how superior my koolaid is".
At this point, he will refuse to read my refutation, and he's already asked people to take it up with amsoil, and stop "whining here"...so...
Just like all their other advertorials, they are claiming linearity in measures that aren't linear.
A TBN of 9 is NOT 50 percent more cleaning power than a TBN of 6...anyone who has even the remotest understanding of chemistry would understand that ...but amsoil claim it is, it's an ASTM test, so it's facts and data...and it fulfils the OP's conformational bias, so critical thinking/debinking is "whning".
OK, as to "real world performance"....here's a reasonably dated test, which was a head to head, conducted reasonable well in the same car, with UOAs no less....I've pointed the OP to it a number of times, but he refuses to read anything that doesn't contain "amsoils are te legends of the lubrication universe, and the API know nothing"...
8,000 mile old Amsoil had a TBN of 2.4
8,000 mile Mobil TBN of 5.5 ...over TWICE as much cleaning power at 8,000 miles than amsoil
to even claim that the ratio of the TBNs explains the advertised mileage is plain ridiculous.
but that's how these threads start, and finish
(queue the "I'm not even going to read that/engage you" post now.)
Comparison of from 14 years ago?... Wow what a stretch! If I did that you would be all over me.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by madeej11
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
You obviously skipped over the point where I said the AMSOIL email was in my inbox today, and skipped to the point where you took it personally. My whole post was that their "factual information" without any actual "facts" is just hot air. I'm not calling the tech line because if they really wanted to convince people, they would share THAT information in their press releases.
Where are the lack of facts? Amsoil tells you what astm test was done and how much they beat their competitors by. Like Stevie says, they would get their yazoos sued to the nth degree if it weren't true. Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil? You also mentioned that SS oil doesn't have the same API constraints as major brand oils but as far as I know the API doesn't limit tbn levels. Also concerning cleanliness, we all know that's probably Pennzoil's only claim to fame besides the old sm Ultra. I believe as far as what facility was used, it was probably Southwest Research in Texas. Cheers.
Thank you.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
You obviously skipped over the point where I said the AMSOIL email was in my inbox today, and skipped to the point where you took it personally. My whole post was that their "factual information" without any actual "facts" is just hot air. I'm not calling the tech line because if they really wanted to convince people, they would share THAT information in their press releases.
Where are the lack of facts? Amsoil tells you what astm test was done and how much they beat their competitors by. Like Stevie says, they would get their yazoos sued to the nth degree if it weren't true. Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil? You also mentioned that SS oil doesn't have the same API constraints as major brand oils but as far as I know the API doesn't limit tbn levels. Also concerning cleanliness, we all know that's probably Pennzoil's only claim to fame besides the old sm Ultra. I believe as far as what facility was used, it was probably Southwest Research in Texas. Cheers.
Thank you.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
They have a line of API certified oils for folks like you that get all caught up in the oil having this.
This is true, but with the rebates that happen a lot over the year from Mobil and Pennzoil, I can get oil as good or better, for less. And if I deal with Walmart and spend $35 or more have it delivered to my house free. What's not to like?
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by BigShug681
My favorite argument for why people hate amsoil is the "they don't tell you what base stock they use" which suddenly makes them shady. Seems like a lot of folks trust valvolines fully synthetic claim but can't trust Amsoil's 100% synthetic...
No...
what I say is that by refusing the "cheap as dirt" API certification, amsoil therefore don't have to re-test when they change base-stocks...they can buy whatever they want, at the cheapest price, and sell their refusal as refusing to be "neutered"...a certificated oil HAS to abide by the base oil interchange rules...amsoil doesn't.
But the drinkers of the koolaid swallow it hook line and sinker.
They have a line of API certified oils for folks like you that get all caught up in the oil having this.
This is true, but with the rebates that happen a lot over the year from Mobil and Pennzoil, I can get oil as good or better, for less. And if I deal with Walmart and spend $35 or more have it delivered to my house free. What's not to like?
Originally Posted by buster
Yet another reason why I don't like Amsoil's marketing. Meanwhile Mobil is running numerous simulation and real world tests and performing tear down and ICP analysis.
Amsoil has a history of using silly marketing claims.
4-ball wear
TFOUT
Are among two.
Amsoil also does not officially meet d1G2 due to higher SA levels.
Also, for turbo testing, it's been determined that the Honda Hot Tube test was far more relevant to real world conditions than the TEOST which only tests new oil.
But hey, people have the right to choose whatever brand they want.
Here is a more realistic answer to TBN from Mobil in 2012:
"A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition.
As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil.
Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains.
We hope this information was both helpful and informative. Thanks again for reaching out, and for your continued support of Mobil 1."
They meet the Sulphated Ash content at 0.8. They also confirmed this via e-mail. As for the 4-ball wear test they aren't using this any longer as their standard testing and list all the ASTM testing they do but I guess you want to keep bringing this up along with other members like Shannow.
Yet another reason why I don't like Amsoil's marketing. Meanwhile Mobil is running numerous simulation and real world tests and performing tear down and ICP analysis.
Amsoil has a history of using silly marketing claims.
4-ball wear
TFOUT
Are among two.
Amsoil also does not officially meet d1G2 due to higher SA levels.
Also, for turbo testing, it's been determined that the Honda Hot Tube test was far more relevant to real world conditions than the TEOST which only tests new oil.
But hey, people have the right to choose whatever brand they want.
Here is a more realistic answer to TBN from Mobil in 2012:
"A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition.
As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil.
Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains.
We hope this information was both helpful and informative. Thanks again for reaching out, and for your continued support of Mobil 1."
They meet the Sulphated Ash content at 0.8. They also confirmed this via e-mail. As for the 4-ball wear test they aren't using this any longer as their standard testing and list all the ASTM testing they do but I guess you want to keep bringing this up along with other members like Shannow.
Similar threads
- Question
