GC, 0w-30 ...Perhaps I should have known?

[Bryanccfshr]

"They had the 0w-30 M1 at 1.60. Do you really think it's that much worse at protecting your engine compared to the 5w-30 .67mm M1? "

Nope, I don't see how this bench test applies to anything but wheel bearings. According to this test Amsoil would make the better wheel bearing lubricant.
Didn't we just have a thread about not reading to much into empirical numbers in a UOA and judging oils by this??

 

[buster]

And how do you explain Mobil Drive Clean and Quaker State out performing Mobil 1 in Amsoil's 4-Ball wear comparison?

Makes no sense. I personally think this test is meaningless, but I wish it weren't bc it would make chosing an oil very easy.

 

[bulwnkl]

Has anyone here ever seen how well Preparation-H performs in a 4-ball wear test? No, I'm not kidding. Many years ago that was done around at least SE Washington at various tractor & implement dealerships (by Schaeffer, perhaps? Or was it their competition?) to point out how meaningless any particular test is in evaluating an oil. Preparation-H will absolutely smoke the best engine oil out there in a 4-ball-type wear test (well, okay, it would then. Maybe not anymore), but no one would consider replacing their engine oil with it.

Amsoil may perform well, but there's absolutely no way to tell that from their bogus "tests."

 

[BlazerLT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by haley10:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlazerLT:
The increase wear doesn't surprise me seeing the M1 is a thin 30 weight.

---

The Castrol Syntec referred too is also equally very thin. Maybe even thinner, much like Pennzoil, but the wear #'s speak for themselves. Look for a low 30 wt. or high 20 wt. @ a reasonable oci.

---

Please do some research, saying syntec 10w30 and M1 5w30 have the same viscosities is just plain wrong.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Yes I realize this isn't the GC, 0w-30 formulation - it's the Group III based, garden variety Castrol Syntec. However, oil manufacturers generally use the same type of AW additive package for their gas engine oils, and the same type of additive package for their diesel oils.

---

I will tend to agree with you on this one. After reviewing several VOAs and UOAs, the add packs do seem fairly similar to my novice eye.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
For all practical purposes, the GC 0w-30 and the Amsoil 5w-30 generate comparable results in this analog test.

---

If the add packs are similar as you've stated above (and it seems that this is true) then the leap from Group III to GC to Amsoil 5w-30 isn't big at all. The UOAs on GroupIII Syntec provide results that are quite good! So do the other 2 oils. Hmmm. Maybe Ted is onto something deeper here...

 

[glxpassat]

I still don't know what the point of this thread is.

Tooslick raised the question in the title, "Perhaps I should have known?"

Known what?

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by glxpassat:
I still don't know what the point of this thread is.

Tooslick raised the question in the title, "Perhaps I should have known?"

Known what?

---

TS will need to answer that himself. But by my measurement, the answer is "GC is as good as Amsoil 5w-30". Quite objective for an Amsoil rep IMO.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Should have known not to start such a useless thread?

Seriously, us oil people are not a very objective lot.

 

[MolaKule]

Check out my data on this thread:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000277;p=2

and please notice the data from the ASTM test itself:

quote:

---

The ASTM 2174 test can identify wear scars down to approx. 0.05 mm, depending on the quality of your microscope.

Just for comparison, here is part of the table in the Addendum of 2174 showing various average wear scars from across the spectrum for a 40kg load and 75 C:

1. 40 cSt (SAE 20 weight) pure mineral oil 0.73 mm

2. #1 above plus 1% ZDTP 0.52 mm

3. #1 above plus 2 % S-P 0.35 mm.

---

Point is, by adding a bit of AW additive to mineral oil, you can get wear scars better than or equal to Amsoil's claims.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

If I were keeping my engines beyond 300K or getting into super-long OCIs.. those numbers may be a concern.

I am a first & last vehicle buyer. I buy em' from the dealer & drive them to the junkyard years later... still running after multi-hundred K's ... but usually rusted-out.

Not one of these vehicles has ever seen Amsoil & my wallet thanks me for being a smart. thrifty shopper. If you are planning on keeping your vehicle 500K, this test is important to you.... then Amsoil is for you.

 

[glxpassat]

quote:

---

TS will need to answer that himself. But by my measurement, the answer is "GC is as good as Amsoil 5w-30". Quite objective for an Amsoil rep IMO.

---

Well, the problem I have with this is that the test data he showed was using Syntec 10w-30, not GC. As Patman clearly pointed out the additive pack between the two are different. And why even bring GC into the disscussion? Why not let Syntec 10w-30 stand on it's own two feet when making the comparison? Why would an Amsoil salesman start a thread to show how well Syntec compares to Amsoil? To me what's going on is slick (or maybe tooslick) marketing. Trying to make people believe GC is almost as good as Amsoil hides the chance that GC might even be better, and at a lower price to boot! Smoke and mirrors...

[ March 10, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: glxpassat ]

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Yes I realize this isn't the GC, 0w-30 formulation - it's the Group III based, garden variety Castrol Syntec. However, oil manufacturers generally use the same type of AW additive package for their gas engine oils, and the same type of additive package for their diesel oils.

---

But in the case of GC 0w30 vs Syntec 10w30 and the rest of the US made stuff, it's like comparing apples to oranges, because nothing about the German stuff is similar to the US stuff at all, the additive packs are totally different. The US stuff has moly, the German stuff does not. The German stuff has tons more calcium. Some also think the German stuff might have more unique stuff in it like Antimony, stuff not normally read in most analysis reports.

It's nice to know you finally can admit GC is good stuff though Ted.

 

[SMILEY]

Why is there just one thread for GC??? That just seems ridiculous to me. How many threads have we seen about M1 or Chevron Supreme or Amsoil?

This makes it harder to find specific information on GC as now I have to read through 75+ posts as opposed to using the search function to find a specific topic related to GC.

I always like to add that "I may be missing something" when I go on a rant as I dont always know better.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Point is, by adding a bit of AW additive to mineral oil, you can get wear scars better than or equal to Amsoil's claims

---

This is also exactly what RL's chemist told me. He knocked the idea that this test had any relevancy to real world conditions. Mobil states the same. Oh BTW, Roy Howell worked for Lubrizol and probably designed many of the additives Amsoil uses.

 

[LVHospiceRN]

New member here, let me share a couple of opinions if i may...

1. Fantastic site, think everyone realizes this, everything, plus much more, about lubes than anyone has a right to know!

2. Moderators have all been helpful, especially "RugerMan1". I say that, HATING rugers...lol

3. I realize the site cost money to run, i intend on becoming a contributor NLT end of the month. BUT if there is a downside, it seems like half the membership is selling AMSOIL!

I realize, business, profit, etc, but while i never used amsoil i fully intend NOT to because of the not-so-low-key advertising. Gonna try GC i think. Which brings up this thread...its NOT a veiled commercial for amsoil, but a BLATANT one...

TooSlick has posted tons of stuff that was very useful...commercials i can do without, especially when they talk about GC...the elvesj are gonna be upset...

just IMHO
darrell
sin city

 

[Blue99]

quote:

---

Originally posted by haley10:

The Castrol Syntec referred too is also equally very thin. Maybe even thinner, much like Pennzoil, but the wear #'s speak for themselves. Look for a low 30 wt. or high 20 wt. @ a reasonable oci.

---

Haley, as usual, is pretty reliable with his info, and is making an accurate statement about the Syntec 10W-30 viscosity being thin for a 30 weight.

Per the GF-4 Castrol Syntec Data Sheet

Syntec 10W-30: 10.1 cSt @ 100C

And the SL data for M1 5W-30: 10.0 cSt @ 100C

 

[TooSlick]

The idea I was trying to disparage Mobils' synthetic lubes is just silly. I've continually recommended Delvac 1 as a world class product to anyone who will listen. The idea of including Mobil 1 was to show that the GC, 0w-30 compares favorably to competitive products. I'm sure if I had done this without listing Amsoil I would have been accussed of slamming Mobil 1 anyway.

What I was trying to point out is that this analog test DOES support the imperical data we've seen in the GC oil analysis results. That is to say that it provides excellent valvetrain and ring/cylinder protection, ie very low iron levels. That was really the main point of the message. These test results have been posted on this Forum in the past, so they are hardly news....

I wanted to add, if anyone is interested, I can have the ASTM D-4172 test run on any formulation you want, including the GC, 0w-30. It costs $60.00 to have this done through Oil Analyzers, Inc. All they need is a 4 ounce sample of clean oil. I may go ahead and pay for this myself just to satisfy my curiousity. I'm sure it will test out very well. It could even be sent in without identifying what oil it is to satisfy the more paranoid listers who think these tests are somehow rigged.

I'm sure Amsoil will publish ASTM D-4172 test results of the new Mobil 1, EP formulations and how they compare to competitive oils, including Castrol Syntec, Valvoline Durablend, Amsoil, etc.

That should be good for another lively discussion.

TS

 

[Shannow]

TooSlick,
just so I've got my ducks in a row.

The 4 ball wear test is really only a test of the additives, and it is representative of real world conditions inside an engine.

Why do we need synthetics, and not just additives ?

 

[TooSlick]

The main advantage of synthetic basestocks is that they are more resistant to thermal and oxidative degradation. So the additive package isn't depleted as rapidly and the formulations are more suitable for long change intervals and very high/low temp use. For example, petroleum oils use additives called Pour Point Depressants/PPD's to enable them to flow better at low temps. These additives tend to lose their effectiveness over time. The PAO based synlubes don't require PPD's at all, so they maintain their ability to pump at low temps even over long change intervals....

A petroleum oil with a robust add pack can outperform a PAO/Ester or GP-III based synthetic with a poor add pack in terms of wear rates - at least over short change intervals. I think you've noticed that in some of the UOA's. The synthetics will consistently do better in terms of minimizing high temp deposits, due to their greater stability and reduced levels of polymeric thickeners.

Analog tests are useful, provided you understand the limitations of the specific test. I've thought about this one ever since I first looked at the physics of the test setup many years ago. I think it's useful within the constraints I've noted above. But it's no substitute for field testing or even engine sequence testing.

TS

 

[Shannow]

Thanks