HAVOLINE VS. MOTORCRAFT--AMSOIL TESTS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
652
Location
RHODE ISLAND
In comparing Havoline and Motorcraft oils in the Amsoil comparison testing, of the 7 tests conducted there were noticeable differences in only 3 of them. Havoline was better in the "Thin Film Oxygen uptake Test", and Motorcraft was better in the "Cold Cranking Viscosity" and "Four Ball Wear" tests. Which of these tests are more important and which oil would you choose based on these results? Thanks! (I currently use Havoline and was considering switching to Motorcraft but the results of the "Thin Film Oxygen Uptake Test" where Havoline did much better concern me)
dunno.gif
 
Found online via Google:

"The thin-film oxygen uptake test (TFOUT) is a laboratory bench test developed to measure the oxidation stability of lubricants. It was originally developed to monitor the batch to batch variation of re-refined lubricating basestocks under the Recycled Oil Program which was mandated by the U.S. Congress under RCRA."

"Cold cranking simulator viscosity simulates the viscosity of an oil in crankshaft bearings when trying to start during a cold winter morning. The test is important in determining if an engine can be cranked over fast enough, when very cold, to start. ASTM Method D 5293 simulates an oil's cranking resistance when cold, and thus indicates the lowest temperature at which an engine is likely to start."


I think most folks feel the "Four Ball Wear" test doesn't really apply well to motor oil, thus I personally wouldn't read much into those results unless it was the deciding factor in a tie-break situation when trying to decide between two otherwise equal oils.
 
Quote:


In comparing Havoline and Motorcraft oils in the Amsoil comparison testing, of the 7 tests conducted there were noticeable differences in only 3 of them. Havoline was better in the "Thin Film Oxygen uptake Test", and Motorcraft was better in the "Cold Cranking Viscosity" and "Four Ball Wear" tests. Which of these tests are more important and which oil would you choose based on these results? Thanks! (I currently use Havoline and was considering switching to Motorcraft but the results of the "Thin Film Oxygen Uptake Test" where Havoline did much better concern me)
dunno.gif





Havoline just came out with a new deposit-shield formula. There's no sense in debating the old oil formula. It'll be months before enough Havoline DS UOAs come here to BITOG for a thorough comparison to the old formula.
 
I have no reason to not believe the numbers are real. Standard ASTM tests were used that can be repeated by anyone. I see no other company doing comparison testing and no other company seems to dispute these numbers. If I were one of the companies whose products did not test well, I would run my own testing and if the results were incorrect, make it publicly known or take them to court. I think comparison testing like this is great, and if a company does not like how their products tested, they should work toward improving them. This would make these products even better than they are today. And hopefully keep product pricing in line with quality.
 
The main problem with Amsoil's tests are they didn't happen yesterday. IOW's oil companies can and do change their formulations - with some frequency.

As for the "sniffing crack" comment.....some people just like to give their opinions in cheesy sound quips. Usually folks who don't have much substance or proof to their little turds.
 
The test was from 2005 so it's pretty recent but I do understand that formulations change over time. But at that snapshot in time, does that single test that Havoline trumped Motorcraft on have major significance? They were pretty equal on 4 tests, Motorcraft was better on 2, and Havoline was better on the test in question. Since Motorcraft did better overall with the exception of this one test, I'm trying to find out if that test is an important one, important enough to stick with Havoline rather than switching to Motorcraft.
 
I've read that the test were conducted with oils purchased off store shelves without regard to their being "SM" or "SL" etc. as well as shelf-age. I think that may be the difference between say Motorcraft and TropArtic results in the test.

While i have every reason to believe Amsoil is a quality product, considering the test results and the price difference of say Amsoil and TropArtic, it's hard to justify the price of Amsoil, IMHO. I would not hesitate to use Amsoil, i just wouldn't pay for it considering the alternatives available.
 
Any manufacturers "test" is designed to put their product in the best light. If a given competitor bests them, the test won't be reported, or the test parameters would be changed. Why pay to advertise that you aren't the best?
 
I think the oil comparison test is just a start. To get the latest properties, you need to contact the oil company. Then compare a few you are interested in, compare warranties, and maybe call their tech line for info that seems to be missing. You also need to decide if you are going to be driving in extreme temperatures, or performing extended oil changes, and choose the oils with the best properties for those particulars.
 
Quote:


Any manufacturers "test" is designed to put their product in the best light. If a given competitor bests them, the test won't be reported, or the test parameters would be changed. Why pay to advertise that you aren't the best?




Huh? The original question was between two oils in a test by a 3rd oil supplier. Using your logic, why would Amsoil care which was better than the other?
 
Quote:


I'm trying to find out if that test is an important one, important enough to stick with Havoline rather than switching to Motorcraft.




Havoline has changed their formular recently, and not to mention both oils in the test were likely SL or earlier. Havoline and Motorcraft/TropArtic are both excellent oils, so you can use either with confidence.
 
Quote:


why would you trust amsoil to compare oils without bias? are you sniffing crack




This is an example of the decline in civil conversation that has been creeping into BITOG. Now,if you disagree with someone you are either stupid or on drugs. We can disagree without being crude if we try.
coffee.gif
 
API SM was put in effect November of 2004. The test results are dated June and August 2005. The Amsoil shows API SM. I think Mobil 1 EP and Pennzoil Platinum were only available as API SM. So I think the other oils were also likely SM. If they weren't and the SM's would give better numbers, I think the other manufacturers would cry foul. So far I believe they have been silent.
 
Quote:


...I think the other manufacturers would cry foul. ...




Maybe.. If they wanted to call attention to the advertisements. Most of the other manufacturers' customers have never seen those ads and a lot of them have probably never even heard of Amsoil. Why would a corporate giant want to give Amsoil any free publicity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top