Anyone running this oil?

I have a few thousand on it in my 850. First time I've actually used a 0W-30 in this engine. So far consumption is nil and engine is smooth and revs nice.

Curious - why do you call SSO ashless?

Probably because thats what Amsoil says.

quote:

Proprietary, non-metallic (ashless) anti-wear additives deliver unmatched protection.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeR:
Probably because thats what Amsoil says.

quote:

Proprietary, non-metallic (ashless) anti-wear additives deliver unmatched protection.

I looked at the bottle and didn't see that statement.It's not on the web product page nor the data sheet that I can see. I know the oil isn't completely ashless, but does contain some new ashless AW & FM adds.

So I went looking for that statement and I found it in the October press release and basically verified that I am correct.

quote:

Supplemented with a proprietary ashless antiwear system for improved heat and viscosity control and boasting a 10 percent increase in TBN (13.2)...

"Supplemented" being the key word. The oil is not ashless. Where did you find that statement? Better tell Amsoil.

Came from Amsoil info

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MikeR,

I guess they (and buster) are saying it "contains" ashless AW additives. Yes, I did see that in the Fall sales meeting stuff.

I was just curious. Looks like it will be a very good oil.

I missundertook your thread title, I though you were saying it's a truly (fully) ashless antiwear add pack. So I'm saying it isn't but does have some new ashless AW additives as Amsoil clearly says.

Yes - it'll be great to see this oil studied and used.

quote:

Originally posted by Buster:
Anyone running this oil?

I run it 15,000 mile OCI in my 1993 Ford E350 Allegro Bay motorhome, 1 year OCI in my 1997 Chevy Venture minivan, 1 year OCI in my 2006 Honda Civic Si I-vtec, 1 year OCI in my self propelled lawnmower and Onan generator. Works great! Everything uses the same oil and just changing once a year is what I want.

Oh Boy, I'm gonna buy a motor oil solely on the basis of the 4-Ball Wear test, NOT!

While not quite the dartboard analysis that the 4-Ball EP is, it's still got a lot of variability. It also doesn't accurately simulate any of the types of contact found in an automotve engine. I don't have a copy of the method handy, but I'd guess that based on the precision data, the five results in the middle would be defined as "the same number" for the purposes of this test. Certainly the middle three are.

Then we have to ask about Amsoil's data handling guidelines. How many runs are these based on? Were all replicate results within method repeatability averaged to produce an assigned test value (ATV)? Or were the results cherry-picked? It just seems so, um, convenient that Amsoil's product reports a significantly lower number while Amsoil's #1 target/competitor reports a significantly higher result, with everyone else cheek-by-jowl in the middle of the pack.

Since most Amsoil engine oil formulations tend to look like reverse engineered versions of older Mobil 1 formulations, are we to believe that ExxonMobil has been spending its enormous resources to produce lower quality iterations of their premier product?

As for ashless antiwear additives, they are about as brand-new and revolutionary as television. Historically, they have been primarily used in industrial applications. I'm not sure what they bring to the table in an engine oil formulation. While technically "non-metallic", they still contain phosphorus, the metal that the GF-3,4 & 5 standards are working to reduce to extend the life of your cataclysmic perverter.

Zinc thiophosphates provide dual benefits, antiwear and antioxidant. My understanding is that the non-zinc thiophosphates don't provide the same level of antioxidant protection.

Of course, you can put in a tiny pinch of ashless AW, promote it disproportionately to its content and claim to be "green", since the used oil will contain a coupla-three fewer ppm of zinc when disposed of.

In my experience, Amsoil makes a lot of noise about stuff of minimal importance to differentiate their products. I find these data more suspicious than compelling.

Why do AMSOIL products consistently outperform the competition in standard ASTM independent oil tests, high mileage UOA's and engine tear downs?

AMSOIL has always said they make the best oils by using the best base oils and additive packages. NONE of the competitors have EVER disputed the data (they would if they could, but can't so they won't), nor said they make an equal or better product than AMSOIL.

Why is that? They have to make the best. AMSOIL recommends and warranties longer oil change intervals than any other oil company. Up to 35,000 miles for gasoline engines, and up to 50,000 miles in diesel engines (and of course longer if supported by UOA as many customers do). Compare that to the 4,000 mile warranties of other oils. AMSOIL has to make the best oil in order to do this. They not only make the claim, but have the data to support it. None of the other oils have disputed this in 38 years.

AMSOIL was granted the trademark "The First in Synthetics" when no other oil company would challenge they made an equal or better oil.

"I find these data more suspicious than compelling." Actually if you look at all the undisputed independent data, I find it more compelling and above suspicion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tim Vipond,

I've looked at tearaparts; unlike bench test data, they can't be fudged or manipulated.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
I've looked at tearaparts; unlike bench test data, they can't be fudged or manipulated.

Yep. Me too. So has AMSOIL for over 38 years.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tim Vipond,

Prior to GF-4/API SM, Amsoil was still using Mg in their passenger car motor oils, while Mobil and others switched over to higher Ca and boron. Basically the majors were using a more advanced, modern additive chemistry. Amsoil oils also had oxidation issues. Their oils have changed since then. I haven't really seen anything "state of the art" with Amsoil.

The 4-ball wear test is meaningless from all the research I've done. If it was of importance, the larger companies would use it.

I want my oil tested in an engine.

Tim, there is no Holy Grail of motor oils. Since synthetics seem to be a growing market, a lot of the companies are now offering pretty good synthetic oils. Amsoil is a good oil, but over-hyped by many.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buster,

quote:

In my experience, Amsoil makes a lot of noise about stuff of minimal importance to differentiate their products. I find these data more suspicious than compelling.

Yes. Like the bath of sludge that Pennzoil shows you as you pass by the drive-thru ordering area. The shredder that your paper engine passes through and then magically reforms on the other side. The "90% of all wear occurs at start up" that Castrol allows you to mistake for the first few seconds instead of the SAE defined "non-steady state" that's about 20 minutes.

Marketing, my friend. Why you hold Amsoil to some standard that no blender maintains is the real question. I'd say that they're way down on the sensationalism that the rest of the market flaunts around liberally.

Tim - I know Amsoil looks at tearaparts; that's why at any given moment their oil looks a whole lot like an older formulation of Mobil 1.

Buster - Large companies DO use the 4-Ball, but they use it primarily to test industrials where you see a lot more rolling element bearings. The 4-Ball Wear is supposed to simulate worst-case scenario (skidding) wear in that sort of bearing.

GeeAea - I'vge been wondering when the FTC is going to come down on Pennzoil for the sludge ads - those have infuriated me since I first saw them. I just laugh at the one that brags about using shear-stable VI improver. It's not a lie, it's just the usual big noise about something everyone else has had for years. Sort of like Shell's recent gasoline ads touting their super-secret-high-tech nitrogen "enrichment". Wow, amine-based fuel detergent technology, who woulda thunk it? Only every other supplier of fuel in the US, where the use of such detergents is required by the Clean Air Act.

Right, I should have been more specific. I see the 4-ball wear test being used for grease and industrial applications as you stated.

quote:

Originally posted by Buster:
I haven't really seen anything "state of the art" with Amsoil.

Most of AMSOIL's products are "state of the art".
AMSOIL has a documented history of innovation and leadership.

First to develop an API-rated 100 percent synthetic motor oil.
First to introduce the concept of "extended drain intervals" with a recommended 25,000-mile/1-year drain interval.
First U.S. company to utilize the NOACK volatility test as a standard of performance excellence.
First to produce synthetic motor oils for diesel engines, racing engines, turbo and marine engines.
First to introduce synthetic oils that legitimately contribute to improving fuel efficiency.
First to manufacture synthetic gear lube for automotive use.
First to manufacture a 100:1 pre-mix synthetic 2-cycle oil.
First to manufacture a synthetic automatic transmission fluid for automotive use.

quote:

The 4-ball wear test is meaningless from all the research I've done. If it was of importance, the larger companies would use it.

The larger companies do use it. Mostly for testing new formulations. The military also uses it for testing engine oils. All things being equal, I'd rather have an oil that performs well in this sliding contact test than one that tests poorly.

quote:

Tim, there is no Holy Grail of motor oils. Since synthetics seem to be a growing market, a lot of the companies are now offering pretty good synthetic oils. Amsoil is a good oil, but over-hyped by many.

What hype? I see mostly undisputed claims backed by undisputed tests and the best warranties.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tim Vipond,

Tim - You left out another Amsoil innovation - first to use paid shills to promote their product on internet message boards relying solely on fabulous but unsupported assertions and anecdotal 'data'.

quote:

First to develop an API-rated 100 percent synthetic motor oil.
First to introduce the concept of "extended drain intervals" with a recommended 25,000-mile/1-year drain interval.
First U.S. company to utilize the NOACK volatility test as a standard of performance excellence.

An "API-rated 100% synthetic"? That would be impressive if it weren't meaningless. I've been in an around the lube formulation business for 35 years, yet I never knew such a category existed. I really need to get out more.

First to recommend extended drain intervals? I seem to remember stories of Mobil buying a lot of engines back in the 70's when they made that claim before the technology was mature enough.

After I re-read your comment about the D5800, I realized it wasn't the patently absurb claim it appeared to be, but a marginally well-worded weasel-phrase. Stay on the path, Grasshopper and ye shall come to know the Way of the Weasel. If you ever get good I may have to show you our gang sign.

You can make all of the wild claims you want. I'd prefer to get my information from the molecules. Here are some of the things they told me:
Amsoil was still using diesters for cosolvents while the industry leaders had already adopted hydrocarbon cosolvents.
Amsoil was still using PIB as a thickener while the industry leaders had already adopted high-viscosity PAOs
Since PIB doesn't have the same high VI as PAO, their VI improver levels were much higher than the industry leaders as a result.

Yes, plastic and plastic-compounding components (PIB, the copolymers used for VI improvers and diesters) are synthetic. Big deal, so are cubic zirconia. There are better ways to achieve the same goals these days, why doesn't Amsoil use those?

When your "technology" is based on reverse-engineering the formulations of the real innovators, you're going to lag by definition. While ExxonMobil and BP are working on the next iterations of Mobil 1 and Castrol Syntec, Amsoil is working on the last version of Mobil 1 and Castrol Syntec.

But Amsoil won't pay you to say that. No one pays me to serve as a gadfly here, it's just own amusement. I may have some of my facts wrong or I may have drawn invalid conclusions from valid facts, but you can rely on one fact for certain - any mistakes I've made are honest ones.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Tim - You left out another Amsoil innovation - first to use paid shills to promote their product on internet message boards relying solely on fabulous but unsupported assertions and anecdotal 'data'.

Do you have proof? AMSOIL doesn't pay any "shills". What unsupported assertions and anecdotal data does AMSOIL rely solely on? Seems to me they rely on making the best oils, superior independent ASTM test results, more extended used oil analyses than any other synthetic oil, field tests and engine tear downs. And working very close with Lubrizol (who supplies additive packages for several oil companies)and purchasing their best additive packages. And purchasing the best CHEMICAL synthetic base oils.

quote:

First to develop an API-rated 100 percent synthetic motor oil.
First to introduce the concept of "extended drain intervals" with a recommended 25,000-mile/1-year drain interval.
First U.S. company to utilize the NOACK volatility test as a standard of performance excellence.

quote:

An "API-rated 100% synthetic"? That would be impressive if it weren't meaningless. I've been in an around the lube formulation business for 35 years, yet I never knew such a category existed. I really need to get out more.

Hardly meaningless. AMSOIL was the first synthetic oil to meet API specifications, thus was granted the trademark "The First in Synthetics". Since you were not around the lube formulation business in 1972, you did not realize API did not certify oils back then. Only that they were rated by API. And that only AMSOIL met that rating for synthetic oils. And I thought your qualifications were "I am a failed rock musician with absolutely no academic qualifications regarding lubrication." By comparison, I am a retired Shell Oil scientist after 28 years of service and have run my own oil business for the past 6. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your lube formulation qualifications?

quote:

First to recommend extended drain intervals? I seem to remember stories of Mobil buying a lot of engines back in the 70's when they made that claim before the technology was mature enough.

AMSOIL was the first. Mobil came out with their extended oil change interval years later. It didn't work out for Mobil, but it did for AMSOIL.

quote:

You can make all of the wild claims you want. I'd prefer to get my information from the molecules. Here are some of the things they told me:
Amsoil was still using diesters for cosolvents while the industry leaders had already adopted hydrocarbon cosolvents.
Amsoil was still using PIB as a thickener while the industry leaders had already adopted high-viscosity PAOs
Since PIB doesn't have the same high VI as PAO, their VI improver levels were much higher than the industry leaders as a result.

What wild claims are you talking about? Everything I've said has been proven. If the others have superior technology, why didn't their oils perform as well, last as long and have better warranties than AMSOIL?

quote:

When your "technology" is based on reverse-engineering the formulations of the real innovators, you're going to lag by definition. While ExxonMobil and BP are working on the next iterations of Mobil 1 and Castrol Syntec, Amsoil is working on the last version of Mobil 1 and Castrol Syntec.

But Amsoil won't pay you to say that. No one pays me to serve as a gadfly here, it's just own amusement. I may have some of my facts wrong or I may have drawn invalid conclusions from valid facts, but you can rely on one fact for certain - any mistakes I've made are honest ones.

Since AMSOIL is the leader in synthetics and has many of the firsts in synthetics, how can you say they reverse engineer? Why would they want to copy oils that have never have and don't outperform AMSOIL? AMSOIL leads, the others follow. That has been the way for the past 38 years. And AMSOIL doesn't pay me to say anything. I just like to provide the facts. And you can drop the insults and stick to the facts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tim Vipond,