quote:

Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Why was Amsoil still using PIB while the industry leaders where already using high-vis PAOs?

Because AMSOIL oils always worked as advertised and provided longer parts and labor warranty than any other oil.

Why were the industry leaders only still using petroleum conventional oils when AMSOIL introduced synthetic oils?

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

Mobil 1 is found in over 50% of Nascar.

Mobil 1 is factory fill in more high performance cars globally than any other motor oil.

Mobil 1 represents about 60% of the synlube market. Amsoil about 3% but growing.

Amsoil followed Mobil's lead in using PAO.

Amsoil doesn't officially license their oils.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-En...ctory_fill_home.aspx

quote:

Response to Amsoil Competitive Claims
What is your position/response to the 4 ball wear test Amsoil states on their website? Do you agree with the test results or are there other test results you could point me to. Thanks
-- Todd Blake, Andover, MN
Answer:
The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil. The 4-ball wear test is not included as a part of any industry-wide recognized engine oil specifications (e.g. ILSAC GF-4, API SM, or ACEA specifications). ExxonMobil does not regard this test as a useful indicator of engine oil performance.

quote:

Question:
Does Mobil 1 Extended Performance Result in More Engine Wear as Amsoil Claims?
Amsoil has recently published a study showing that using Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-30 results in more engine wear than even some conventional 5W-30 motor oils. Can this possibly be true? (It is printed on the back of EVERY bottle of Amsoil's new signature series 0W-30). I was under the impression that the extended performance line offered MORE anti-wear agents, not LESS, than the original formula Mobil 1. What is the truth of this matter? (Please be aware that I am a member of SEVERAL high performance forums (GM, LSX, CORVETTE, GTO, etc.), and that there are MANY members of these various forums that are waiting for the answer to this question. Your reply WILL be posted on all applicable forums, as well as your failure to reply if that is the case.)
-- Edwin Bae, Troy, NY
Answer:
That is a misleading claim. Some companies use meaningless bench tests to demonstrate superior performance. Although bench testing may be used in industry engine specifications, they are rarely used as the definitive discriminator for actual field performance. This is especially true of four ball testing, flash point, and other simple analytical measurements. The real proof of performance is done with rigorous engine and field testing. These tests are statistically controlled and are more representative of the performance you will see in your own vehicle. The specifications found on bottle labels document that the product has performed satisfactorily on these industry standard tests. Mobil 1 meets or exceeds those industry specifications. Mobil 1 is also Factory Fill for a wide variety of vehicles. You can also see more on how Mobil 1 Extended Performance performed in Las Vegas taxi fleets.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vipond:

quote:

Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Why was Amsoil still using PIB while the industry leaders where already using high-vis PAOs?

Because AMSOIL oils always worked as advertised and provided longer parts and labor warranty than any other oil.

Why were the industry leaders only still using petroleum conventional oils when AMSOIL introduced synthetic oils?

In my opinion, the real answer to Lamont's question is because Amsoil has not always led in motor oil chemistry. It's pretty simple.

So the answer to "why was Amsoil behind the curve on a significant technological improvement in synthetic oils" is: "what we're making works as advertized"?

But I thought Amsoil was all about advancing the technology? Is this an example of "it wasn't our idea, so no matter how much better is it, we're going to pretend it doesn't matter"?

So Amsoil developed the first automotive synthetic? That may or may not be true. It's certainly not relevant to the current market offering. The Wright Brothers invented the airplane and deserve their spot in history for that, but they've been out of the airframe business for a long time.

If we slavishly followed Edison, we'd have DC powerplants every few blocks. It was George Westinghouse's development of AC technology that made the electrification of society practical.

Even those examples give Amsoil a lot more credit than it deserves. Amsoil did not invent synthetic lubricants, they adapted existing synthetic technology to passenger car applications. They may have been among the first; I don't know and it really doesn't matter if they were. Given the frequency with which Tim spouts that assertion, it's become very questionable in my mind. He definitely seems to have a robotic form of that Bolshevik 'repeat the lie enough and it becomes the truth' thing going on.

The truth no one wants to admit is that none of these arguments matter because synthetics are overkill for the huge majority of automotive applications. This becomes slightly less true if you go with extended drain intervals, but how far do you really want to extend them?

In the last few years I finally relented (only at Ford's insistance) and went to a semi-syn with a 7500 OCI. The first time I changed the oil, only a gallon drained out of the initial 6 quarts. I'd lost 2 quarts to the vagaries of engine operation - you burn some, leak some, vaporize some and some engines are tighter than others - and somehow I'd brain-farted on the simple arithmetic that 1.5-2x the operation equals 1.5-2x the oil consumption. Now I buy an extra 2 quarts at each oil change to top up.

But I digress, as usual; the point is that an extended drain isn't always a plus. It's not for me, I'd rather get a look at what's coming out of my crankcase more than once a year. It might not all be oil. Then the stories get interesting & expensive. I prefer to head these things off at the pass in order to have the happiest unhappy ending possible, given the circumstances. And there are are ample opportunities where both my vehicle & I are idle and have nothing better to do at the time than an oil change.

Other people have different situations and priorities and make different choices that are right for them. But it's hard to make a serious technical case for extended drain intervals in most private passenger vehicle applications. Downtime is not an issue in that application. Private passenger vehicles typically have more downtime than operating time. Don't confuse 'I'm too lazy to change it' with 'I don't have time to change it.'

Of course, sometimes I sort of miss changing my plugs & distributor guts twice a year, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Buster:
Mobil 1 is found in over 50% of Nascar.

It is a special formula by Exxon. Not the Mobil 1 you buy off the shelf.

quote:

Mobil 1 is factory fill in more high performance cars globally than any other motor oil.

So? Mobil 1 is available internationally. It doesn't mean it is the best.

quote:

Mobil 1 represents about 60% of the synlube market. Amsoil about 3% but growing.

Yes, international mega giant outsells American family owned AMSOIL. This surprises you? Of course, Mobil 1 is losing market share and Amsoil is increasing market share.

quote:

Amsoil followed Mobil's lead in using PAO.

So? Mobil followed AMSOIL's lead or trying to in the following:
The Company of Firsts
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.
See Product Introduction Chronology

quote:

Amsoil doesn't officially license their oils.

Wrong. AMSOIL officially licenses their XL5W20, XL5w30, XL10w30, XL10w40 and their 15W50 synthetic blend diesel oil. Mobil 1 doesn't officially license all their oils either. I can't think of a company that does.

quote:

Response to Amsoil Competitive Claims
What is your position/response to the 4 ball wear test Amsoil states on their website? Do you agree with the test results or are there other test results you could point me to. Thanks
-- Todd Blake, Andover, MN
Answer:
The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil. The 4-ball wear test is not included as a part of any industry-wide recognized engine oil specifications (e.g. ILSAC GF-4, API SM, or ACEA specifications). ExxonMobil does not regard this test as a useful indicator of engine oil performance.

First of all, the ASTM method AMSOIL uses is for engine oils, not gear oils. ExxonMobil also uses this test when they formulate their oils as do most other oil companies. But they don't publicly publish the data. Also, Castrol and Valvoline showed they provided 4X and 8X less wear than Mobil 1, which correlates with AMSOIL's 4 ball wear test. And since Exxon only recognizes the 4-ball wear test for gear oils, let the record show that Mobil 1 Gear Oil tested 7.4% more wear than AMSOIL Gear Oil.

quote:

Question:
Does Mobil 1 Extended Performance Result in More Engine Wear as Amsoil Claims?
Amsoil has recently published a study showing that using Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-30 results in more engine wear than even some conventional 5W-30 motor oils. Can this possibly be true? (It is printed on the back of EVERY bottle of Amsoil's new signature series 0W-30). I was under the impression that the extended performance line offered MORE anti-wear agents, not LESS, than the original formula Mobil 1. What is the truth of this matter? (Please be aware that I am a member of SEVERAL high performance forums (GM, LSX, CORVETTE, GTO, etc.), and that there are MANY members of these various forums that are waiting for the answer to this question. Your reply WILL be posted on all applicable forums, as well as your failure to reply if that is the case.)
-- Edwin Bae, Troy, NY
Answer:
That is a misleading claim. Some companies use meaningless bench tests to demonstrate superior performance. Although bench testing may be used in industry engine specifications, they are rarely used as the definitive discriminator for actual field performance. This is especially true of four ball testing, flash point, and other simple analytical measurements. The real proof of performance is done with rigorous engine and field testing. These tests are statistically controlled and are more representative of the performance you will see in your own vehicle. The specifications found on bottle labels document that the product has performed satisfactorily on these industry standard tests. Mobil 1 meets or exceeds those industry specifications. Mobil 1 is also Factory Fill for a wide variety of vehicles. You can also see more on how Mobil 1 Extended Performance performed in Las Vegas taxi fleets.

It seems it wasn't misleading at all. As BP/Castrol and Ashland/Valvoline showed 4X and 8X less wear than Mobil 1.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Buster:

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vipond:

quote:

Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Why was Amsoil still using PIB while the industry leaders where already using high-vis PAOs?

Because AMSOIL oils always worked as advertised and provided longer parts and labor warranty than any other oil.

Why were the industry leaders only still using petroleum conventional oils when AMSOIL introduced synthetic oils?

In my opinion, the real answer to Lamont's question is because Amsoil has not always led in motor oil chemistry. It's pretty simple.

Reread the list of synthetic oil firsts that AMSOIL has. AMSOIL has always outperformed the competition and backed it with longer warranted oil change intervals than the competition. I can't believe you would base your statement on 1 component of a motor oil. Maybe you need to take a course in motor oil chemistry! AMSOIL has always lead, the others have always followed.

Why did Amsoil miss the boat when the industry leaders went from diesters to hydrocarbon cosolvents?

Tim has multiple choices here:
A) "Amsoil WAS first" - demonstrably untrue, but I wouldn't put it past him.
B) Blather on about other alleged and completely irrelevant Amsoil 'firsts'.
C) Completely ignore this post
D) None of the above

I'd avoid picking 'D' myself. I've got to assume that if Robo-Timmy had another pitch, he'd have thrown it by now.

Ah, the 4-Ball:
There are lots of tests you can run using a Falex-style 4-Ball machine. True, some are more useful when formulating gear oils while others are aimed more at engine oils. The important aspect of all of them is that they are all SCREENERS. Obviously the more candidate formulations you look at, the better chance you have of optimizing your product. But it's very costly to run the full spectrum of tests on every candidate. So you find a bunch of quick & dirty screening tests, like the 4-Ball. Passing this test doesn't mean the candidate is great, but failing it does mean the candidate is crap. Tests like the 4-Ball are not used to show superiority, but to thin the herd before we go on to the testing that costs real money.

So, if an oil is marketed on the basis of its 4-Ball results, you have to wonder why. Do they think this test means something that it doesn't? Do they lack the budget to run the more meaningful wear tests? Do they have nice, impressive (if you didn't understand the test) 4-Ball numbers, but only so-so results in the more meaningful tests?

Why would you go to market beating the drum over a screening test, unless that's all you have?

I'm still waiting for someone to post:

a) proof on the statement about PIB's and Amsoil
b) proof that the small amount Amsoil may have used actually caused a problem
c) proof that charging out and using the first chemical oil enhancer to hit the market is always a good thing
d) proof that Amsoil did a bad thing by more slowly taking up use of the HMW PAO's, than the couple other companies, given the disadvantages of PAO's
e) evidence that this long thread is any different than those on BITOG by Amsoil haters

quote:

Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Why did Amsoil miss the boat when the industry leaders went from diesters to hydrocarbon cosolvents?

Why did the industry "leaders" miss the boat from petroleum conventional oils to chemical synthetic oils?

Why do the industry "leaders" miss the boat still promoting 3-4 thousand mile oil change warranties, when AMSOIL has promoted 25,000 mile oil change warranties for 38 years?

quote:

Ah, the 4-Ball:
There are lots of tests you can run using a Falex-style 4-Ball machine. True, some are more useful when formulating gear oils while others are aimed more at engine oils. The important aspect of all of them is that they are all SCREENERS. Obviously the more candidate formulations you look at, the better chance you have of optimizing your product. But it's very costly to run the full spectrum of tests on every candidate. So you find a bunch of quick & dirty screening tests, like the 4-Ball. Passing this test doesn't mean the candidate is great, but failing it does mean the candidate is crap. Tests like the 4-Ball are not used to show superiority, but to thin the herd before we go on to the testing that costs real money.

So, if an oil is marketed on the basis of its 4-Ball results, you have to wonder why. Do they think this test means something that it doesn't? Do they lack the budget to run the more meaningful wear tests? Do they have nice, impressive (if you didn't understand the test) 4-Ball numbers, but only so-so results in the more meaningful tests?

Why would you go to market beating the drum over a screening test, unless that's all you have?

It is hardly all they have. The 4 ball wear test is only 1 test AMSOIL runs. First you have all the API certification tests on the XL series and the diesel blend oil, and the other oils all exceed the API tests. Second you have more typical properties listed for their products than the industry "leaders" (followers). Third, you have the AMSOIL white papers that compare multiple tests with the "leaders" (followers). Fourth, you have the longest oil change recommendations/warranties in the industry.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Pablo:
I'm still waiting for someone to post:

e) evidence that this long thread is any different than those on BITOG by Amsoil haters

6 pages and 1 rational thought.

One last time:

quote:

45. Compared to Pennzoil Platinum®, how does Pennzoil Ultra™ do in the 4-ball wear test (better, worse, or about the same?)

The 4-ball wear test has no correlation with wear performance in an actual engine. It was developed to test industrial oil performance for roller bearings under extreme load. The test repeatability is very poor. However given the above then for an equivalent viscosity grade and anti-wear package (Industry specification controlled), then the performance can be expected to be equivalent.

quote:

However given the above then for an equivalent viscosity grade and anti-wear package (Industry specification controlled), then the performance can be expected to be equivalent.

That's just hilarious. The test is ****, but we would do just as good!! Pennzoil marketing hype.

Marketing hype? The marketing hype is coming from Amsoil, not Pennzoil. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Buster:
Marketing hype? The marketing hype is coming from Amsoil, not Pennzoil. LOL

So how do you interpret that last sentence? You seem to be the guy not reading carefully lately, if I remember correctly.

I take it as they are saying PP = PU on the 4-ball wear test, but it doesn't matter because it has poor correlation to an actual engine.

But of course you will disagree with that.

No disagreement really - just funny you must admit. They say the test is useless, but.....the two oils would be the same.....hmm....

I hear you.