Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Amsoil SSO 0w-30 VOA
JHZR2 Offline


Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 13728
Loc: Collingswood, NJ
Amsoil Signature Series SSO 0w-30
UOA by Oil Analyzers, Inc. (Seemingly Amsoil's own UOA lab).

Code:

Element Conc(ppm)
-------------------------
Al 0
Cr 0
Fe 1
Cu 0
Pb 0
Sn 0
Mo 0
Ni 0
Mn 0
Ag 0
Ti 0
K 0
B 15
Si 3
Na 4
Ca 3943
Mg 23
P 961
Zn 1183
Ba 0
-------------------------

cSt @ 100C 10.13
Insol % 0
TBN 10.83



JMH


BEAR moly is not cheap, at the end of the qtr its all about the bottom line.

AD
Yeh if my cars were new to avoid ANY questions I would follow what was set forth in the warranty requirements. That for me is a no brainer.

As I have mentioned before their is a mountain of data that can back up Amsoil's claims as to how good the oil is.

Any issue I have with Amsoil is with the way it's promoted. I just feel that a quality product sells itself. You don't see Redline employees on these boards. But again the Amsoil reps are not employees, I would assume they're termed contractors.
This is my first VOA.

Oil: Mobil 1 5w30 0 miles

Analysis was done by Toromont Caterpillar ($CDN 20 including tax and shipping).

Iron 1
Chrome 0
Moly 93
Aluminum 0
Copper 0
Lead 0
Tin 2
Titanium 0
Nickel 0
Silver 0
Silicon 6
Sodium 7
Potassium 3
Zinc 700
Magnesium 8
Phosphorus 689
Barium 0

Soot UFM # 0
Sulfur UFM # 18
Oxidation UFM # 15
Nitrates UFM # 8

Viscosity cSt at 100C 11.4
TBN 8.5
TAN 0.4

Antifreeze negligible
Fuel Dilution negligible
Water negligible
_________________________
2010 Honda Fit, 4,400 km, still on factory fill
2001 Subaru Outback, 225,000 km, Mobil 1 5w30
1984 Porsche 911, 125,000 miles, Mobil 1 V-Twin 20w50


Mobil 1, checkout that Moly

I have a few quarts of Amsoil 100% synthetic 5W-30 and 10W-30 oil, maybe I should get a VOA done.

It looks like Amsoil is charging premium price for an oil that does not have premium ingredients.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
I do not care what Amsoil was 1st in, that was yesterday, today just about all of the Group III Oil's are as good or better than Amsoil.



Then, why do the Group III's varnish/sludge when they are "cooked",and the group IV's do not. The group III's also are more volatile and use more additives and less actual oil per-volume,therefore by default...lubricate less.

The group III oils can not compete at present with group IV. If the oil companies were to refine the group II's to "death",then you would have an argument,however,that would make them cost prohibitive.


"""""today just about all of the Group III Oil's are as good or better than Amsoil."""""[/quote]

Was that a joke,or a cheap shot???
Amsoil 20W50 Motorcycle Oil
hk33ka1 Offline


Registered: 12/01/02
Posts: 228
Loc: Ontario
Here are the virgin sample results for this oil from Blackstone Labs.

Aluminum 0
Chromium 0
Iron 1
Copper 0
Lead 0
Tin 0
Moly 0
Nickel 0
Manganese 0
Silver 0
Titanium 0
Potassium 0
Boron 0
Silicon 5
Sodium 2
Calcium 3852
Magnesium 9
Phosphorus 946
Zinc 1031
Barium 0

TBN 17
Flashpoint F430
Fuel 0
Water 0
Antifreeze 0
SUS Visc @ 210F 92.7

Even Amsoil's Motorcycle Oil has NO MOLY
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
Big bear Quoted...

quote:
Even Amsoil's Motorcycle Oil has NO MOLY



Prove that it needs moly in the first place!

What kind of Moly would you recommend,and how much.


: Synlube VOA Attempt - Set-Up Thread [Re: demarpaint]
bruce381 Offline
Tribologist


Registered: 06/23/05
Posts: 3280
Loc: Millbrae, CA
Revised viscosity from Me and Polaris
TBN agress in that I use 2896 and they use 4739 which reads lower
ADDED vis @ 40 and VI
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0

Vis@100C-9.9---9.9
Vis@40-58.7--------
VI-155-------------
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%

Kirk, you tell me since your oil had over 1000 on the Moly. LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
I do not care what Amsoil was 1st in, that was yesterday, today just about all of the Group III Oil's are as good or better than Amsoil.



Then, why do the Group III's varnish/sludge when they are "cooked",and the group IV's do not. The group III's also are more volatile and use more additives and less actual oil per-volume,therefore by default...lubricate less.



Why? That has been answered by your own links over and over. Faulty engine design and idiot car owners.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Kirk, you were bashing Group III oil, isn't XL a group III oil?

You mentioned moly and proof of the need for moly. According to Synlube moly was a big deal.

AD


I like colloids,that's correct.That's why I use synlube. However,prove to me that Amsoil needs moly to benefit its oil for the average motorists. Many racers will install moly,etc to their oil if needed for the extremes of racing.

Did you know that Cummins has banned the use of moly,or at least a certain type,the particulate version. Not all moly is beneficial,yet high quality automotive grade teflon/fluon has been proven beneficial some discredit.

How many amsoil customers, percentage wise, actually purchase the XL product,over the top-of-the-line group IV products.

One of the reason I am against Group III oils is that they are overpriced compared to group IV,not to mention group III's will varnish. Group IV per volume has more oil,about 95% versus group III with 85%.

I never bashed Group III's...I only stated the facts. Now the facts are considered an insult and labeled as bashing,unless one can not handle the facts.

When a person is losing his argument,it has been shown they will resort to name calling, out of desperation. You have shown to be losing in this argument because you have resorted to that tactic on several occasions with your incessant deviation from the facts.

Kindly show some facts just for once,that a store bought oil rivals another,in this case...Amsoil.

Prove where Amsoil has failed,such as,in all those class action lawsuits with sludge using typical bulk oil.

Prove where Amsoil failed in even a sludge prone,"defective engine"(Trajan's words)when used when the engine was new,in equal scale to the bulk oil...let alone zero cases, or perhaps one case, maybe,which need not apply.


Prove to us where PP failed,or was blamed by the dealer and PP stood behind the motorist as you have claimed will/could happen in court, showing how such a mighty giant will stand in ones corner according to you.

The law clearly states your assertions and claims about the legality of motor oil choice is incorrect,and ill-founded,totally!

You need to speak to a lawyer before you continue with your meaningless assertions,because it is quite apparent you do not know what you are talking about in the least bit. You are spreading lies and falsehoods, and I find this to be highly irresponsible of you.
quote:
by trajan Why? That has been answered by your own links over and over. Faulty engine design and idiot car owners.



Faulty design and idiot car owners can not change the laws of physics and oil chemistry.

Group II/III sludges because it has impurities not found in group IV.

Idiot car owners especially need group IV oil trajan,because group IV is IDIOT PROOF IN MOST CASES,not group II/III.

Holy cow.....did the world just start producing idiots,and defective engines at the same time,and then sludge just showed up in mass quantity. What has occurred recently are the EPA mandates that challenges the cheaper oils,and caused all the sludge. High tech engines and low tech oil are not a good mix.

I see you are still claiming the entire world is now building "defective engines"(LOL)>

Funny isn't it,the, "defects", only show up with cheap,bulk oil. The defects never seem to show up with group IV oil. The evidence proves who/what is guilty!!

This court(your words) finds group II/III........guilty on all counts...........and the engines/motorists........innocent on all counts(bangs anvil,hard!!!)
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Kirk, you were bashing Group III oil, isn't XL a group III oil?

You mentioned moly and proof of the need for moly. According to Synlube moly was a big deal.

AD


I like colloids,that's correct.That's why I use synlube. However,prove to me that Amsoil needs moly to benefit its oil for the average motorists. Many racers will install moly,etc to their oil if needed for the extremes of racing.

Did you know that Cummins has banned the use of moly,or at least a certain type,the particulate version. Not all moly is beneficial,yet high quality automotive grade teflon/fluon has been proven beneficial some discredit.

How many amsoil customers, percentage wise, actually purchase the XL product,over the top-of-the-line group IV products.

One of the reason I am against Group III oils is that they are overpriced compared to group IV,not to mention group III's will varnish. Group IV per volume has more oil,about 95% versus group III with 85%.

I never bashed Group III's...I only stated the facts. Now the facts are considered an insult and labeled as bashing,unless one can not handle the facts.

When a person is losing his argument,it has been shown they will resort to name calling, out of desperation. You have shown to be losing in this argument because you have resorted to that tactic on several occasions with your incessant deviation from the facts.

Kindly show some facts just for once,that a store bought oil rivals another,in this case...Amsoil.

Prove where Amsoil has failed,such as,in all those class action lawsuits with sludge using typical bulk oil.

Prove where Amsoil failed in even a sludge prone,"defective engine"(Trajan's words)when used when the engine was new,in equal scale to the bulk oil...let alone zero cases, or perhaps one case, maybe,which need not apply.


Prove to us where PP failed,or was blamed by the dealer and PP stood behind the motorist as you have claimed will/could happen in court, showing how such a mighty giant will stand in ones corner according to you.

The law clearly states your assertions and claims about the legality of motor oil choice is incorrect,and ill-founded,totally!

You need to speak to a lawyer before you continue with your meaningless assertions,because it is quite apparent you do not know what you are talking about in the least bit. You are spreading lies and falsehoods, and I find this to be highly irresponsible of you.


Kirk go over on Bitog if they allow you and read the Amsoil thread, then tell me about talking with a lawyer. A GM OM is copied and pasted, in plain English none the less.

Can you prove in tests other than Amsoil's tests that their oil is far superior to Pennzoil Ultra, Mobil 1 EP, Edge, or some of the other Synthetics? Can you prove SSO is better than RL's oil? I think not.

XL is group III and by your own admission has its limitations. Please don't show me Amsoils 4 ball test, or some of their sales garbage.......PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE.

If you like Moly then you'll love RL they didn't cheap out on it.

AD
AD
quote:
XL is group III and by your own admission has its limitations. Please don't show me Amsoils 4 ball test, or some of their sales garbage.......PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE.


Say it ain't so...I guess every company in the world is a worthless sham, because using your logic,they all have sales pitches and therefore are all no good by definition.

By the way,the last place I go for legit info,is the "other place". The reading there is for entertainment purposes only,sort of like the tabloids. Over there,it's pay-to-play! Catch my drift!
AD
quote:
A GM OM is copied and pasted, in plain English none the less.


In case you forgot,I/we all have the owners manuals,and read them. What is your point.

The owners manual does not/can not trump the law! Remember,the Moss M. Law.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pub...iness/adv/bus01.shtm

http://www.lawschool.cornell.e...rossbergMagnuson.pdf

Quote...from the 'other place'

The idea of a oil failure is slim to none.The idea of a service dept asking if the oil is API certified is slim to none.I handled hundreds of warranty claims and aftermarket service contract claims.If the engine was not obviously sludged up I was NEVER asked brand or weight of oil in a motor,Trans or differential.
_________________________
03 Dodge 3500 dually,Banks exhaust,Quad 30/60/100 horse box.AFE intake.09 Dodge 1500 5.7 2wd quad 3.92 gear,Magnaflow 24 XL muffler,06 Gran Marquis.
Pay to play?...LOL...I think not. You're allowed your opinions, just because not everyone holds your opinion doesn't make them wrong.

You offered no proof in your "evidence is in here" thread. You offered your opinion...When it became clear you were merely looking for free publicity/advertisement, and could offer no proof you were booted off. This was of course after many similar threads by these 'new' posters who attacked others who did not 'believe'...Ultimately BITOG is Helen's board, You did not follow the rules of the board, and were booted off...Plain and simple Kirk.

BITOG I believe is in the business to not lose money. If you wish to advertise your product you pay just like everyone else.

I believe Amsoil offers a good product. Is it as good as Redline? Well Amsoil says so. Is it as good as the major producers? Well Amsoil says so... I am not so interested in Amsoil's opinion... I would like unbiased 3rd party research though...Can you provide that Kirk?

If not your another person with an opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Kirk, you were bashing Group III oil, isn't XL a group III oil?

You mentioned moly and proof of the need for moly. According to Synlube moly was a big deal.

AD


I like colloids,that's correct.That's why I use synlube. However,prove to me that Amsoil needs moly to benefit its oil for the average motorists. Many racers will install moly,etc to their oil if needed for the extremes of racing.

Did you know that Cummins has banned the use of moly,or at least a certain type,the particulate version. Not all moly is beneficial,yet high quality automotive grade teflon/fluon has been proven beneficial some discredit.

How many amsoil customers, percentage wise, actually purchase the XL product,over the top-of-the-line group IV products.

One of the reason I am against Group III oils is that they are overpriced compared to group IV,not to mention group III's will varnish. Group IV per volume has more oil,about 95% versus group III with 85%.

I never bashed Group III's...I only stated the facts. Now the facts are considered an insult and labeled as bashing,unless one can not handle the facts.

When a person is losing his argument,it has been shown they will resort to name calling, out of desperation. You have shown to be losing in this argument because you have resorted to that tactic on several occasions with your incessant deviation from the facts.

Kindly show some facts just for once,that a store bought oil rivals another,in this case...Amsoil.

Prove where Amsoil has failed,such as,in all those class action lawsuits with sludge using typical bulk oil.

Prove where Amsoil failed in even a sludge prone,"defective engine"(Trajan's words)when used when the engine was new,in equal scale to the bulk oil...let alone zero cases, or perhaps one case, maybe,which need not apply.


Prove to us where PP failed,or was blamed by the dealer and PP stood behind the motorist as you have claimed will/could happen in court, showing how such a mighty giant will stand in ones corner according to you.

The law clearly states your assertions and claims about the legality of motor oil choice is incorrect,and ill-founded,totally!

You need to speak to a lawyer before you continue with your meaningless assertions,because it is quite apparent you do not know what you are talking about in the least bit. You are spreading lies and falsehoods, and I find this to be highly irresponsible of you.


Kirk go over on Bitog if they allow you and read the Amsoil thread, then tell me about talking with a lawyer. A GM OM is copied and pasted, in plain English none the less.

Can you prove in tests other than Amsoil's tests that their oil is far superior to Pennzoil Ultra, Mobil 1 EP, Edge, or some of the other Synthetics? Can you prove SSO is better than RL's oil? I think not.

XL is group III and by your own admission has its limitations. Please don't show me Amsoils 4 ball test, or some of their sales garbage.......PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE.

If you like Moly then you'll love RL they didn't cheap out on it.

AD


Now you know he won't do that. We also know that he has shot his own arguements in the foot over and over. We know that from his own links in an ever futile attempt to promote symlube.

He can't prove anything. Dug himself into a sinkhole bigger than the one in Guatamela with this nonsense about GpIII oil.

Still burns that it was shown that simlube doesn't even know what weight it's suppossed to be. Let alone that it is factory filled in..........wait for it......... nothing made by any auto maker around.

Amsoil hasn't been proven to be a better oil over PP or PU or GC or M1. Certainly though, it's proven to be better than that swill...er...sim.....er....synlube.

But that in and of itself is no great feat.
quote:
Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
Pay to play?...LOL...I think not. You're allowed your opinions, just because not everyone holds your opinion doesn't make them wrong.

You offered no proof in your "evidence is in here" thread. You offered your opinion...When it became clear you were merely looking for free publicity/advertisement, and could offer no proof you were booted off. This was of course after many similar threads by these 'new' posters who attacked others who did not 'believe'...Ultimately BITOG is Helen's board, You did not follow the rules of the board, and were booted off...Plain and simple Kirk.

BITOG I believe is in the business to not lose money. If you wish to advertise your product you pay just like everyone else.

I believe Amsoil offers a good product. Is it as good as Redline? Well Amsoil says so. Is it as good as the major producers? Well Amsoil says so... I am not so interested in Amsoil's opinion... I would like unbiased 3rd party research though...Can you provide that Kirk?

If not your another person with an opinion.


Poor Miro. Booted off of so many boards....

You're asking alot. This is the guy who claimed all those suits over the sludge prone engines were aimed at the oil companies.

Has yet to explain why the auto makers paid for the engine problems.

Has yet to show that the oil caused all those problems.

Has yet to explain why the crud oil he likes shows different weights.

Can't even explain why his buddy isn't using simlube in that new truck. Despite all the posts defending it.
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Kirk, you were bashing Group III oil, isn't XL a group III oil?

You mentioned moly and proof of the need for moly. According to Synlube moly was a big deal.

AD


I like colloids,that's correct.That's why I use synlube. However,prove to me that Amsoil needs moly to benefit its oil for the average motorists. Many racers will install moly,etc to their oil if needed for the extremes of racing.

Did you know that Cummins has banned the use of moly,or at least a certain type,the particulate version. Not all moly is beneficial,yet high quality automotive grade teflon/fluon has been proven beneficial some discredit.

How many amsoil customers, percentage wise, actually purchase the XL product,over the top-of-the-line group IV products.

One of the reason I am against Group III oils is that they are overpriced compared to group IV,not to mention group III's will varnish. Group IV per volume has more oil,about 95% versus group III with 85%.

I never bashed Group III's...I only stated the facts. Now the facts are considered an insult and labeled as bashing,unless one can not handle the facts.

When a person is losing his argument,it has been shown they will resort to name calling, out of desperation. You have shown to be losing in this argument because you have resorted to that tactic on several occasions with your incessant deviation from the facts.

Kindly show some facts just for once,that a store bought oil rivals another,in this case...Amsoil.

Prove where Amsoil has failed,such as,in all those class action lawsuits with sludge using typical bulk oil.

Prove where Amsoil failed in even a sludge prone,"defective engine"(Trajan's words)when used when the engine was new,in equal scale to the bulk oil...let alone zero cases, or perhaps one case, maybe,which need not apply.


Prove to us where PP failed,or was blamed by the dealer and PP stood behind the motorist as you have claimed will/could happen in court, showing how such a mighty giant will stand in ones corner according to you.

The law clearly states your assertions and claims about the legality of motor oil choice is incorrect,and ill-founded,totally!

You need to speak to a lawyer before you continue with your meaningless assertions,because it is quite apparent you do not know what you are talking about in the least bit. You are spreading lies and falsehoods, and I find this to be highly irresponsible of you.


Kirk go over on Bitog if they allow you and read the Amsoil thread, then tell me about talking with a lawyer. A GM OM is copied and pasted, in plain English none the less.

Can you prove in tests other than Amsoil's tests that their oil is far superior to Pennzoil Ultra, Mobil 1 EP, Edge, or some of the other Synthetics? Can you prove SSO is better than RL's oil? I think not.

XL is group III and by your own admission has its limitations. Please don't show me Amsoils 4 ball test, or some of their sales garbage.......PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE.

If you like Moly then you'll love RL they didn't cheap out on it.

AD


Now you know he won't do that. We also know that he has shot his own arguements in the foot over and over. We know that from his own links in an ever futile attempt to promote symlube.

He can't prove anything. Dug himslef into a sinkhole bigger than the one in Guatamela with this nonsense about GpIII oil.

Still burns that it was shown that simlube doesn't even know what weight it's duppossed to be. Let alone that it is factory filled in..........wait for it......... nothing made by any auto maker around.

Amsoil hasn't been proven to be a better oil over PP or PU or GC or M1. Certainly though, it's proven to be better than that swill...er...sim.....er....synlube.

But that in and of itself is no great feat.



Very good Job Trajan...of how not to answer a question when cornered,as always. I always know when I've got one/several up on you,because you speak gibberish in your very next post,and then bring up synlube....now for the 10th time.

Just change the subject trajan when you're proven wrong,and give no facts of your own. We all see through you and your multiple personas.
It's quite simple Kirk... If you wish to advertise your product you pay...Why so cheap?

It was/is obvious that was the intention...I realize that your a garage operation, but even Amsoil reps can afford to pay the little amount it costs.

But this site doesn't seem to care...But it also doesn't get near the traffic...In either case on both boards your product was found to be lacking...It couldn't meet what it was advertised and sold as.

But know one cares about your product...

But Amsoil and Redline both offer quality products. I would like to see unbiased professional comparisons on both oils and see also how they compare to the major brands...That would be interesting...
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:


Reading that GM OM tells the story, and yet Tim keeps quoting Amsoil, and some law, seems GM found a way around that law in their wording.

AD


The law says what it says. Can't dictate what brand to buy. Can dictate what you have to do to have the protection.

What Tim and Kirk forget is that the car makers have law firms on retainer too. And their own legal departments.

That's why you have labels on your visors, or on the gas filler door. Or why things are written the way they are in the manual.

But that doesn't occur to those two. I guess they just think that the auto makers put all that stuff there just for kicks.
Fulton 1 Offline


Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 29
Loc: WA
Here's a virgin sample of Redline 10W30 that I used in my ZR2:

Aluminum 1
Chromium 1
Iron 2
Copper 0
Lead 0
Tin 0
Moly 613
Nickel 0
Manganese 0
Silver 0
Titanium 0
Potassium 22
Boron 15
Silicon 15
Sodium 15
Calcium 2521
Magnesium 7
Phosphorus 1028
Zinc 1005
Barium 0

SUS vis @ 210F = 61.7
Flashpoint *F = 435

TBN = 13.5

Since this is a Redline Thread, I thought I would share this Redline UOA, check out the Moly, 613

I remember looking at a VOA on Amsoil ASM 0W-20, and for Moly it had a reading of 2, that does not sound like much. I want my Moly, and since Amsoil is real stingy on Moly I will look at oil's like Pennzoil Platinum that seem to have more Moly, if Moly is in Synlube, then I want it in my oil too.
Trajan

quote:
What Tim and Kirk forget is that the car makers have law firms on retainer too. And their own legal departments.



So,show us where and when those law firms shot down someone using Amsoil............or even......synlube.

By the way,I live on the east coast,just like you do trajan,and only use Amsoil.......and synlube as a customer only. I don't own or sell amsoil,or synlube. My garage/equipment is full of those products. Why Does that bother you??

My name is Kirk,not Miro. I don't live on the west coast like Miro,and I only have one Screen name unlike some of you.
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Reading that GM OM tells the story, and yet Tim keeps quoting Amsoil, and some law, seems GM found a way around that law in their wording.
Actually I was quoting GM. Here are GM's words, not some one who is incorrectly interpreting GM's words:

“If engine damage otherwise covered by warranty was found to be unrelated to the engine lubricant, then the consumer’s practice with regard to oil change intervals would not be a relevant consideration, and the warranty claim would be honored.”
Fuels and Lubricants Division,
General Motors Research Laboratories

“The New Vehicle Warranty would not be void simply because an owner failed to use proper engine oils or did not perform maintenance at the
prescribed intervals. Warranty applicability is contingent upon the cause of failure.”
Service Policies and Procedures Department,
General Motors Corporation

quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1: Talking about law, have a problem with a non cert oil and you'll be paying for a lawyer.
Not according to GM's words above.

quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:Oh yea and Pennzoil honors the warranty as long as you follow the OM. But we went over that already.
Only for Pennzoil Ultra. For Pennzoil Platinum and the other Pennzoil products, it is 4,000 miles/4 months as per their warranty which also states the OM recommended oil change interval for those Pennzoil products would void the Pennzoil warranty.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
quote:
BEAR moly is not cheap, at the end of the qtr its all about the bottom line.


Maybe someone should tell that too Redline, they use plenty of Moly, look at the new Toyota 0W-20 oil, that has alot of Moly in it.

If Amsoil's Formula is proprietary then maybe we should look for another oil to buy.
All motor oil formulas are proprietary. Just try and ask any of them for every ingredient, chemical composition and amount.
quote:
All motor oil formulas are proprietary. Just try and ask any of them for every ingredient, chemical composition and amount.



Where have I heard that before!

Here is another quote I've heard before....

""""5. Will the Hyper Cleaning additives be visible in a UOA (Used Oil Analysis)?

A standard UOA may not necessarily identify the Hyper Cleansing Technology™ additives.""""


IMAGINE THAT!! The truth comes out yet again!! UOA'S=??????????? =====OLD NEWS======YAWN!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:

It looks like Amsoil is charging premium price for an oil that does not have premium ingredients.
What makes you think moly is a premium ingredient? If moly is a premium ingredient, why don't those oils carry premium warranties. And why don't those moly oils outperform AMSOIL in undisputed independent ASTM tests? And why didn't the Mobil 1 5w30 with moly pass the API engine wear test off the shelf, that API had certified them as passing?
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Can you prove in tests other than Amsoil's tests that their oil is far superior to Pennzoil Ultra, Mobil 1 EP, Edge, or some of the other Synthetics? Can you prove SSO is better than RL's oil? I think not.
AMSOIL does not perform their comparison tests. That is primarily done by independent, world renown, respected SouthWest Research Institute. AMSOIL publishes the results which are undisputed by the named oil companies. If the results were false, the competitors would sue, and they never have. SSO is warranted for 35,000 normal service miles and you have yet produce any warranty for Red Line. AMSOIL has several comparisons against Red Line and shown it not to perform as well as AMSOIL in standard testing, and Red Line does not dispute the data.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:

It looks like Amsoil is charging premium price for an oil that does not have premium ingredients.
What makes you think moly is a premium ingredient? If moly is a premium ingredient, why don't those oils carry premium warranties. And why don't those moly oils outperform AMSOIL in undisputed independent ASTM tests? And why didn't the Mobil 1 5w30 with moly pass the API engine wear test off the shelf, that API had certified them as passing?


Motorcraft 5w-20
JohnnyO Offline


Registered: 09/26/03
Posts: 2409
Loc: Pittsburgh, N@
Blackstone wanted to do a VOA after finding sodium in my last UOA, although no coolant or water showed up.

Aluminum....0
Chromium....0
Iron........0
Copper......0
Lead........0
Tin.........0
Moly........30
Nickel......0
Manganese...0
Silver......0
Titanium....0
Potassium...0
Boron.......157
Silicon.....3
Sodium......0
Calcium.....1711
Magnesium...7
Phosphorus..551
Zinc........698
Barium......0

SUS Vis @ 210*.....53.6
cSt @ 100*.........8.37
Flashpoint..420

I can tell you why I believe Moly is a key ingredient, I remember using Amsoil ASM 0W-20 and on the next OCI I used Motorcraft 5W-20, the motor seemed to run better and my observation tells me that it is becuase even a cheap oil like the Motorcraft has more Moly (30) than the Amsoil 0W-20 which has a Moly (2) Reading.
Pennzoil Platinum has (53) moly reading and that oil seemed to make my engine run better than the more expensive Amsoil 0W-20

I don't care about warranties since the manufactures can wiggle there way out of them, and I do not care about Amsoil's independent tests that just seem to make there oil's look good, I choose oil's that my engine is happy with, and my engine wants an oil with more MOLY, and that is something Amsoil Motor Oil just does not offer me.

Tell your boss at Amsoil if he wants me to even think of buying his oil that he better put some more MOLY in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:

Amsoil hasn't been proven to be a better oil over PP or PU or GC or M1..
I disagree. AMSOIL recommends extended oil change intervals, has a longer warranty, and outperforms the others in undisputed, independent ASTM testing.


Nobody here is buying this bogus SALES PITCH of independent ASTM testing, there WARRANTY is a joke, I have read it, and all it does is protect Amsoil.

I could have an Oil Company and pay for this ASTM Test and have it that my oil looks better than the competition, you think Amsoil is going to pay for a test that makes there competitions oil look better, give me a break.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Can you prove in tests other than Amsoil's tests that their oil is far superior to Pennzoil Ultra, Mobil 1 EP, Edge, or some of the other Synthetics? Can you prove SSO is better than RL's oil? I think not.
AMSOIL does not perform their comparison tests. That is primarily done by independent, world renown, respected SouthWest Research Institute. AMSOIL publishes the results which are undisputed by the named oil companies. If the results were false, the competitors would sue, and they never have. SSO is warranted for 35,000 normal service miles and you have yet produce any warranty for Red Line. AMSOIL has several comparisons against Red Line and shown it not to perform as well as AMSOIL in standard testing, and Red Line does not dispute the data.


LOL Amsoil pays for the tests? Nuff said. I remember someone quoting somewhere about these independant tests you so highly regard. He said run a test enough times you;ll get the results you want to see. I think he might have been an Amsoil dealer on Bitog, and honest one at that. Pay for the testing and you'll get the results you want to see.

I'm still waiting for proof Amsoil is better, lets see it. Pennzoil clearly states if you follow the OM and use their oil they guarantee their product. That's having Shell Oil behind you, they could buy Amsoil it 100's of times over. I'll take them in my corner any day. I'll take their word and their testing over Amsoil's word and testing. Mobil runs some pretty impressive real testing, not rubbing 4 balls together, in a test experts call worthless for testing testing oil. I guess there are some people that buy into it. Check on Bitog see what the experts think of that test.

Still waiting for that proof, and not from some lab Amsoil paid off or some bogus figures Tim quotes from Amsoil 101.

AD
quote:
Originally posted by Nucleardawg:

But Amsoil and Redline both offer quality products. I would like to see unbiased professional comparisons on both oils and see also how they compare to the major brands...That would be interesting...
Me too. The only comparisons I can find are the gear oil white paper: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2457.pdf and the 10w30 motorcycle oil comparison http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/mct.aspx in which the testing was performed by 3rd party labs . None of the named companies have disputed the results, which they would if they could. I'd like to see Red Line and the others have similar testing performed, but they don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
Big bear quoted

quote:
the motor seemed to run better


Define what you mean by "seemed".......


Smoother, more responsive.

Kirk, I should not have used the word seemed, it was actually a fact that the engine was smoother and more responsive.

That's my observation and I am sticking with it.

I am sure if I was using Synlube and I said my motor seemed to run better that you would not be questioning me.
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:


Reading that GM OM tells the story, and yet Tim keeps quoting Amsoil, and some law, seems GM found a way around that law in their wording.

AD


The law says what it says. Can't dictate what brand to buy. Can dictate what you have to do to have the protection.

What Tim and Kirk forget is that the car makers have law firms on retainer too. And their own legal departments.

That's why you have labels on your visors, or on the gas filler door. Or why things are written the way they are in the manual.

But that doesn't occur to those two. I guess they just think that the auto makers put all that stuff there just for kicks.


But none of the car makers have ever said that using AMSOIL will void your warranty. And none have ever voided a warranty with AMSOIL.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:

Amsoil hasn't been proven to be a better oil over PP or PU or GC or M1..
I disagree. AMSOIL recommends extended oil change intervals, has a longer warranty, and outperforms the others in undisputed, independent ASTM testing.


Amsoil, unlike some Pennzoil, GC, or M1, is not on ACEA A3/B3 or LL01 approved, so I don't care what they claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
Big bear quoted

quote:
the motor seemed to run better


Define what you mean by "seemed".......


Smoother, more responsive.

Kirk, I should not have used the word seemed, it was actually a fact that the engine was smoother and more responsive.

That's my observation and I am sticking with it.

I am sure if I was using Synlube and I said my motor seemed to run better that you would not be questioning me.


On the last, there is no question. Un certified by any accepted standard, you have to take its word for it.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×