Originally Posted By: **** in Falls Church
Quote:
Sounds like another person who read the White Papers gear oil testing results? If that is correct please be advised that those tests were commissioned, conducted, and reported on by Amsoil. The results being 100% accurate are highly questionable.
Take what you read with a big grain of salt IMHO and most of all remember it was done by Amsoil. It was not done by some independant lab or group testing gear oils on their own initiative. Amsoil claims an independant lab did the testing yet I have read many things contesting that as fully truthful. Not saying the results are 100% false either just understand who did it and factor that into your decision. This was not a fully independant test. Amsoil was behind it and had a big part in it. unquote
I'd be very interested to learn where you found someone (qualified) contesting the results. Sure glad that you don't claim the results were 100% false--maybe you think 3.5% false? or 4.87%? I haven't seen any of the competition companies advertise that the tests were invalid, skewed, or false. Far as I know, none of them have sued AMSOIL for false advertising.
Gee, do you suppose that maybe the claims might be true? Nah, it's AMSOIL, only been around for about 35 years now.
I compared the published data available at the time the WP's came out from the gear oil mfg's on their products( when I could find it )to what Amsoil reported in the WP's. I specifically compared the WP results to the data published by RP on their oil. There were many glaring issues between the two side's reported data including one test that was so far off the charts bad for RP as to be ludicrous to think it would actually test that far out of spec. I found similar issues when I looked at some of the other mfg's claimed data vs what Amsoil said in the WP's although I can not back that up as I did not do the in depth comparison I did with RP( info below ).
Amsoil has a history with claims made about their own products and those of other mfg's that are not always accurate. I am not going to get into a big pee'ing contest over this AGAIN. I have a right to disbelieve those tests or at least hold them highly suspect based on what I have seen over the years from that company. The info they came up with is very different than what the other mfg's posted about their products at that time and IMO people should be aware of that rather than just taking the WP's as gospel. You certainly can believe Amsoil if you wish. How long they have been around is irrelevant and the fact they have not been sued for the WP's is too. If everytime one oil company made a questionable claim about another they would spend all their time suing each other.
Here are the issues I researched and posted about back when there was a huge WP thread here. I will post only the relevant test data comparisons not my entire post as it was very long. I am going to try and leave it at that so this thread doesn't take off into a kids bickering match about Amsoil which was never my intent. However, I want to point out to you that I have some facts behind my comments about not accepting the WP's as your only source for gear oil decisions. There are issues with the accuracy of the results if you give the oil mfg's any credit for their testing...
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
On the ASTM D-2270 Viscosity test both Amsoil & RP = 165( high # is good )
I don't know enough about the J306 test to comment on what it means and RP does not provide enough data to compare it to what Amsoil claims. That one you have to just go by what Amsoil says. They say RP failed. I am going to contact RP and see what they say when I have time. ( UPDATE - I never did ask so no rebutal to Amsoil's claims )
On the low-temperature viscosity/Brookfield Viscosity Test (ASTM D-2983)There is a MAJOR difference between what Amsoil claims and what RP claims = Using RP's #'s they actually do better than Amsoil. SAE 75W must be less than 150,000 cP at -40°C (-40°F). Amsoil comes in at 68,150 and claims a ridiculously bad 389,500 for RP. RP claims a 59,911.
Amsoil then makes this statement...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil"
Royal Purple and Lucas failed the cold-temperature Brookfield requirements for 75W gear
lubes, as well as the high-temperature requirements for SAE 90 gear lubes, effectively disqualifying them entirely from the SAE 75W-90 category. Royal Purple Max-Gear, having also failed the Shear Stability Test, was the only gear lube to fail every parameter of the SAE J306 requirements
I say Bull. I can't contradict the J306 test because RP doesn't give the data but they did better than Amsoil in the Broofield test if you accept theit test data over Amsoil's.
In the standard pour point test method(ASTM D-97)Amsoil claims a -37 pour point for RP when RP claims a -40. They claim a lower pour point for their product of -50. They then go on to say...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil
It is important to have a low pour point combined with a low Brookfield viscosity value since it is possible to have a good low pour point but only a marginal Brookfield viscosity. Castrol SYNTEC is a good example of this. SYNTEC had the best pour point of the gear lubes tested, but a borderline Brookfield viscosity pass at 149,850 cP. Lucas 75/90 Synthetic, on the other hand, did not perform well in either area. It showed a pour point of -37°C (-35°F) and a Brookfield viscosity of greater than 2,000,000 cP. AMSOIL Severe Gear 75W-90 and Torco SGO Synthetic had the best combined Brookfield and pour point scores.
I would say that is false because they have the completely outrageous 300K Brookfield test data on RP. I highly question the accuracy of that test result. When you factor in RP's claimed 59,911 Brookfield teste result( which was lower than Amsoil )and a respectable -40 pour point test( again their test data better than Amsoils claim ), I would say RP was right there with them in this test.
Can't comment on the Oxidation testing as that data is not available on RP's site.
Next 4 are all related( (2)ASTM D-2783, ASTM D-3233, ASTM D-4172 ).
1) - 4 ball EP weld point. RP has the same test results in both data sheets( 400 )which is the same as the Amsoil.
2) - 4 ball EP load-wear index. RP tests low according to Amsoil. No data from RP to compare to.
3) - falex extreme pressure test. RP tested the same as the dino 80W-90's( according to Amsoil ).
4) - 4 ball wear test. RP just below Amsoil. No RP data to compare.
* - so RP performs at the top in 2 but only slightly better or as good as 80W-90 dino on the others? Does anyone else find that hard to believe?
In the Copper Corrosion (ASTM D-130) test Amsoil claims RP fails the GL-5 portion but doesn't test on the MIL( ?? ). RP says they pass the copper corrosion test.
They even try to use Price as a test case in this paper. 1st of all pricing is very different depending on where you buy it. They have RP listed at $13.95 and their product at $11.75. What a JOKE! You can get RP MaxGear anywhere for $9.
None of this is to say anything negative about Amsoil gear oils either. Excellent products!I am just trying to say don't take the WP's as the holy bible of gear oil's and believe everything contained in them to be 100% accurate.
Quote:
Sounds like another person who read the White Papers gear oil testing results? If that is correct please be advised that those tests were commissioned, conducted, and reported on by Amsoil. The results being 100% accurate are highly questionable.
Take what you read with a big grain of salt IMHO and most of all remember it was done by Amsoil. It was not done by some independant lab or group testing gear oils on their own initiative. Amsoil claims an independant lab did the testing yet I have read many things contesting that as fully truthful. Not saying the results are 100% false either just understand who did it and factor that into your decision. This was not a fully independant test. Amsoil was behind it and had a big part in it. unquote
I'd be very interested to learn where you found someone (qualified) contesting the results. Sure glad that you don't claim the results were 100% false--maybe you think 3.5% false? or 4.87%? I haven't seen any of the competition companies advertise that the tests were invalid, skewed, or false. Far as I know, none of them have sued AMSOIL for false advertising.
Gee, do you suppose that maybe the claims might be true? Nah, it's AMSOIL, only been around for about 35 years now.
I compared the published data available at the time the WP's came out from the gear oil mfg's on their products( when I could find it )to what Amsoil reported in the WP's. I specifically compared the WP results to the data published by RP on their oil. There were many glaring issues between the two side's reported data including one test that was so far off the charts bad for RP as to be ludicrous to think it would actually test that far out of spec. I found similar issues when I looked at some of the other mfg's claimed data vs what Amsoil said in the WP's although I can not back that up as I did not do the in depth comparison I did with RP( info below ).
Amsoil has a history with claims made about their own products and those of other mfg's that are not always accurate. I am not going to get into a big pee'ing contest over this AGAIN. I have a right to disbelieve those tests or at least hold them highly suspect based on what I have seen over the years from that company. The info they came up with is very different than what the other mfg's posted about their products at that time and IMO people should be aware of that rather than just taking the WP's as gospel. You certainly can believe Amsoil if you wish. How long they have been around is irrelevant and the fact they have not been sued for the WP's is too. If everytime one oil company made a questionable claim about another they would spend all their time suing each other.
Here are the issues I researched and posted about back when there was a huge WP thread here. I will post only the relevant test data comparisons not my entire post as it was very long. I am going to try and leave it at that so this thread doesn't take off into a kids bickering match about Amsoil which was never my intent. However, I want to point out to you that I have some facts behind my comments about not accepting the WP's as your only source for gear oil decisions. There are issues with the accuracy of the results if you give the oil mfg's any credit for their testing...
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
On the ASTM D-2270 Viscosity test both Amsoil & RP = 165( high # is good )
I don't know enough about the J306 test to comment on what it means and RP does not provide enough data to compare it to what Amsoil claims. That one you have to just go by what Amsoil says. They say RP failed. I am going to contact RP and see what they say when I have time. ( UPDATE - I never did ask so no rebutal to Amsoil's claims )
On the low-temperature viscosity/Brookfield Viscosity Test (ASTM D-2983)There is a MAJOR difference between what Amsoil claims and what RP claims = Using RP's #'s they actually do better than Amsoil. SAE 75W must be less than 150,000 cP at -40°C (-40°F). Amsoil comes in at 68,150 and claims a ridiculously bad 389,500 for RP. RP claims a 59,911.
Amsoil then makes this statement...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil"
Royal Purple and Lucas failed the cold-temperature Brookfield requirements for 75W gear
lubes, as well as the high-temperature requirements for SAE 90 gear lubes, effectively disqualifying them entirely from the SAE 75W-90 category. Royal Purple Max-Gear, having also failed the Shear Stability Test, was the only gear lube to fail every parameter of the SAE J306 requirements
I say Bull. I can't contradict the J306 test because RP doesn't give the data but they did better than Amsoil in the Broofield test if you accept theit test data over Amsoil's.
In the standard pour point test method(ASTM D-97)Amsoil claims a -37 pour point for RP when RP claims a -40. They claim a lower pour point for their product of -50. They then go on to say...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil
It is important to have a low pour point combined with a low Brookfield viscosity value since it is possible to have a good low pour point but only a marginal Brookfield viscosity. Castrol SYNTEC is a good example of this. SYNTEC had the best pour point of the gear lubes tested, but a borderline Brookfield viscosity pass at 149,850 cP. Lucas 75/90 Synthetic, on the other hand, did not perform well in either area. It showed a pour point of -37°C (-35°F) and a Brookfield viscosity of greater than 2,000,000 cP. AMSOIL Severe Gear 75W-90 and Torco SGO Synthetic had the best combined Brookfield and pour point scores.
I would say that is false because they have the completely outrageous 300K Brookfield test data on RP. I highly question the accuracy of that test result. When you factor in RP's claimed 59,911 Brookfield teste result( which was lower than Amsoil )and a respectable -40 pour point test( again their test data better than Amsoils claim ), I would say RP was right there with them in this test.
Can't comment on the Oxidation testing as that data is not available on RP's site.
Next 4 are all related( (2)ASTM D-2783, ASTM D-3233, ASTM D-4172 ).
1) - 4 ball EP weld point. RP has the same test results in both data sheets( 400 )which is the same as the Amsoil.
2) - 4 ball EP load-wear index. RP tests low according to Amsoil. No data from RP to compare to.
3) - falex extreme pressure test. RP tested the same as the dino 80W-90's( according to Amsoil ).
4) - 4 ball wear test. RP just below Amsoil. No RP data to compare.
* - so RP performs at the top in 2 but only slightly better or as good as 80W-90 dino on the others? Does anyone else find that hard to believe?
In the Copper Corrosion (ASTM D-130) test Amsoil claims RP fails the GL-5 portion but doesn't test on the MIL( ?? ). RP says they pass the copper corrosion test.
They even try to use Price as a test case in this paper. 1st of all pricing is very different depending on where you buy it. They have RP listed at $13.95 and their product at $11.75. What a JOKE! You can get RP MaxGear anywhere for $9.
None of this is to say anything negative about Amsoil gear oils either. Excellent products!I am just trying to say don't take the WP's as the holy bible of gear oil's and believe everything contained in them to be 100% accurate.
Last edited:
