F-150 Ecoboost - Amsoil AZO or Mobil Delvac 222?

[Pablo]

I made no personal remarks about you. You were simply not correct about this:

Quote:
XLF 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil:
API SN, SM...
ILSAC GF-5, GF-4...
ACEA A1/B1
Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A
Chrysler MS-6395N
GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
Fortified with detergents that exceed dexos1™ sulfated ash specifications.


Check the API site.

And you said the oil "hasn't been tested". All Amsoil oils are tested. By independent labs.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
I made no personal remarks about you. You were simply not correct about this:

Quote:
XLF 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil:
API SN, SM...
ILSAC GF-5, GF-4...
ACEA A1/B1
Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A
Chrysler MS-6395N
GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
Fortified with detergents that exceed dexos1™ sulfated ash specifications.


Check the API site.

And you said the oil "hasn't been tested". All Amsoil oils are tested. By independent labs.


No, I said the AZO, as mentioned in the title of this thread AND in the post of mine that you quoted! You just mentioned the XLF, which of course IS certified. I already acknowledged that AMSOIL does make an API-certified oil for this application. However the AZO, which is the oil being discussed, is NOT.

I am aware that AMSOIL tests all their own oils based on the industry standard procedures. I'm pretty sure that was quite clear when I said that the oil probably DID meet or exceed them.... It simply wasn't CERTIFIED for them. As in, you don't send them to Ford to get Ford's own certification done. Is that not correct?

We've been over the fact that AMSOIL won't pay for the manufacturer approvals before. But they run them against those tests in-house before recommending them for that application. Which is great. But still doesn't change the fact that the oil isn't approved!

You implied I was incompetent Pablo. Please re-read what you wrote. I took it personally because it sure felt personal. If you didn't mean it that way, perhaps you should have worded it differently.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


No, I said the AZO......



No you didn't.

You wrote: "And how many of those specs is it actually certified for? ZERO." right after he posted about AZO and XLF. I think you just missed it in your post.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


No, I said the AZO......



No you didn't.

You wrote: "And how many of those specs is it actually certified for? ZERO." right after he posted about AZO and XLF. I think you just missed it in your post.


The thread is about AZO..... Look at the title. I didn't even see buddy mentioned XLF. My remarks were meant solely in regard to the oil in the OP and thread title: AZO.

I think that should have been pretty clear when I again posted the section from AMSOIL's site about AZO........

The OP for reference:

Quote:
I have a 2011 Ford F150 with the 3.5 litre Ecoboost engine. I'm currently running Amsoil AZO 0W30, but used to use Esso XD3 0W30 in my previous vehicles. I read on here that Mobil Delvac 222 is very close to, if not the same as, the old Esso XD3. I'm thinking either would be great for my turbocharged engine in both winter and summer (winters get as cold as -40 celcius, while summers can be quite warm, up to 34 or so degrees celcius). The Delvac is a bit cheaper, and neither meets the exact requirements (energy conserving, etc.) as specified in the owners manual (which doesn't cause me to lose sleep). Any thoughts on which would be best in my truck?

Thanks


So, in that context, who is wrong and who owes who an apology now?


I mean you DID imply that I was incompetent. You could simply have said "well, I know the OP didn't ask about it, but XLF is an API approved oil that would be appropriate for this application" instead of attacking me.

Heck, you could have quoted me and said "no, AZO isn't, but XLF is, as mentioned by the poster you quoted" and I would have been like "true!".

This could have gone so many other ways Pablo.... so many other ways.

 

[Pablo]

We've been discussing a variety of oils in this thread.

Previously mentioned have been:

motorcraft 5w-30 or mobil 1 AFE 0w-30
Mobil 1 5W-30 or Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30
QSUD 5W-30, Castrol Syntec 5W-30, or PP 5W-30
Amsoil XLF 5W-30
M1 0w30
Mobil Delvac 0W-30
50/50 blend of M1 0W-20 and Mobil Delvac Elite 222 0W-30

Then this:

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: PHANI1
0W-30 (AZO): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A; Chrysler MS-6395N; Suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
_________________________________
XLF 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil:
API SN, SM...
ILSAC GF-5, GF-4...
ACEA A1/B1
Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A
Chrysler MS-6395N
GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
Fortified with detergents that exceed dexos1™ sulfated ash specifications.




And how many of those specs is it actually certified for? ZERO.

Doesn't mean it doesn't meet them if tested. But it means it hasn't been tested (and subsequently certified).


I think you missed his second recommendation.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
We've been discussing a variety of oils in this thread.

Previously mentioned have been:

motorcraft 5w-30 or mobil 1 AFE 0w-30
Mobil 1 5W-30 or Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30
QSUD 5W-30, Castrol Syntec 5W-30, or PP 5W-30
Amsoil XLF 5W-30
M1 0w30
Mobil Delvac 0W-30
50/50 blend of M1 0W-20 and Mobil Delvac Elite 222 0W-30

Then this:

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: PHANI1
0W-30 (AZO): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A; Chrysler MS-6395N; Suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
_________________________________
XLF 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil:
API SN, SM...
ILSAC GF-5, GF-4...
ACEA A1/B1
Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A
Chrysler MS-6395N
GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
Fortified with detergents that exceed dexos1™ sulfated ash specifications.




And how many of those specs is it actually certified for? ZERO.

Doesn't mean it doesn't meet them if tested. But it means it hasn't been tested (and subsequently certified).


I think you missed his second recommendation.



Quite honestly, I figured he put it in by accident when quoting the AZO specs, which was the oil that had been previously been discussed as not certified (and being used by the OP), and since my point was about it not being certified, that's what I focused on.

You DID mention the XLF a few posts before mine, but I didn't quote, or reply to your post.

My recommendation, which was asked for, was to use an approved oil for the application. PHANI1's quoting from AMSOIL's site (which I had looked at) for the AZO after my post was what I was replying to, since it mentioned a non-approved oil.

And I STILL went as far as mentioning that this didn't mean the oil wouldn't meet the specs if tested, simply that it wasn't approved. Hoping to prevent you from jumping down my throat.... Which ended up happening anyway.

And instead of pointing out the fact that the XLF was mentioned in the post I quoted, even though I was talking about the AZO, you instead went the condescending and "smug" route, which lead to me getting upset and calling you names in response. Not a very productive route for us to take Pablo.

 

[Pablo]

I agree not productive at all. A complete waste of time and resources. Just please be more careful when posting about someone's recommendation. Your second line wasn't so bad in and of itself, but your first line came on very strong to PHANI1. I mean - he had a line separating the two oils. I thought it was obvious as did he.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
I agree not productive at all. A complete waste of time and resources. Just please be more careful when posting about someone's recommendation. Your second line wasn't so bad in and of itself, but your first line came on very strong to PHANI1. I mean - he had a line separating the two oils. I thought it was obvious as did he.


I figured it was just a copy and paste and the 2nd part was accidental. Regardless, my comments were in reference to AZO ONLY, and had expected them to be taken as such. Do you think I'm stupid enough to make such statements about an API approved product? I guess you do, since that is what you reply to me implied. See where I'm going with this now and why I got so offended?

I recommended an approved oil for the application. The XLF falls within the scope of that recommendation, so I thought it was pretty obvious my comments were about AZO only. Which would be a fine choice once out of warranty. But my personal stance is to use an approved oil during the warranty period to keep things simple. I'm far from the only person to go by that philosophy, so there is nothing bizarre our outstanding in that statement.

My first line was indeed strong, but it was ONLY in reference to AZO as outlined above. And it is because of my stance on using an approved product during the warranty period that I made it! It wasn't meant to be crass or rude, simply pointing out that it is not an approved product for the application. And my follow up to that was meant to reinforce the fact that I was sure it was indeed a fine product. Simply not an approved one.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Okay guys enough.
Lets keep it CIVIL!

PLEASE...
Bill

 

[OVERKILL]

I think we are good now Bill

And now for something completely different.......

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I think we are good now Bill

And now for something completely different.......

That made my morning, thanks for that chris.

 

[buster]

Amsoil is yesterdays oil.

 

[Nick R]

I definitely don't think amsoil is bad. Not at all, but for most people I don't think it's worth the premium, when oils which are probably just as good are available in any walmart or auto parts store, for cheaper.

 

[addyguy]

Really gotta disagree with Buster....yes, amsoil and Mobil have gone 'different directions' in their formulations, but I still think Amsoil is king when it comes to consistent long-drain performance.

Mobil CAN be hit-and-miss......

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Really gotta disagree with Buster....yes, amsoil and Mobil have gone 'different directions' in their formulations, but I still think Amsoil is king when it comes to consistent long-drain performance.


Agreed. I still see locals using Amsoil for 3,000 mile OCIs. To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Really gotta disagree with Buster....yes, amsoil and Mobil have gone 'different directions' in their formulations


Agreed, the presence of moly or other metallic additives does not necessarily imply (IMO) that Amsoil has taken an out of date approach to their formulations.

SSO showed low levels of metallic additives somewhat similar to Mobil's new SN formulations, yet I have no reason to suspect that AZO was a step backwards from SSO in any respect other that their marketing department's OCI claims.

 

[SteveSRT8]

For people with an axe to grind, maybe Amsoil is yesterdays news.

But it's great oil. Like Ben says, maybe not for a zillion mile OCI, but it is terrific quality.

 

[CATERHAM]

Since this thread is about extreme cold performance that leaves Amsoil out in the cold (pun intended) since they do not provide MRV spec's.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
I definitely don't think amsoil is bad. Not at all, but for most people I don't think it's worth the premium, when oils which are probably just as good are available in any walmart or auto parts store, for cheaper.


That's how I see it. They make very good oil, no doubt about it. I still think their additive chemistry lags behind. It always has actually. They were last to jump on board with moly, and their new oils look identical to M1 from 2006. Their pre-GF-4 oils had oxidation issues. They even ran some add one time in their Action News magazine from a new customer who trashed it RP because of moly. They continually use the 4- ball wear test, as if that comes close to replicating the IVA or IIIG. I just don't like their marketing practices. They could do better. I've heard quite a few respectable people over the years say Amsoil has been a sleezy company. I think it's changing though and for the better.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Really gotta disagree with Buster....yes, amsoil and Mobil have gone 'different directions' in their formulations


Agreed, the presence of moly or other metallic additives does not necessarily imply (IMO) that Amsoil has taken an out of date approach to their formulations.

SSO showed low levels of metallic additives somewhat similar to Mobil's new SN formulations, yet I have no reason to suspect that AZO was a step backwards from SSO in any respect other that their marketing department's OCI claims.


Mobil's moly is or was proprietary.

SSO was using over 3,300 ppm of Ca. Their oils now are using identical additive levels to GF-4 synthetics. Ultra as well. However, there are other components as well that are an unknown so there are obviously more differences.

They seem to get their high tbn from the Ca.