New Amsoil OE 15W-40

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: -SyN-
Mr Newton: We all make choices and decisions each second of each day...Do I worry about what others think of my choices and decisions? ah No! If I had that much time on my hands I would feel pretty pathetic.

I just hate seeing people some what ridiculed for the choices they make on something as simple as the oil that they put in their auto... It's their Choice! It's their hard earned money going into their hard earned auto...Why worry about what they are doing? If they ask for an opinion? Give yours and leave it be...

This is not directed at anyone, I just think there are important things to worry about, besides how much **** payed for that qt or gallon of oil he is pouring in his auto...


You make excellent points. I concur whole-heartedly.

But, there is a flip-side to that observation of yours.

There are many times when some (certainly not all) people who use premium products have an air of superiority in their comments. They will often make claims with no basis of fact. I have long ago lost track of the times I've counted claimes of how "synthetics are better".

How many times have we read statments like: "Oil's cheap; motors are expensive. I'm using XYZ-PDQ brand oil because it's the best."?
Many people have zero frame of reference of what's required for safe, healthy operation of equipment. They make the false assumption that if some amount of something is good, then 2x or 3x of it must be "better" under all circumstances and conditions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most all people pick a lube (arbitrarily) based upon brand loyality, and try to cram that choice into an operational/maintenance plan, and want to call it "best". That is completely backwards from a logical approach. There is nothing "wrong" with doing it that way, but at that point those persons should admit it's completely emotional, and not based upon analysis. It makes no more sense to run a syn for normal 1x OCIs than it does to run dino for 5x OCIs; one is a huge waste and the other a huge risk. Media-based propogada (aka marketing) would have us believe that "12 seasons of boat hauling" can only be attained safely via the use of some synthetic. But the reality is that the lube lifecycle is predicated on more things that just a load occasionally hauled on weekends during one season of the year.

Yes, people have a right to make a choice and spend as they see fit. But when the profess how their choice is "better" with seemingly unlimited qualification or quantification, indicating that those who don't choose product XYZ-PQD are somehow not caring for thier equipment as well as others, that is the prolifereation of rhetoric and hype. I call that out where I see it. I challenge it.

There are individual opportunities for "best" because when one rightly defines the entire operational and maintenance plan, one can tailor the choices to specific boundries. But there is rarely, if ever, a "best" for all conditions.

When someone comes for advise, we should make sure to make clear our opionins versus the facts. I can direct people to countless hundreds of UOAs that show dino oils perform just as well as syns over "normal" OEM OCIs for the vast majority of operating scenarios. That's not opinion; those are facts that exist here on this site, and many others.

I can make direct, insightful comments because I, too, was a synthaholic many years ago. I thought synthetic was the answer to everything. Then, I began to educate myself on the benefits and limitations of synthetics. I realized that there is no one best answer for all situations, but there are "much better" choices for confined conditions. "Normal" operation and OEM OCIs do NOT call for synthetics. Just because one has the "right" to choose a syn, does not make it a "good" choice automatically. I recognize the individuals right to make choices, but that does not means I should sit by and allow rhetoric and mythology to prevail without challenging it.

Amsoil cut the cost of the OE HDEO product by 1/3, but cut the "benefit" of its use by 2/3, as contrasted to their other offerings. In my mind, that is not a "bargin"; you are getting way less for your money. Using Amsoil's OE in normal OCIs is a waste, but it's just not as big a waste as if you did the same with DEO or AME, or TDT or Delvac 1, etc.



Allow me to bring this full circle and quote myself from the first post I made in this thread, as it sums it up pretty well:
"I would contend that if one is going to OCI at the OEM intervals, there is little or no need for this product at all. But there are some syn junkies that just have to have syn, even Amsoil. This allows them the braggin' rights with less cost."



Folks, arguing over which syn might be "best" for a normal OCI is like debating which caliber is better between .308 and .30-'06. Both are fine hunting rounds, but they are in fact overkill for hunting squirell ...

 

[demarpaint]

dnewton3 you're highly respected in my book, for telling it like it is, stating facts, and keeping things honest here! Thanks for taking the time to post and share your knowledge. The numbers you stated don't lie. People looking for the best bang for their $$ should read your posts here, there's a lot to be learned from you. Thanks again.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: jmimac351
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No. Why?


Quote:
But one of them costs 2x more money.


Pablo, I think dnewton was comparing a dino oil to the Amsoil OE product, cost and otherwise.


I know he was, but he has never launched into other synthetic oils in the same manner. T6 costs more. So? Why no attack on T6?

 

[Jim Allen]

Newton has come thru with some very objective observations in this thread. Objectivity can be a red cape in the face of brand loyalty uber alles so it brings forth controversy. The way of the world. I do observe that, over time, he has spent more energy tilting at windmills where the Amsoil brand name was a component than some others ( : < ) but it's difficult to dismiss his arguments on the topic. In my observation, FWIW, he's really not tilting at Amsoil so much as the individual topic to which that name is attached. Maybe Amsoil does have a "red cape" effect on him to some degree in attracting him to the topic but, once ensconced in it, he retains a healthy amount of objectivity. Some might say he could "spread the objectivity" a little better but if you read all his posts, not just the ones about Amsoil, you might notice that, within a reasonable allowance for human nature, he does. I think his underlying goal is to challenge the notion that a single brand name or lubricant characteristic are the first and only critieria in an oil choice. Dave has spent plenty of time countering the argument that one size does NOT fit all, whether it be brand, base oil or viscosity (to name just a few).

I don't really have an opinion on this subject in particular but I haven't seen anything presented that adequately counters his points.

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: jmimac351
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No. Why?


Quote:
But one of them costs 2x more money.


Pablo, I think dnewton was comparing a dino oil to the Amsoil OE product, cost and otherwise.


I know he was, but he has never launched into other synthetic oils in the same manner. T6 costs more. So? Why no attack on T6?



And the uber-evil TDT!

 

[dnewton3]

I most certainly have "launched into other synthetic oils" in the same manner. Or, to be more specifc, I have "launched" into the users of synthetics when they get into the waste of oil. In fact, I've "launched" into dino oil users for dumping their sumps too early there as well.

But, let's not overlook the fact that Amsoil is now marketing syns for "normal" OEM OCIs. That is a first, that I'm aware of, where a lube maker is specifically agreeing to target a standard OCI with a syn, as a seperate strategy from their other products. Sure, other lube makers dance around it, but this is an "in your face" admisssion that a syn is only made for OEM OCIs. Further, Amsoil is somewhat unique in that they market full PAO and (what I suspect to be) less than full-PAO with a reduced add-pack (what some call reduced, others call different ...). With XOM, they have Delvac 1 and TDT, but those are heavily PAO based, and I don't know of a group III HDEO from them. OTOH - Sopus has the T-6, but no full PAO that I'm aware of in the North-American market. So, by the nature of some of this discussion, Amsoil is "unique" in that they offer some really great PAO for extensively extended OCIs, and they have a "syn" for 1x OCI's. That's a bit "unique", don't you think? So, to some degree, when I was discussing the nature of the Amsoil OE to the DEO, that is a "unique" comparison/contrast that other makers don't currently offer. How can I "launch into" some product that does not exist from one of Amsoil's competitors?

And, at times, I have certainly defended Amsoil. See my posts here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2097286&page=1
Allow me to quote myself -
"(note: I doubt Amsoil is the cause, but at this point you're in a fact-finding mode, and it's time for some "Red-X RRCA", a form of methodical process of elimination. This should rule out the Amsoil, rather than blame it)"

"I don't think the use of Amsoil would ever result in a "disaster" in that engine, or any engine for that matter. Amsoil makes fine products.
What I do think is a possibility is that continued high Cu readings due to "leaching" (more often accepted as flaking or chelation) could mask other "disasterous" events.
But in no way do I believe that using Amsoil in itself is disasterous and I would challenge your basis for stating as such."

Seems that when I challenge Amsoil, I'm heavily scrutinized, but when I defend it, not much is noticed. And when I chastize others for the under-utilization of other syns, or even dino's, that goes un-noticed as well.

Perhaps the "bias" is not in the attack, but rather in the selective defense?

 

[BobFout]

This oil IS unique. It's made primarily made for medium duty CR diesels where fuel dilution limits OCIs to factory intervals.

Why spend the money on their extended-drain oil when you must change it "early" due to regens? Amsoil has a purpose-built oil here.

 

[bullwinkle]

Exactly! An Amsoil for the DPF diesels that gets changed at factory OCI, and costs less! Well-maybe a LITTLE less!

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Newton has come thru with some very objective observations in this thread. Objectivity can be a red cape in the face of brand loyalty uber alles so it brings forth controversy. The way of the world. I do observe that, over time, he has spent more energy tilting at windmills where the Amsoil brand name was a component than some others ( : < ) but it's difficult to dismiss his arguments on the topic. In my observation, FWIW, he's really not tilting at Amsoil so much as the individual topic to which that name is attached. Maybe Amsoil does have a "red cape" effect on him to some degree in attracting him to the topic but, once ensconced in it, he retains a healthy amount of objectivity. Some might say he could "spread the objectivity" a little better but if you read all his posts, not just the ones about Amsoil, you might notice that, within a reasonable allowance for human nature, he does. I think his underlying goal is to challenge the notion that a single brand name or lubricant characteristic are the first and only critieria in an oil choice. Dave has spent plenty of time countering the argument that one size does NOT fit all, whether it be brand, base oil or viscosity (to name just a few).

I don't really have an opinion on this subject in particular but I haven't seen anything presented that adequately counters his points.


Good post. I guess I'm just a word choice freak. I'm pretty sure Newton doesn't do it on purposes, but his word choice with Amsoil is very distinctly different than with other oils. I mean "flaking" when talking about copper in solution. Wowser.

Anyway, Amsoil OE IS different. Let's see how it performs in real life before judging it. I make no promises of greatness, nor should anyone say the oil has no purpose - before anyone has actually used the juice!

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
[
Good post. I guess I'm just a word choice freak.


Being a word choice freak is OK. It's what I live for most times, but most things on BITOG are not the hills I want to die on. Especially if I can see essentially what the writer was trying to express.

To that end, let me correct a couple of mine in that post you thought was good. Let me amend, "Dave has spent plenty of time countering the argument that one size does NOT fit all, whether it be brand, base oil or viscosity (to name just a few)." to :

"Dave has spent plenty of time countering the argument that one size fits all, whether it be brand, base oil or viscosity (to name just a few)."

 

[Pablo]

Jim - I understood what you meant. Somehow.......

 

[dnewton3]

I just got off the phone with Josh at the Amsoil Tech line, and this is what I was told: "The OED is inferior to our other products". (I will be VERY clear; that was his word choice and NOT mine.)

To be honest, that sounds like a loaded statement. The word "inferior" may or may not be a negative connotation. To be inferior to a premium product is not inherently a bad thing. I certainly would agree that DEO and DME are top-tier products. To be "inferior" in contrast to these is not saying the OED is a bad product; it’s simply not as good as those others.

So I pressed further. I asked what base stocks were the primary make up of the new OED. He claimed they were a "synthetic stock". I asked if it was primarily group III or IV; he countered with this: "There are some group fours that are not as good as group threes". OK - I might believe that; to be honest I've always said that a lube is much more than just its base stock and we'd most all agree. He would not say if it was a group III or IV, but he did indicate in his multiple comments that it's "synthetic". When one cannot commit to a product being PAO, then it’s not PAO. It’s “synthetic” and nothing more. Enough of the word games; I can read in between the lines.

Next I inquired about the add-pack, as contrasted to the DEO and DME. He again said that the OED has lower levels of additives, and that the pack is “not as robust”. He specifically said the add pack in the OED is "reduced" from the other high-end products. Those were his words.

I even noticed that the new OED has a TBN of 9.0; that is less than many of the dino CJ-4 offerings. OTOH - I'd be the first one to profess that TBN is moot most of the time, because oil typically get's changed before the TBN is an issue anyway. This is ESPECIALLY true when a "normal" OEM OCI is used. But, it is a fair observation; the OED has less TBN than many competing dino oils.



How do I love thee? Let me count the ways:
• OED has a lesser base stock. I say lesser because that was the implication right from Josh. Right from the start, he called the product “inferior” contrasted to the DEO and DME. For YEARS the Amsoil faithful (and also the M1 faithful as well) have pontificated that if oil isn't group IV, it's not synthetic. Well - it seems Amsoil has seen the light. I am NOT picking on them. I believe this is a very smart and savvy marketing move for them. I don’t know what percentage of the OED is III or IV, and I don’t care, frankly. The point is that this is not a heavily PAO-based product. If it were, they would shout it from the rooftops. I, for one, actually agree in that there are plenty of great group III oils out there. This OED product is just one more of them. There is no reason to think this oil isn’t every bit as good as T-6 and others. It’s probably no better, and probably no worse. T-6 is a great product, and I suspect OED will be so as well.
• OED has a reduced add-pack. “Reduced” what? “Reduced content”. He did not get into specifics, and frankly (again) I don’t really care. The performance of oil is a sum of all the parts. Having a bit more of Mg and a bit less of Ca, etc, etc, etc is moot as long as the lube does its job well.
• OED has a much shorter OCI application. Stated right on their website. Not much to even argue about there. Two-thirds less OCI duration.
• OED costs one-third less money; price is clearly stated on the site.

I believe this OED product will perform right in line with T-6, and VPBE and other similar products.

I believe this product will increase some market share for Amsoil. As I have already stated, there are synthetic junkies out there that must use synthetics to sleep well at night. That applies to Amsoil, T-6, TDT, etc. They don’t “need” synthetic; they “want” it. I suppose one could argue that “need” is defined in many ways, so allow me to be specific in this case. Today’s common rail diesels used in normal applications (including heavy towing for which they are designed), in all but the most flesh-killing cold temps, with OEM OCIs in place, do not “need” synthetics to perform well over very long periods of ownership and operation with great wear protection and cleanliness. I believe there is zero need for these synthetic products in a “normal” OEM OCI. Too much proof to show dino oils do every bit as well. UOAs show it. Anecdotal examples show it. I never supported the use of T-6, or TDT, or DEO or such in a “normal” OCI, and I don’t support the use of OED there either. They are all a waste of money in those confined circumstances.

So if we go all the way back to my original post of "rumors" and my use of the non-word "decontented", it seems I was completely correct. The OED primarily has a non-PAO base, less additives, and significantly reduced OCI. You'll save 1/3 the cost and lose 2/3 of OCI potential. Feel free to pick on my spelling and grammer, but my content was 100% right. By their own description, the OED is "inferior" to their other products. And here I was trying to be polite by calling it "decontented" ... If I called OED "inferior", I'd be labeled as an Amsoil-hating oil biggot. If I called it "inferior", I'd be accused of "bias". If I called it "inferior", I'd be flamed into next week for being a bad moderator.

To grab onto Jim's example and expound: Do I have a "red cape"? Yes; I chase the truth, and the truth is now known based upon Amsoil's own statements of its own product.

 

[Bambam]

Thanks for taking it one step further and posting your findings.

 

[demarpaint]

Very informative dnewton! Thanks for posting.

 

[Pablo]

Thank you for finding out there is a use and a market for this oil. Please next time a group III HDEO comes to market, treat it similarly. Let the record show that Amsoil OED is not a lesser oil among peers, that it's not inferior or "decontented" relative to other group III HDEO's. We will also wait for the VOA to see what is claimed as "missing".