05 Acura TL RLI 0W-30, RLI 0W-20, amsoil & others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
15
Location
CA
This is, arguably, as close as one can get to controlled study, in a "real" world environment. One driver, similar ambient temperatures, comparable mileage and driving conditions, at least 2 runs for most brands of oils.

Those UOAs compare results from some of the "more" interesting oils under scrutiny on this forum.

The intent behind this post is to seek comments and suggestions given rather interesting results. Note that RLI results include both TAN and TBN.

Thank you in advance.


Logistics:

From left to right, on the BlackStone Lab report:

RLI 0W-30, RLI 0W-20, Amsoil 0W-20, Amsoil 0W-20, Amsoil XL 5W-20, Havoline 5W-20

Last run did include Techron fuel system concentrates with just about each tank of gas.

Oil Filters used:

RLI and Amsoil 0W-20 runs were filtered by Mobil-1 104 filters,
Amsoil XL was filtered by Wix ,
Havoline - filtech OEM

UOAacura52010.jpg
 
thx for the work! I am laughing and shaking my head at the results. this is not the first time we have seen UOA's that show impressive results for dino - especially Havo. perhaps we should stop wasting (?) money on synths...
 
I don't see how conventional oil did better (maybe I'm missing something(?)). It looks to have done worse, but the engine was still breaking in and it's only a sample of one. Hard to say, when looking at the Group III oil that base oil has anything to do with this.

The Ni is the oddity here. Out of the blue, and not getting better. But Al is rock solid. Is there some Ni bearing alloy prominent in this engine? (bottom end?)
 
Done worse? TN is slightly higher than two of the Amsoil samples and copper is lower. Zn/P numbers look a bit bettrer for the Havoline as well.
 
Once again we have proof the synthetics are overated and overpriced. RLI is a joke esp. for the cost of this stuff, Havoline outpreformed it as well as the Amsoil. Havoline held it's TBN better then Amsoil and RLI.
 
Like many Honda/Toyota engines, all of which are well built, most oils perform similarly. Very consistent results here.

Tbn is not liner with mileage. The Tbn @ 15k miles could be entirely different with all these oils. Oxidation would also be less with the PAO based Amsoil over the long haul.
 
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Done worse? TN is slightly higher than two of the Amsoil samples and copper is lower. Zn/P numbers look a bit bettrer for the Havoline as well.


So now to make conventional oil look better we just ignore the miles on the oil? 3X the miles and the Fe is essentially the same. TBN is higher in the XL at TWO TIMES higher mileage. Don't be so eager to make claims - you have over 600 posts, and now you have a new guy thinking the same as you. Odd, that.

P and Zn are all the same within the B/S +/- ~150 ppm range.

Buster knows his stuff.

Again, nothing shows much about base oil choice here.

Find out about the Ni source.
 
Originally Posted By: BBDartCA
Save the synthetics for 10K OCI, poorly designed engines or severe service duty. Go with Chevron / Halvoline mineral for all other cases.


Yeah maybe, but one 2,000 mile run of DS will not result in that conclusion.
 
Looking at the report I'd save my money on the RLI, and for the sake of curiosity give RL a try. Or stick with the Amsoil if you like it and call it a day. JMO
 
I think two things could have made this much more interesting:

1) Run the syntehtics for 10K and the dinos for 5K miles

2) Use an engine that is actually hard on oil...maybe an air-cooled VW that requires ether to start, just not a Honda.

Clark
 
Originally Posted By: zddp77
Once again we have proof the synthetics are overated and overpriced. RLI is a joke esp. for the cost of this stuff, Havoline outpreformed it as well as the Amsoil. Havoline held it's TBN better then Amsoil and RLI.
You must not have noticed the difference in miles between the different analyses.

TAN was high for the RLI oils which is typical of ester-based oils. None of the oils were put through the ringer as a poster above mine said.
 
Pablo, it's hard to say since it doesn't seem to be tracking with any other element or measurement, except possibly TAN. We only know TAN for RLI but not Amsoil 0W-20 which was the only other oil to make significant nickel. I don't know what parts in this engine have large amounts of Nickel. Does anyone else?
 
Supplemental info.

The mileage was reduced to 5000 mile intervals, for synthetics, as I found their performance "inconclusive" in my application.

Appearance of elevated Ni was not conducive toward extending the OCI.

While I wanted to provide a comparison between oils, I was not willing to risk *potential* increase in engine wear, by extending OCIs. Such "experimentation" will have to wait until Ni mystery is solved; it is an ongoing process.

Few additional bits of information:

Car was "broken-in" on Havolin SM (not DS type) at 2000-3000 miles per OCI and Filtech OEM filters, over a period of about 16,000 miles.

Nickel Source :
Nickel and chromium are used in industry to "harden" steel. This would point to valve train, or piston rings, since both use hardened steel in their component parts. There may be an engine part somewhere else (e.g. badly wearing EGR valve (?)), which could lead to increase in Ni (unlikely).
I am investigating.

Thanks to everyone for your posts.
 
Last edited:
Many steels certainly contain very small amounts of nickel but your UOAs show nickel to be on the same order of magnitude as iron, so their must be nickel plated parts and/or some other source of nickel. Sometimes virgin oils contain some nickel but I doubt both RLI oils and Amsoil 0W-20 had that much nickel in them to begin with. You could check VOAs or other for that. I suspect their are nickel plated parts in your engine.

It would be interesting if you used Havoline or Amsoil XL 5W-20 again to see if nickel drops significantly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top