Amsoil AME 15w40, 6k miles, 05 Chevy 2500HD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
263
Location
Texas
This oil was in use for right at a year and changed. Now that I know about how many miles they are going a year I went back with the OED line instead of AME. Will try to run that a year as well and re-sample.

05_Duramax.JPG
 
At one point in my career I was TDY far away from home and the only oil that was available was AME. I ran it in every vehicles that we had and it was good to excellent. Your UOA looks excellent and personally I would run it for two years instead of just one.
 
Typical Dmax UOA. Very typical. In fact, totally typical.

It's not that the Amsoil did a great job or a bad job, it's that the Dmax engine is very easy on ANY lube. Yes - these are good results. But they can be had by any number of decent brand/grade dino oils.

This Amsoil UOA is at 6k miles; that's right near the Blackstone universal average. Here are samples of some dino UOAs that show very similar results, some of them with very hard use, and some with longer exposure:
10w-30 dino Rotella - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2323660&page=1
15w-40 dino Rotella - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2364435#Post2364435
15w-40 dino Delvac - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2552205&page=1
15w-40 dino Kendall - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2386939&page=1

Here are some syn UOAs:
5w-40 T6 - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2425542&page=1
5w-40 T6 - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2475696&page=1
15w-40 RL - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2379331&page=1
5w-40 VPBE - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2360747#Post2360747


It is important to know that seeing a few ppm +/- is not statistically significant and means absolutely nothing. The standard deviation has to be taken into consideration as well as knowing a "universal average". All these wear metals are so low that the tiny shifts are just noise and mean nothing as to true wear. But that just reinforces the point I make. "Average" is good; average means all is well. Average in a Dmax is excellent, regardless of what's in the lube system.

So, we can make a fair conclusion here. All lubes that are within the proper spec return the same statistical results when used for normal exposure durations. No one needs synthetics for OEM OCIs, especially in a Dmax. Total waste of money for this application if 6k miles is going to be the expected accumulated mileage at OCI. Heck, there are plenty of Dmax UOAs showing dino oils do very well at 10-12k miles, even when pulling heavy loads! 6k miles is a cake-walk for a Dmax/dino combination.

Please let me make this very plainly clear: I'm not bashing the Amsoil; I'm challenging the use of it. Amsoil makes great stuff. People often think I'm anti-syn and that's just not true. Rather, I am anti-waste. And using any syn in this manner is a total waste. This is a yet another great example of how synthetics don't make for less wear in "normal" use. They typically cost 2-3x more money, and yet provide nothing in return when used in under these circumstances.

The praise really does not belong to the fluid here; it belongs to the engine. If you use a properly spec'd fluid, a Dmax simply doesn't care what's in the crankcase.

dhellman12 - You've got a few Dmax vehicles, and you've got many UOAs here on them. Even your own examples show that syns don't provide any advantage under these operational circumstances. So I ask: why the Amsoil OE? There are any number of less expensive HDEOs that would do just as well, for less money. I realize that OE is the "bargin" Amsoil, but it's still more money that any HDEO on sale. Delvac just finished a $5/gallon rebate. Valvoline now has a $4/gallon rebate. You can EASILY find dino oil on sale for what equates to no more than $10/gallon, and less at times.

When one is confident of excellent "average" results, why pay any more than the bare minimum to assure those results?
 
Last edited:
^^^Agreed completely.

My good friend Neil has an 09 just like mine and it only took two UOA's to prove to him that this engine is really an easy one to lubricate properly.

We both simply follow the OLM and use a good quality oil.
 
Maybe he just wants to use Amsoil. Same with me, it's not about money or being a waste, but choice. Which is exactly the reason you have more than one brand to choose from.
 
We started off with the AME for the first run not knowing the expected miles per yr they would hit. I think all agree after seeing the 6k run that is not the right oil. Last year the truck was used to pull 10k-11k loads of hay much more frequently than in previous seasons. The owner was not happy with the stock pulling power so we've started making mods to increase the power, starting with the programmer. During our discovery phase I don't mind the added cost of the syn oil, even the OE vs Dino. Couple that with better cold flow and increased mpg (which most of the educational articles on this site substantiate) I don't mind spending a few more bucks.

After we get the truck dialed in and pulling to the owners satisfaction, if the uoa's are more of the same I don't mind continuing to scale back the oil choice. AME is overkill, we'll see if the OED is as well.

I should have results for my dmax later this week. I ran it to just under 20k before draining the first fill of AME (9 months of service). I plan to keep extending as the uoa's assure safe wear counts. Should be able to post by the end of the week.
 
Come on, now ... cold starts in Arlington TX? The average low in January does not even get down to freezing; it's 35 degF for your average low. Your average high is 96 degF. There is no reasonable justification of using a syn due to temps for 6k mile OCIs in TX. Not for cold starts. Nor even for heat. Did you actually read my UOA from last year? I flogged my dino 10w-30 as hard as any person could in the heat of UT and AZ, in the mountains of CO, all while pulling a heavy RV, and the engine took it in stride.

If it's fuel mileage you want, then I do agree a thinner oil will work. Again - why not consider the dino 10w-30s? OTOH - if fuel mileage is what you're after, then tuning up the truck for more power is going to consume far more than any oil is going to save; I'd ditch that plan. Here's where your lack of logic fails you: you'll use syn to save money in an engine that you're going to tune up for more power (which consumes more fuel) and do so in an OCI duration that any dino oil could survive, paying probably 2x the money for the oil and only get back perhaps 1-2% in fuel savings ... Just where is the logic here?

Let's look at real numbers here:
10 qrt sump in a Dmax
truck A uses OE at $7/qrt (I'm averaging in shipping costs); that's $70 for the 6k mile OCI.
truck B uses any HDEO on sale at $2/qrt (it's doable; Delvac just ended their $5 rebate and Valvoline just started their $4 rebate). That's $20 per OCI; no shipping costs because you can find this stuff all over your area on your next shopping trip.
Now, figure 6k miles a year. With mostly towing, you might see perhaps 12mpg using dino oil; that's 500 gallons of fuel used. A 2% increase of using synthetic will get you 12.24mpg; that's 490 gallons of fuel used over the same 6k miles. At an average of $4/gallon for fuel, you save $40, which does not offest the $50 additonal cost of the syn lube. Heck, let's say I'm off a tiny bit; the best case sceanario would be breaking even.
AND you must realize that this "fuel savings" errodes to nothing if you were to use a 10w30 dino HDEO versus the syn. The fuel savings would be fractional (well less than 1%).

You are trying to "justify" the use of syns with flawed logic, sir. I apologize if that is rude or blunt, but I cannot accept that for anything other than what it is; it's emotional and not logical.

(Side note; as soon as you add power, the Allison TCs don't hold up well. They can take a minor tune of up to around +75hp, and then they will start to slip baddly. Beware.)

Use syn because you want to; not because you need to. There is no tangible need in the given conditions you state (mid-TX weather, 6k mile OCIs, towing).


This UOA of yours proves that the synthetic oil did nothing extraordinary for you at all. All the UOAs I've shown (and many others) prove that a Dmax under these conditions does not care which oil brand/grade you use as long as it's of proper spec. This Amsoil load did a great job of being average (which means desirable and typical) in a Dmax. Nothing more; nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Love your passion dnewton! No offense taken, I'm always up for a heated discussion.

The truck isn't in Arlington, TX it's actually in Placid, TX. I'm in Arlington. Their average low isn't much different, about 32F. I was actually referring to cold flow at startup. According to the Motor Oil 103 page on this site: "A main advantage that the synthetic has over the mineral based oil is the ability to lubricate at startup. Both types of oil have the same specifications at 104°F, 212°F and 302°F. It is the startup viscosity characteristics that separate these oils. Synthetic oils do not thicken as much on cooling. They have better fluidity as the temperature drops."

I've seen your results and according to the reports the 10W-30 works for you. Honestly it may work great, but I'm not willing to turn a six figure motor into a science project. I don't have the funds to replace the motor, so I'm going to stick to the 15W-40 recommended by probably every HD diesel engine manufacturer. I'm not arguing that it works for you, but I'd rather go with what Dodge/Ford/GM recommends than to explain I blew up a motor because someone on a motor oil forum showed that 10W-30 worked for them.

With regards to the programmer, may I suggest you take some of the money you are saving on dino motor oil and invest in a better programmer?
wink.gif
Using two of the better vendors on the market, I've yet to find a situation where I don't get more power AND better MPG. Most of the tunes are for improving overall efficiency, not merly dumping more fuel. I've seen even better gains when towing, I don't have to stomp as hard to get improved acceleration.

For the cost discussion the OE ran $50.05, with no shipping needed. So even if you chase sales and switch brands at will, you are looking at a difference in $30. Now you've probably forgotten more about oil analysis than I'll ever know, but to me I would think it's probably best to establish a baseline with the same oil and motor before you swap out for the cheapest oil on sale. That could be flawed logic as well, just my assumption.

In my 04, I've been running about 90 HP, 170 TQ tune and haven't had a problem with the Allison slipping yet. You aren't using conventional ATF are you???
smile.gif


Again, I'm past the UOA at this point. Based on the data I now have, we all agree the oil could/should have been run longer. It's difficult when you are 300 miles away, had it been local I'd have submitted a sample before dumping the oil. Check out the posts for their 97 c3500 and you'll get a good idea of their previous maintenance plans. My logic for the initial oil run was to overkill rather than under (what's $60 a year in the grand scheme when you are talking about $10K plus for a new diesel engine). Seeing the 1yr mileage interval proved that AME was too much oil, we are adjusting to a less expensive full sync oil (OE) and introducing more power with a programmer. I plan to extend the oil to a year, and hopefully sample before dumping. If I can't make it down there, maybe we change at a year and then adjust our plan for the next fill according to the UOA results, extending where possible unti we get dialed in.
 
Last edited:
I, too, take no offense; good to have debate without feelings hurt!


As for the viscosty effects and cold starts, I'll say this:
theory is theory, but reality is reality.

Don't cling to the words in a BITOG article, or any article for that matter, when factual data is at hand. Would I agree that syns might flow a tiny bit quicker at start up? I'd have to say yes, they do. But ...

It doesn't matter. Look at the results, not the inputs. Look at the UOA data. In theory, a syn reduces wear at statr up. In reality, there is no statistical difference in UOAs contrasting syns and dinos. The syn is unable to present an advantage when the dino is capable of replicating the same wear protection! If there were more wear occuring at startup from using dino, we'd see more wear metals in the UOAs! You CANNOT avoid this simple truth; there is no wear reduction advantage when the envidence (UOA) shows the same average wear results. The theory is great; the reality is more telling. It is the distinction between what CAN happen, and what DOES happen. All the data, all the evidence, shows that wear is not affected. If start up is so greatly aided in wear reduction by using a synthetic, then where are all the extra wear particles in the dino UOA? I fully and completely understand that syns will have better flow at startup; what I'm telling you is that the "advantage" does not manifest into actual wear at the temps you see in TX. For M37Charlie in Alaska, in winter, at -35F, it probably does make for some small difference in wear. But not where you're at, sir. (To paraphrase an imfamous Cochran judicial statement) ... If it isn't there, it can't be wear ... The UOAs show no difference in wear, therefore there is no advantage being experienced at start up.

It's this simple in the most base of intelect:
when there is no statistical difference in wear metals in a UOA, there is logically no difference in wear in operation and startup.

Now - I'll throw a curveball here, but I don't believe this to be true. I'm just throwing it out there to show the absurdity of the topic. Follow along please ...

If the UOA results show evenly distributed wear data over a large sample set (as we see in many hundreds of Dmax UOAs), and we accept the theory that synthetics provide "better" wear protection at start up, then how does the dino oil "equalize" the overall wear counts? Mathematically, if there is an advantage to using syns at startup, and the UOAs are statistically equal in a macro sense, then the syns must have a DISadvantage during full temp operation! Think about it as if it were a sporing event. If the hockey game is tied at the end of the game at 5 goals each, and one team scored all their goals in the first peroid, then the other team had to "equalize" the score in other two periods. If the synthetic oil has an advantage at startup by providing less wear, then it must be having MORE wear elsewhere to come out statistically equal with dino oil at the end of the UOA ... I don't think any of us beleive that is true. So, by default, what is MORE likely is that there simply is no advantage in regard to wear over the entire operational cycle (startup, use, shutdown). I don't know where you are from, but there is no therom in my universe that allows these diametrically opposed concepts to coincide; you cannot have less wear, but equal results.

Once again, I go back to my bucket of examples, and recall the statment I've made many times. Inputs are interesting; results are telling. You can give me the starting line-up of two baseball teams, and show me their win/loss records, but the end score is what determins the final results. I don't care nearly as much about which oil has what base stock or grade or additive; I look at results. I look at UOAs. That is the definitive data. And the data points to one, simple, solid conclusion:
Duramax engines simply perform (wear) the same in a normal OCI regardless of the oil basestock/brand/grade used, as long as you use an approved fluid.

In TX, for that use you define with towing and 6k mile OCIs, I'd get the least expensive 15w-40 you can find on sale with rebate.

You can spend more money on more expensive products, but you will gain little if any fuel savings, and experience no advantage in wear reduction. And I would challenge you to post proof (not links of sales hype and marketing rhetoric) that would show otherwise.


BTW - perhaps you mis-stated the facts, or I'm out of touch; since when is a Dmax engine a "six figure motor"? I'm not aware of any normal Dmax costing $100,000 ... Are you witholding something from us? Is this a race-bred sled-pulling truck? I was under the impression this was a daily use work truck; did I misunderstand? I see that you also refernced a "$10K" engine, so perhaps you just mistated the initial figures?

When you post data here, it's up for the public to see/use/praise/ridicule/deny/accept/ignore. You are part of the science project whether you realize it or not; it's just that this truck is an example of the expensive part.

And, while we're at it, 10w-30 is now the recommended fluid in some diesel engines, and it's going to continue in that regard as the market moves forward. I am not stating that 10w-30 is the "best"; that's not true. My examples in my personal UOAs is that people think 15w-40 is "better" than thinner fluids, but my UOAs prove (once again) that the Dmax engine simply does not show any preference, because wear data shows no statistical difference between the two. My own UOAs show that even in hard use in high heat, the lighter 10w-30 dino does every bit as well as a 15w-40 syn.

As for my ATF, I actually use PAO based AutoTrans5 from DA Lubes. I have the intent of running LONG OCIs in the tranny, t-case and diffs, so I use syns for the extended intervals. And no syntheic oil in the Allison is going to save the torque converter and C3 clutch once they start to slip. These are known weak links in the Allison. Up the power, and someday, they will succumb to the excess.

OK - so you're using a tuner to get better mileage. How much did the tuner cost? To find the true ROI, you'd have to figure in that cost as well. You cannot fairly save on fuel with a tool, but not count the cost of that tool into the equation. I'm not saying it cannot pay for itself; perhaps it can. But you cannot act as though it's a free fuel savings; the tuner cost money as well. What's the ROI? At what point in duration do you surpass cost and glean return?

I'm not saying synthetics are a bad product or a good product. I'm saying this UOA is yet again proof that a Dmax engine can wear very well regardless of what you use in the crankcase, if "normal" OCIs are the intended goal. And nothing you've touted so far has refuted that concept; not your words, nor your data.

What I see is that you are a subscriber to the yabut philosophy:
"yeah - but ..."
thicker is better (not proven so in a Dmax)
syns reduce wear at cold start up (not proven so in a Dmax at less than 45 deg of latitude; not in TX!)
syns are better with heat (all evidence to the contrary in a Dmax)
syns are better at fuel economy (yes, to a small degree, however it is situationally dependent and one must take all costs into account)

This is a good UOA. It's not due to the oil; it's due to the superior design/manufacture of the engine.
 
Last edited:
This motor has run conventional for the first 6 years of it's life, so I'm going to give it a few oil runs to develop a trend on the synthetic before coming to the conclusion. I don't expect the first UOA to provide me with all of the info I need, including the mileage the oil will be in service. I fully expect to be able to run more miles than the blackstone average for this motor (~6600 mi), with lower wear metals than average. For a vehicle the owner plans to keep 'forever' I think those are both realistic goals for the OED.

For the first run of oil we were under the mileage goal by ~400 miles. The metal content was higher based on averages per mile than the Blackstone average for Aluminum, Iron and Tin. The metal content was lower for Copper and Lead. Nothing was drastically different though, as expected in a first run, especially when the wear metals for the average dmax motor are so good to begin with. Clearly we can extend the miles and have room to improve in the metal content (worse in 3 of 5).

Will keep you posted. Expect to see UOA #2 in about 12 months.
 
Originally Posted By: dhellman12
I fully expect to be able to run more miles than the blackstone average for this motor (~6600 mi), with lower wear metals than average. For a vehicle the owner plans to keep 'forever' I think those are both realistic goals for the OED.


That does not make any sense.

Further up this thread, you indicated that approximately 6k mile OCIs are going to be the norm for this vehicle. That is very close (within 10%) of the "universal average" from Blackstone.

If you greatly extend the OCIs, then the AME might be made to pay off; that GREATLY alters my perception of the situation.
If there is no intent to extend the OCI past OEM limits, then Amsoil AME is a total waste and OE is (at best) a break even. And neither will show any statistical advantage over dino oil for "normal" OCIs for wear protection.



Let's focus in on this one expectation of yours:
Quote:
I fully expect to be able to run more miles than the blackstone average for this motor (~6600 mi), with lower wear metals than average.

And yet this is what you said about this thread's UOA and OCI in the initial post:
Quote:
This oil was in use for right at a year and changed. Now that I know about how many miles they are going a year I went back with the OED line instead of AME.

This would indicate that approximately 6k miles are the expected normal OCI for this particular vehicle.

Your statements are contradictory and confusing. Either they are going to extend the OCI or they are not. Which is it?


You indicate that 6k miles is going to be the expected owner's OCI, and then try to justify the use of Amsoil by stating you'll expect better results with longer OCIs. Those two statements are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist in the real world.

I realize that you maintain more than one Dmax (several, as I recall). And for some of your trucks that see much longer OCIs, then the Amsoil product line might make sense, depending upon the exact results vs the ROI (or any synthetic for that matter).

But THIS vehicle will see zero tangible, quantifiable benefit from the use of synthetic in "normal" (OEM OCI) durations. No matter how much yabut justification you try to use.
 
Last edited:
Never did I say that 6k mile OCI was the goal for this vehicle. After the first year, I did say I have a better idea of how many miles/yr they are putting on the truck. This vehicle was in the shop due to several issues, mostly related to the owner. In addition the UOA should provide you an indication of how long the OCI can be extended to, which I plan to do for any vehicle. I don't expect their annual totals to be anywhere near my personal DMAX (~25K) so I think AME is overkill. I'm hoping that 9K/yr+ will be the norm, and anywhere from 9-12K OCI is realistic... but I'd rather set the limits based on the UOA results but unfortunately this will be a change it and then test situation. Maybe I should have clarified that, but certainly that was never my intention.

Knowing the use of the truck, who typically drives the truck, and that I'm not always around to siphon an oil sample before draining... I am not comfortable running the same oil fill in the truck for 24 months (AME) the OED is a better choice. I think 12-16 is probably more in my comfort zone right now.

On a previous topic, the programmer ran $100 off ebay. I haven't done the ROI, but I don't expect it to take very long to make that back in fuel savings. Plus the added power for towing, in addition to the MPG improvement, has met their expectations.
 
You said this:
Quote:
Now that I know about how many miles they are going a year I went back with the OED line instead of AME.
That statement referred to this 6k mile OCI UOA. That, sir, indicates an expectation of approximately 6k mile OCIs, and the intent of using OE (which is only rated for OEM OCIs by Amsoil) to expect around that kind of OCI duration. In fact, you never stated in the OP that anything but 6k miles was the expectation. Why would you change to OE if extended OCIs were the forgoing expectation? And let's now make sure to note that the OLM in the Dmax vehicles is fairly accurate, and by no means is 6k miles an OEM OLM limit; it is very typical to see the OLMs run up to 9-12k miles even with towing involved.

And yet now you state this:
Quote:
Never did I say that 6k mile OCI was the goal for this vehicle.


Again - contradictory statements.


And you have hinted at something that is probably going to be your next approach to this debate; you said you were unwilling to use this motor as an experiement, as if the only option to any engine survival program is assured by the use of synthetics.

I liken this concept you profess to one of "cheap insurance". We hear it so many times. But the concept is based upon a false premise; that if some is good, more is always better at any cost.

Consider insurance, the fiscal reimbursement policy concept.
Perhaps you have a home worth $100k and there is another $50k of "stuff" inside. You now go shopping for homeowner's insurance.
Company A offers $125k home coverage and $75 stuff coverage for $500 a year.
Company B offers $200k home coverage and $100 stuff coverage for $600 a year.
Your mindset might be that for an extra $100, that's "cheap insurance". Not so - it as a waste. And here's why.
Both policies have more than enough coverage. Company A already offers more than you can claim; you cannot claim more than you have in possession. You cannot claim $125k for an appraised $100k home. Nor can you claim more stuff that you own.
Your money spent on "cheap insurance" is wasted money, because the least expensive product is more than capable of covering any forseen circumstance. In fact, regardless of which policy you bought, should you have a full or partial claim, the payout is going to be the same, is it not?

And so it goes with dino oil in the Dmax under normal use and OCIs. "Normal" use is towing for a truck! It's not "severe" to tow up to the full factory rating. And, there are HUNDREDS of UOAs where heavy, high-heat towing was done in dino fluids and they do every bit as well as syns under those conditions. Your presumption of "cheap insurance" is false; there is no benefit given the conditions you stated.


Now, you want to backtrack and change the rules of the game; you want to say you were not going to limit an OCI when you CLEARLY expressed that fact in the opening post. Whatever ...

I mean you no ill will, but your yabuts are growing by the post, sir.
 
Last edited:
When do you guys sleep? (NOTE: 3am posts edited @ 4am!)

Personally I can't imagine buying a vehicle without having the previous owner provide me with 6 years of UOA's... Thereby proving the 6K OCI with conventional HDEO was statistically equal to 20K OCI's with synthetics.

Just kidding.

Cheers!

p.s. AME has always been one of my favorite oils: too bad the days of 30% OFF @ GI JOE'S are long gone!
 
dnewton3,

Why are you so concerned about how dhellman12 spends his money? I see that you bring up some valid points related to ROI and syns vs dino, but how dhellman12 spends his money doesn't affect you. As the saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted and if you believe that is the case, just say that and let bygones be bygones.

I used to be the same way trying to correct everyone to see things my way, but that backfired on me big time when I actually had to work for a major corporation because eventually everyone gets mad at you and don't want to work with you.
 
It's simple why I care.

There is a difference between wants and needs.

And there always new (or newer) members and visitors coming here for advice.

Real, fair advice is based upon facts and data and not rhetoric and mythology and hype.

There is NOTHING wrong with ANYONE using what they want to use, for any product, in any aspect of their lives. But often those people will try to use poor presumptions and sales hype (combined with rhetoric and mythology) to somehow convince themselves that what they are doing is "better". Better for their own personal emotional satisfaction? Sure - No problem - go for it. Better for their engine? Data in situations such as these shows it's clearly not true.

Why do I personally get into these conversations? Because I once was that "newbie" in another realm of life. I've told this story before, but I'll condense it here. Several years ago, I needed a computer system. I am NOT, in any way, a computer guru; quite the opposite, I'm computer ignorant. I joined a site, asked some questions, and got total poo when it came to advice. Too many people gave me answers that fit their version of "better", rather than give me facts to make good decisions upon. So many things; so many choices; I was lost. And rather than help me define my "needs" and offer choices, it became a display of one-upsmanship as to what was "best". Finally, what I bought was not what I needed, but what I wanted. And I wasted money and didn't end up with a system that did what I needed it to. I overspent on some aspects and underspent on others, because I had no idea how to break down performance aspect criteria, nor how to choose options to satisfy those aspects. And to this day, I'll remember this as a life experience; don't just accept the "more is always better" mentality. One needs to define the needs in a fair assessment, seek out viable options, and then choose, realizing that BOTH reason and emotion will play into almost any decision.


When anyone posts a UOA, it's for ALL of us to read and use in a manner we see fit. I see this UOA, and all those like it, as proof that anyone with a Dmax does not NEED synthetics for normal use and normal OCIs. FACTS support this. And any newbie should be aware of this undeniable fact.

When anyone says "synthetics are beter", I ask "How so?" Show me a baseline standard for reference of judgement, and then prove to me the performance criteria that was improved. I do NOT accept sales hype and links to internet rhetoric as "proof". Show me data. (I do statistical process quality control for a living; I know the difference between data and bovine poo when I see it).

We owe it to newbies, visitors, and even ourselves to be honest about facts, and not pat people on the back for wasting any product. Sure, they have the right to do so; I can appreciate that. But just because one can do something, doesn't make it a good idea.

The simple fact is that any qualified dino oil will perform every bit as well as any synthetic in normal OCIs in a Dmax, even under severe conditions.

Why am I so concerned? Because I want people to have an understanding of the difference between wants and needs. And it's somewhat self-centered to think that everyone out there has the money to spend on synthetics. There are people who are out of work. There are college students struggling to make ends meet. It is wrong to give them an impression that synthetics are a "must have" if longevity of equipment is the goal. Quite frankly, there are some members here that are synthetic junkies; good for them. They have that right to be what they want to be. But there are also people here who need solid, fair advice to make choices in their lives. And you would be less then honest if you didn't at least admit that you've seen multiple examples of this "synthetics are better" mentality. "Better" must be defined with a sense of perspective. There are some people here who practice oil bigotry; they would have others believe that anyone who does not use synthetics is not properly caring for their equipment. If you cannot see this, then you're not looking hard enough. Now - I fully, completely, openly, publically agree that dhelmas is NOT an oil biggot. But some of the "logic" he has used in this thread is not exactly based upon facts. Everytime he brought something up, I refuted it, and he ran to grab the next piece of rhetoric as his defence. He used the "yabut" defense system, and it fails the litmus test everytime.

However ...
It's not about dhelman; it's about broadcasting the truth. He has the right to do as he sees fit. I think we all would agree and defend his right to choice. But he does NOT have the right to tell others that synthetics are "better" when the facts clearly prove otherwise in this situation.
Better for his emotion? Sure.
Better for this Dmax engine? Nope.

That make sense?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's simple why I care.

There is a difference between wants and needs.

And there always new (or newer) members and visitors coming here for advice.

Real, fair advice is based upon facts and data and not rhetoric and mythology and hype.



Really????

You seem to use a lot of non-scientific data to support your own conclusion. Anecdotal UOAs from the internet are not scientific data. Valvoline has already proven that synthetic indeed can save you money and also have a challenge for non believers.

May be there is a difference between wants and needs to you but not to others. If it was not for "wanting" there would not be a need for this forum. Everything you need is in the owner manual.
 
dnewton - please don't take this the wrong way. PLEASE I beg you not to take it too hard. We are all allowed our opinions, even mods, even sponsors.

I see three things to comment on (my opinion):

1) You come on VERY strong. You have mellowed a bit lately, but the way your posts read are very harsh, long and critical. I know that is not how you are always trying to come across and you have really adjusted your language over the last 3-4 months. Your post read as if your opinion is coming from you as a foremost tribologist and are the end all be all thing to say and there is no more to say on the subject.

2) Combine #1 with the fact that you are a moderator. I'm sorry but that is VERY intimidating to some posters. A moderator coming down large is not something to take lightly. Some folks have commented to me in emails that they now refrain from posting in the diesel sections. Unfortunately not a good thing and it skews worldview - something I know you yourself are against.

3) We all learn as we go, self included. Your visiting a UOA lab is a great example. It wasn't that long ago you didn't know all that much about how a UOA is performed and you certainly didn't have a strong grasp of solubility and solutions, given your own writing about smaller particles and metals in solution not being picked up in a UOA. This is NOT a putdown - it's a perspective thing. Combine with 1 and 2 above.

Lastly this is NOT an Amsoil thing, so let's not go there. I'm not arguing, I'm just stating my opinion. Personally I like your viewpoint (although very repetitious). It keeps me on my toes - and you are correct - people buying $7 qt oil and running 3000 miles may not on the surface make a lot of sense. I'm glad you have backed off on that.

Have a good day - take my opinion for what it's worth. .02$
 
I would agree that my position is very firm and blunt at times. I often will even lead a post with an apology in that regard.

My position as a moderator does not, and shall not provide immunity from our rules. But then again, I typically don't break our rules. As a member, I'm allowed to contribute. And that's what I do. As an analogy, cops are expected to both enforce and follow the laws. My position as a moderator means absolutely nothing in that regard to this thread. I've seen no violation of our RSP, etc. Not on my part; not on anyone's part. So I would ask we move past this topic. If anyone finds me in violation, I encourage them to report the post. If not, then let's leave it alone. I will offer, however, a public appology to anyone who feels intimidated by me; not my intent. I encourage anyone to participate; all I ask is they when you do choose to do so, bring a willing sense to debate. One does not need to agree with me to be important to any conversation here.


I've never claimed to be a tribologist; often admit that chemistry is not my thing. But, I would counter that one does not need to be a chemist nor tribologist to understand how relationships manifest into reality. I often defer to, and have asked advice from, our resident chemistry experts here. BITOG is not supposed to be some social experiment where we congratulate someone for wasting a product because he has a "right" to do so. We should be a group of enthusiasts that challenge each other to find out new things, to root out mythology, to seek and use data in a practical sense. Why is there any reason to post a UOA at all if no one is going to learn from it? What possible good comes from information that is ignored? If I wanted to hear about how great syns were for everything from engines to lubing door hinges, I could enter an unlimited number of car/truck sites where they don't have access to, or even seek out, real information. Rather, they rely on hype and rhetoric. I, personally, want something different; I want something more. I want BITOG to be an experience where truth comes from data rather than hype that is dyed in the pool of ignorance. How many of you have more than 500 light duty UOAs in a database? I do. How many of you understand the differences of micro and macro analysis? I do. I cannot offer experience or expertise in chemistry. But I can offer data analysis and processing. My contributions are based upon my experience as a statistical process quality control engineer. I take UOA data, put it into a glorified Excel program, and run the numbers. I take the data, and break out the sub-sets as desired. One clear mantra becomes true; normal OCIs are just as well served by dinos as syns. There is no "advantage" under these normal conditions. I will not back off of a position that is factually based. This is not opinion; this is data talking in plain form. I have repeatedly challenged anyone to be able to prove me otherwise, and all I ever get is hype and rhetoric linked from marketer's sites; I'm not impressed by that. Interestingly, people often challenge my information, but cannot provide their own, and rely on outside mythology as "proof". I guess I have a higher standard that some others for what "proof" means.

One thing that is very obvious to me, and has opened the eyes to others when they can release their bias, is that a Dmax engine is one of the better (if not best) wearing light-duty diesel engines we've ever seen. I'm not starting a brand-bash here. I have a relative that works at Cummins here in Columbus IN where the 5.9/6.7 is made. I used to work at Ford for many years, as did my father. But I give credit where it's due; the Dmax is probably the leading example of "doesn't matter what oil you use" when it comes to these engines. And this is what I'm trying to point out here in this thread. Dhellman12 used AME for 6k miles. He then stated that was the expected OCI. He switched to OE because of this (even though he denied it later, his own words convict him). My point is that ANY decent qualified HDEO will do a great job here, and there's not going to be any statistically significant wear difference between any of them. Not dino to syn; not Amsoil to RL, or RL to T3, or T3 to RP, or RP to VPB, or ....
The data speaks WAY more than does some marketing hype. We should be using our very own data to make logical, rational decisions.

Do I learn here, and other places? Yes - I've admitted to that as well. And I've been wrong many times before, and will likely be wrong many times again. But when I am wrong, I admit it publically and openly. M37Charlie caught an error of mine not long ago and I didn’t' try to cover it up; I fessed up.

Oddly, I don't see anyone getting upset about my "non-scientific data" when I praised Amsoil in another active thread by this very same OP (dhellman12) regarding another Dmax vehicle he maintains. No one is questioning my motives there, are they? No one is lashing out at me for being supportive of synthetics in that thread ...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2660111#Post2660111
In that other thread, I am praising the use of synthetics, comment on how excellent the syn (Amsoil) is doing, and encourage the continued use. I talk about how the ROI is often difficult to achieve in small sumps because the cost of premium products and testing is VERY hard to offset; it may neven be achieved. But I didn't let that stop me from recognizing and giving credit for the excellent trends of the Amsoil there, did I?
If my "non-scientific data" is so corrupt, why is no one challenging me to prove my theory there in that linked thread? Why accept my rationale in that thread, but not here in this one?

I'll tell you why. Because when synthetic junkies get to hear what they like, they are supportive. But when the facts turn against them, they are as vocal as grabbing a piglet by the tail, squealing like all mercy is lost.

I don't have a bias for or against synthetic products (or any premium product for that matter) when used in a manner supported by logical thought and rational conclusions. I personally use synthetic fluids in many of my applications, where the data shows a reasonable ROI and/or external factors dictate the necessity. But I don't use them blindly.

I have seen/commented on excellent UOAs from dinos and synthetics. I have seen/commented on poor UOAs from dinos and synthetics. Heck - I've often challenged people who waste dino oils, just as much as I have when others waste synthetics. I can point towards some dino UOAs where someone changed out a dino in the old "3 month/3k mile" mantra. That is just as much of a waste as dumping syn at 6k miles. But yet, I rarely get challenged in that regard. Where are the synthetic supporters when I criticize a waste of dino oil? Nowhere to be found because they simply don't care; it doesn't interest them.

Synthetics are the sacred cow of the lube world. It stings when they are challenged, and some people run to their defense, even when it does not make sense.

Here is a very good series of UOAs (admittedly not diesel, but still very useful to the concept) where there is a clearly defined, well utilized pattern of UOAs:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...;gonew=1#UNREAD
I want you all to look these over REALLY well. And, follow this storyline as it develops. This is a perfect example that is well controlled, and I predict it will substantiate my claims; dinos are every bit as good as syns in "normal" circumstances. You see, we don't get this very often; we don't see a member here who is dedicated to finding a truth, even when the costs are large. What we most often see is a member who does one of two things:
1) hop-scotch from brand-to-brand or grade-to-grade
2) Only use syn or only use dino, to the exclusion of the other
But here, we are going to be able to watch the storly line develop real time, as a steady diet of syn is compared/contrasted to a steady diet of dino.
Stay tuned!

I have a challenge to lay forth here. Let's have dhellman12 play a little experiment. He's got one UOA with AME here, and presumably another will be forthcoming with OE. Then, why not try a dino 15w-40? I fully admit that one sample each is not "science", but it's as close as we're going to come in this particular vehicle. It would be "better" to run several AME loads, then several OE loads, then several dino loads. But I'll take whatever he'd offer. Dhellman12 already stated that he is not willing to experiment with running a dino oil in this precious vehicle; he's obviously already biased against the contender. But I challenge him to do so. I'll even pay for the load of dino oil in the Dmax. All I ask is that I am included in the decision.



Lastly, Paul, I am going to single you out here, as you directed your comments to me. You and I have gone round and round about this; we don't see eye to eye on everything. I've come to respect you, even though I often don't agree with you. I don't take this personally and I accept you at your word. I accept your criticism with a sense of impartial view; I, as much as anyone, need to be shaken every once in a while so that my perspective stays true. I wish you the very best today has to offer, sincerely.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

I have a challenge to lay forth here. Let's have dhellman12 play a little experiment. He's got one UOA with AME here, and presumably another will be forthcoming with OE. Then, why not try a dino 15w-40? I fully admit that one sample each is not "science", but it's as close as we're going to come in this particular vehicle. It would be "better" to run several AME loads, then several OE loads, then several dino loads. But I'll take whatever he'd offer.


I don't think you understand what scientific data is. How is what you are proposing going to counter the years and million of miles that GM have done? For the data to be credible it needs to be traceable and repeatable. What dhellman12 doing is neither of those methods. One data point, no matter how many oil changes he is doing is not a true representation of the OCI that are typical of the general public. Both GM and Ford sell more than 50,000 trucks each per month all over the world. What are you going to prove with one vehicle? I understand the individual trend and practice, but using anecdotal UOAs to form a general conclusion is laughable at best.

Give me any vehicle with any type of oil and I can generate either a beautiful UOA or a horrendous UOA in less than a month, guarantee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top