Amsoil HDD vs. ACD for shear stabilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pablo,
stop with the pouty injured strawman...it's getting old with "so you are REALLY saying"...when that's clearly NOT what's being said, and putting words in Clevy's mouth is tantamount to "look over there, a bunny !!!"

no-one has ever said that Amsoil isn't "tested", just questioned how the test compare the the actual "specifications" that are being requested by the OEMs...I provided links to the definitions of "test" and "specification" a few posts (weeks) ago.

It's up to Amsoil in this thread to provide proof that the recommendations that they are making are backed by their testing...not 4 ball, or a fleet of trucks, or the test tubes of brews in Shannow's freezer.

So what you are REALLY saying is that Amsoil is tested to every single test (or a worse one) that falls within the entire sphere of the "recommended lists" for their oils.

You've had a couple of weeks now, since you promised to get the answers, so please enlighten us on the actual suite of tests that Amsoil does to ensure that TiredTrucker's oil meets (or exceeds) his OEM's specifications...the only post on the subject was a motherhood statement about picking the worst, and not wanting to be controlled by tha-man and all.

It's easy really, shut all the naysayers down with what the tests actually are.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Pablo,
stop with the pouty injured strawman...it's getting old with "so you are REALLY saying"...when that's clearly NOT what's being said, and putting words in Clevy's mouth is tantamount to "look over there, a bunny !!!"

no-one has ever said that Amsoil isn't "tested", just questioned how the test compare the the actual "specifications" that are being requested by the OEMs...I provided links to the definitions of "test" and "specification" a few posts (weeks) ago.

It's up to Amsoil in this thread to provide proof that the recommendations that they are making are backed by their testing...not 4 ball, or a fleet of trucks, or the test tubes of brews in Shannow's freezer.

So what you are REALLY saying is that Amsoil is tested to every single test (or a worse one) that falls within the entire sphere of the "recommended lists" for their oils.

You've had a couple of weeks now, since you promised to get the answers, so please enlighten us on the actual suite of tests that Amsoil does to ensure that TiredTrucker's oil meets (or exceeds) his OEM's specifications...the only post on the subject was a motherhood statement about picking the worst, and not wanting to be controlled by tha-man and all.

It's easy really, shut all the naysayers down with what the tests actually are.


Yes people say and imply Amsoil isn't tested. Dude same board we have been on for 14+ years. It's not super frequent, but enough it gets repeated.

It's easy for you to look up any specification and see the tests performed to meet such specification? For every oil you have ever used? It's not easy for me.

That said - I posted my response above. You ignored it. Then you insult me. Nice. Are you just being disingenuous with the cornball "I provided links to the definitions of "test" and "specification" a few posts (weeks) ago." condescending tone?
 
I didn't ignore it, it was a motherhood statement lacking in any detail...was waiting for real information from your daily contacts.
 
Have you ever been to Superior, Wisconsin Shannow?
I didn't think so.
One good strong East wind off the lake at this time
of year will shut the city down for the next 4 months.

We'll revisit this topic April 2015.
 
We need more Amsoil OEC and ACD voa's...I've pretty much narrowed it down to only these oils for use in my 6.0. OEC to me, with the help of this forum appears to be the best value. The HDD to me does not seem to be worth the extra cost unless in northern/Midwestern climates. My 6.0 seems to love the OEC and no burning oil at 100k miles.

I am curious on the shear stability of ACD vs OEC.
 
Last edited:
Based on the Temporary Shear Ratio calculation, they both come in within a few percentage points of being bulletproof. Does ACD allow for a longer OCI than OEC? There may be an economy that you can take advantage of there, but I think you're doing well already with OEC. I like the OEC because its HTHS is higher than ACD.
 
Should I be concerned with flash/fire points between ACD and OEC? The ACD seems to have a significantly higher flash and Fire pount than OEC. I'm using this in terms of wear control in Texas summer heat pulling loads.

OEC flash 220
Fire 236

ACD flash 230
Fire 250
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Tired Trucker called out "Detroit Diesel 93K214" I have not directly addressed this and I actually don't know off the my head what the testing suite is. I will need to ask Amsoil and seeing how it is early Sat AM here we may need wait a couple days. I will find out and post what Amsoil says, publicly.

General description:
"93K214 Cooled EGR-equipped engines without aftertreatment devices, operating on low sulfur fuel (below 500 ppm). These engines meet 2002 to 2006 model year emission requirements. These oils are similar to API CI-4 Plus."


Have Amsoil come back ?


Yes, every day. I am having a dialog with the chief on the Detroit Diesel requirements . I wanted to have a whole answer rather than post chunks. It's interesting and Amsoil's approach makes some level of sense. I hope to have it wrapped up this week, seems like it's dragging out when we exchange one email a day, I'm busy, he's busy, you know the tune.


I guess then that it's "All the tests" based on the last few hours of cut and paste.

No dissertation of which of the tests in the matrices is more onerous than an other, and therefore proves the meets or exceeds.
 
Testing and licensing cost money that will be passed
on to the consumer.
If you trust the company you are dealing with then
"meets or exceeds, recommended for use in, etc" should
be good enough.
Actual certifications are for doubters.
 
Interesting viewpoints.
Not having to worry about warranty, I use Amsoil.
UOAs, winter starts and operational smoothness have shown me that HDD and ZRT work best in my VE pumped Cummins and pushrod gassers, daily drivers all at one point or another.
I have far too many vehicles so once a year changes with EaO filters are my preference.
Engines blow up for numerous different reasons - bearings, cooling systems, timing, fatigue etc.
Minute differences between oils aren't a deal breaker.
Use what you can afford and makes you happy ;-)
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Shannow
TiredTrucker, I agree with you using the oil, just be careful as it doesn't "Meet" the standard that you need.


And what standard would that be? According to the Detroit lube manual, sections 2.4, 3.2, and 3.8, a 10w30 is an approved selection. My engine is a factory rebuilt pre-egr (2000 year build), it was developed for the 93K214 Detroit standard for engine oil. The ACD seems like it would be fine. It claims to meet the 93K214 spec. It meets the other requirements laid out in the Detroit Lube and Filter Manual. DDC-SVC-BRO-0001 copyright 2013.

Tech support at Amsoil also stated in a reply to me that ACD would be an acceptable oil in my engine.


Looped back to the statement in question, as opposed to the misdirection.

dd%20specs.jpg


DD spec for the 93K214 is minimum 3.7HTHS, not just the minutia of 0.1 that was the ACEA versus Amsil specs.

Misses the required HTHS by a long mark, and the KV100.
 
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Testing and licensing cost money that will be passed
on to the consumer.
If you trust the company you are dealing with then
"meets or exceeds, recommended for use in, etc" should
be good enough.

Actual certifications are for doubters.


I would tend to agree, except for when the company in question goes on to publish specs that explicitly disprove the claim.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Tiredtrucker, where you been for half of the thread ?

Amsoil claim, explicitly on their website
Quote:
AMSOIL ACD is recommended for diesel engines, gasoline engines and other applications that require any of the following worldwide specifications:


They don't claim that their oil meets the standard...e.g. it's "recommended for A3/B3" when it clearly CAN'T meet that specification...their comment on being more shear stable over the life of the OCI supports their recommendation.

Did they tell you that it met the specs that you require, or would be suitable in your application ?

Is their word that it's good enough good enough for you ?

That's all that matter, use it and be happy.

I'd like a chance to use it too, now that all of my vehicles are well out of warranty


Tech support said it met the 93K214 standard the OEM requires for my engine. It is on the spec sheet as meeting the standard. I don't have a clue, nor a need to, regarding A3/B3 stuff. I am only concerned with CI-4, CI4+, and CJ-4. I may have European ancestry, but I could give a rip about their oil standards. I don't live there.

All really moot anyway. My Schaeffer dealer has convinced me to give their 10w30 711 a try in my Detroit.
 
Why not? What's wrong with slapping A1/B1 A5/B5 A3/B3 A3/B4 E6 E7 E9 all on one label?
whistle.gif


I get peeved with the abuse of the ACEA stuff. That stuff is supposed to be self-policed, so an oil company can't claim cost issues as a hindrance. If they claim that the specifications themselves are a hindrance, then don't claim the specifications, right?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Why not? What's wrong with slapping A1/B1 A5/B5 A3/B3 A3/B4 E6 E7 E9 all on one label?
whistle.gif


I get peeved with the abuse of the ACEA stuff. That stuff is supposed to be self-policed, so an oil company can't claim cost issues as a hindrance. If they claim that the specifications themselves are a hindrance, then don't claim the specifications, right?


Ahhh...but instead, you can say "recommended for" A1/B1 A5/B5 A3/B3 A3/B4 E6 E7 E9, and the average schmuck takes that as being a full blown approval.
 
Ironically, Petro-Canada says "suitable for use" with respect to the various ACEA specifications, since there really are no formal approvals. Imperial Oil uses "meets or exceeds the requirements of" ACEA sequences. Imperial Oil only uses "recommended for" when it's an obsolete or superseded specification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top