Amsoil 10w30 MCT versus Mobil 1 AFE 0w30

Status
Not open for further replies.
BusyLittleShop

BusyLittleShop

Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
2,201
Location
Ca USA
True to its racing intent Mr.Honda's race bred V4 sports gear driven
cams... so with more gears to shear the oil than your normal
pedestrian street bike I decided to test whether a motorcycle specific
oil produced better numbers than a Passenger Car Motor Oil (PCMO)...
Selected were Asmoil MCT 10w30 and Mobil 1 AFE 0w30... granted the
miles are low but they are miles not in moderation either more like
tracks speeds which simulates the distant my customers cover in a year
of racing or track days... my customers are consummate riders with enough
spare cash to afford to own any exotic homologated racer they desire
from the Golden Years of World Superbikes... namely Honda's RC30
RC45... Yamaha's SP1 R7... Kawaskai ZX7R... Ducati Desmosedici V4
They will ship their prized bikes to the Busy Little Shop for
either my engineered mods or trouble shooting...

You can see the wear and shear slightly favored the M1 but its up to you
whether you want to spend $64.75 OCI @ $12.95 qt for Amsoil or $27 OCI
@ $5.40 qt Mobil 1...

Guided by intellect instead of fear I'm staying with M1 0W30 because
its proving to meet and exceed my mileage expectations... show me an
actual UOA from another bike with gear driven cams with better shear
and wear numbers that cost the same $5.40 a qt as Mobil 1 Auto Oil
I'll think about it...

Mobil 0w30
MrRC45BlackStoneLab1.jpg


Amsoil 10w30
Mr.RC45UAO58K_zpspzoymbiu.jpg


Amsoil video Understanding Oil Viscosity where the rep names Mobil 1 0w30 as their premium PAO base oil...
 
I'm not an expert on bikes but I thought an older motorcycle like yours would need the higher levels of zinc and phosphorus, like the Amsoil provided here. Also, as the name indicates, aren't Mobil 1 "Advanced Fuel Economy" oils loaded with friction modifiers, which is something a motorcycle doesn't need.
 
Originally Posted By: 6starprez
I'm not an expert on bikes but I thought an older motorcycle like yours would need the higher levels of zinc and phosphorus, like the Amsoil provided here. Also, as the name indicates, aren't Mobil 1 "Advanced Fuel Economy" oils loaded with friction modifiers, which is something a motorcycle doesn't need.


I've got 50 years of motorcycle experience...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3149869/I_turn_65..._so_I%27m_reminiscin#Post3149869

PHOSPHORS AND ZINC LEVELS
Mobil 1 0w30 phosphors and zinc levels are actually marginally higher than the older
Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30... but according to 4 independent Industry sources that nothing to
brag about because more does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection... that's a moot point because the majority don't even go the recommended
oil change interval...

0w30 847 phosphorus 955 zinc and 75 moly...
5w30 737 phosphorus 819 zinc and 68 moly...
10w30 749 phosphorus 827 zinc and 69 moly...

My confident in the AFE levels are backed-up by a total of FOUR other
independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard,
whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing,
has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc
does NOT provide today’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as
the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded
that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT
provide more wear protection.

3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More
than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection.

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company: There is such a thing as too
much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a
detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive
performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will
“tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP
effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection.
Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.

FRICTION MODIFIERS
Friction modifiers additives are only a small percent of the total oil product and help
the base oil do things that it otherwise could not... Additives fall into several basic
categories but Moly, Phosphors and Zinc are the most often used friction modifiers... what
ever small percent of FM employed they will not defeat a wet clutch in good working order...

Some may warn at the possibility of clutch slip based on the amounts of FM but since 98
I've been using Energy Conserving and currently AFE Mobil 1 in Mr.RC45 with no clutch
slipping due to oil and it's sports a tall first gear good for 90mph that's known to
incinerate clutch plates...

EC and AFE are not additives... its an API test that this "oil MAY result is an overall
saving of fuel in the vehicle fleet as a whole"... there is nothing new in the oil to
defeat a wet clutch in good working order... what is confusing the issue is the fact that
all motorcycle wet clutches will reach a point in their life and start to slip EC/AFE oil
or non EC/AFE oil... have you noticed that no one complains about clutch slip when the
bike is new??? its around the 27K to 57K range as normal containments build up to point
you may find the clutch begins to loose its grip... this is usually discovered by the
owner during WFO (Wide Fooking Open)throttle like during a quick overtake or at a track
day... in error one can blame the EC/AFE oil but its really the contaminants on the
clutch plates...


gallery_3131_51_96453.jpg
 
Hi Larry:

My VFR700F and VFR750F are both gear driven cam motors. I will stack on some miles and send the MCT off for UOA.

Dave
 
Originally Posted By: rossn2
Why did it take 2-3 years for these UOA's to be posted?


That's a good question which I see has been answered.

However I don't see the point of the exercise by the OP?
 
What many people consider too much ZDDP (that can damage an engine) is almost 2x what is in modern PCMO 10w30 engine oil. Pennzoil GT1 has about 1600ppm of zinc and shows excellent UOA rturns, even on hardcore race engines with flat tappets. Engine damaging amounts of zinc is around the 2000PPM mark. Many of the warning articles are to keep people from dumping ZDDP boosting oil additives into already high ZDDP containing oils. The reason there is less zinc anti wear additives in car oils is that it can damage catalytic converters in oil burning engines.

If you have certain engines, you do need higher zinc. Camshaft makers all over will tell you that.
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: 6starprez
I'm not an expert on bikes but I thought an older motorcycle like yours would need the higher levels of zinc and phosphorus, like the Amsoil provided here. Also, as the name indicates, aren't Mobil 1 "Advanced Fuel Economy" oils loaded with friction modifiers, which is something a motorcycle doesn't need.


I've got 50 years of motorcycle experience...
[Snip...]



Wow, that's a lot of time. Thanks for the explaining that to me. I appreciate it.

Looking at the oil specs, both had a cSt viscosity rating of 10.9 @ 100*C. In 700 hard miles, the Amsoil sheared down 11.8% and Mobil 1 9.4%. For the price and result, Mobil 1 is the one I'd pick too.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducman
What is the point of this exercise?


The object of the activity was to give both oils a good work out and report the outcome...
 
Originally Posted By: RobensteinThe
reason there is less zinc anti wear additives in car oils is that it can damage catalytic converters in oil burning engines.


True... but whether your oil contains the old levels (1200ppm Phosphorus/1301ppm Zinc) or
the catalytic sparing new levels (854ppm Phosphorous/954ppm Zinc) your engine will still
meet and exceed your mileage expectations... there is mounting evidence that the old levels
of anti wear additives only affect oil change longevity... like the more anti wear additives
the more miles you can cover before its gone... that's a moot pint with motorcyclist since
they routinely shorten the factories recommended oil change interval...
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: RobensteinThe
reason there is less zinc anti wear additives in car oils is that it can damage catalytic converters in oil burning engines.


True... but whether your oil contains the old levels (1200ppm Phosphorus/1301ppm Zinc) or
the catalytic sparing new levels (854ppm Phosphorous/954ppm Zinc) your engine will still
meet and exceed your mileage expectations... there is mounting evidence that the old levels
of anti wear additives only affect oil change longevity... like the more anti wear additives
the more miles you can cover before its gone... that's a moot pint with motorcyclist since
they routinely shorten the factories recommended oil change interval...



That is really incorrect. On certain designs, you need the extra boost in these additives or can see premature cam/lifter failures even with very modest OCI's. There is a reason you see oils marketed such as Amsoil Z Rod.
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: Ducman
What is the point of this exercise?


The object of the activity was to give both oils a good work out and report the outcome...



Thanks.

I see the outcome as inconclusive at best.

To start off with, reported wear numbers are at best within the limits of statistical variation even when using the same oil.
There is also an absence of baseline data for that engine.
Also, was the machine operated under strictly controlled conditions and parameters during both periods?(I think not.)
There is a lack of evidence to support this requirement of a fair and equitable test.

Further, during the 2 test periods, there is clear evidence that the Amsoil was given a bit more of a flogging than the Mobil during it's service period in the machine. There are a few indicators in the results that bear witness to this, the most significant of which is the reported fuel dilution which is a major factor in oil shear regardless of the amount.
Regardless, the Amsoil held up well and has been reported accordingly by the lab.

Additionally, in the period between the 2 separate tests there appears as though the condition of the engine has changed, in that there is some evidence the engine is possibly not as mechanically sound. This in itself makes it harder on the oil without taking into account the variation in operating parameters.

In summary, I see this exercise as a bit of waste of time.
Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ducman

Thanks
Regardless, the Amsoil held up well and has been reported accordingly by the lab.


You're welcome... but would it kill you to say the Mobil held up just as well???
 
Last edited:
I get where you're coming from.
It did hold up well. No doubt. But it had an advantage from the start as it went first in the comparison.
In terms of value for money, it seems good.

But I'm not necessarily convinced that's it's the best value. Which is a subjective matter.

Considering there's some strong evidence the Amsoil had a harder time of it.
And the Mobil went first, which led to some carry over of the additive pack from the Mobil.
The carry over was most evident from the Boron content of the used oil sample for the Amsoil which(I think) is about 5.5 x the base line for the Amsoil.

Keeping the carry over in mind, it's not unreasonable to think that the ultimate performance of the fully formulated Amsoil offering may have been compromised.
It's been well understood that results can be skewed in the negative, immediately following on from a change of oil brand and type.

As reported there are soluble contaminates which indicated an inequality(to the disadvantage of the Amsoil) in the operating parameters of the machine, and possibly the overall mechanical condition of the engine.
In fairness to the Amsoil, there should've been at least an effort to flush the crankcase in the change over process.
The problem with that is(in my personal experience) it can take up to 3 oil changes to achieve an equilibrium in the bulk oil, where additive carry over from the previous oil fill is no longer evident. This inevitably becomes more costly.

In summary, I believe there's too many inconsistencies to draw any conclusions at this stage.
Further, the results of 2 UOA's doesn't make it an absolute result as they can be inexact at best.
IMO, the only standout exception being the Fuel dilution.
Also the fact that there's an absence of VOA's on the relevant oils from that lab doesn't provide a basic comparison of before and after. This in itself doesn't provide conclusive evidence of relative shear rates.

Nor do I see any real point to the exercise unless it's conducted more scientifically.
Hence my original question.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ducman

It did hold up well. No doubt. But I'm not necessarily convinced that's it's the best value. Which is a subjective matter.


Funny 0w30... not the oil but the reaction to it... people doubted it so much they predicted
it would shear to nothing and my oil would show so much iron I could sell it as scrap...
I think they are surprised it trends as robust as 10w30...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: Ducman

It did hold up well. No doubt. But I'm not necessarily convinced that's it's the best value. Which is a subjective matter.


Funny 0w30... not the oil but the reaction to it... people doubted it so much they predicted
it would shear to nothing and my oil would show so much iron I could sell it as scrap...
I think they are surprised it trends as robust as 10w30...


Oh I see.
Now we are getting to the bottom of the issue, and the point of the exercise.
From the limited information you provided, it would seem as though it held it's own.

Was there much of a difference between the amounts of metal collected on the magnet with evidence to verify?
Alternately was a Filter Patch test carried out to validate the quantity of metals that were produced from each oil? In that case a thorough engine flush with the Amsoil would've been required between the fills.
This will have revealed much more relevant/useful information in the long run, than a couple of off hand UOA's.

Perhaps people are generally conservative by nature, hence their scepticism.
Unfortunately your test does nothing much to reach a conclusion. IMO.

In terms of robustness, both oils are after all essentially a 30 grade at 100c.
So I wouldn't expect too much difference in overall performance provided they're similarly formulated to a comparable quality.

I'm not familiar with the machine.
Is it spec'd for a 30 Grade?
I assume so.

If so then carry on as normal either way you like. I think.
Don't worry about the sceptics.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ducman


If so then carry on as normal either way you like. I think.
Don't worry about the skeptics.


Thanks Ducman... I'll hold that thought...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

michael007
Mobil 1 AFE 0W30, 5074 miles, 2016 Honda HR-V
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
michael007
M
  • Locked
EcoBoost - Mobil 1 AFE 0w30 or Castrol 0w40?
Replies
16
Views
5K
4WD
U
  • Locked
Mobil 1 AFE 0W30 or Vanilla Mobil 1 5W30?
Replies
16
Views
5K
Indydriver
BusyLittleShop
  • Locked
Amsoil 10w30 MCT versus Mobil 1 AFE 0w30
2
Replies
26
Views
16K
BusyLittleShop
W
  • Locked
Mobil 1 0w30 AFE / Civic Si (K24Z7) 6k OCI
2
Replies
21
Views
14K
ltslimjim
Back
Top