Personally, where I live in Canada, I would only PAO based oils like the 0w30, we have too harsh of winters to use anything else, engines simply wear out faster where I live.
What's so special about Amsoil?
- Thread starter DR1
- Start date
- Status
And, importantly, they're at least available in a couple retail locations, and Amsoil's "high price" is competitive in Canada, at least with normal retail prices. It's not going to beat PP or QSUD on a big Walmart sale, but it will be priced similarly to PP on a normal day.
Originally Posted By: GemStater
I found this interesting. On the Quaker State Ultimate Durability PDS, it says this: Wear Protection - No synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection based on (ASTM D6891) Sequence IV-A, wear test on 5W-30 engine oil.
That is purely deceptive marketing fluff.
All that means is that they scored less-than 90 microns on that Sequence IVA, which is required by all oils that get granted SN status. So they could basically say, to be truthful, "QSUD wears good enough to get SN designation. Job over."
I found this interesting. On the Quaker State Ultimate Durability PDS, it says this: Wear Protection - No synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection based on (ASTM D6891) Sequence IV-A, wear test on 5W-30 engine oil.
That is purely deceptive marketing fluff.
All that means is that they scored less-than 90 microns on that Sequence IVA, which is required by all oils that get granted SN status. So they could basically say, to be truthful, "QSUD wears good enough to get SN designation. Job over."
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Originally Posted By: GemStater
I found this interesting. On the Quaker State Ultimate Durability PDS, it says this: Wear Protection - No synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection based on (ASTM D6891) Sequence IV-A, wear test on 5W-30 engine oil.
That is purely deceptive marketing fluff.
All that means is that they scored less-than 90 microns on that Sequence IVA, which is required by all oils that get granted SN status. So they could basically say, to be truthful, "QSUD wears good enough to get SN designation. Job over."
No, I disagree in part...the test when run on different oils gives a continuum of performance, so you CAN say that one is better than the other.
Did they test every other oil out there ?
I doubt it, so I doubt the claim, but your assertion is on the wrong path.
Originally Posted By: GemStater
I found this interesting. On the Quaker State Ultimate Durability PDS, it says this: Wear Protection - No synthetic motor oil provides better wear protection based on (ASTM D6891) Sequence IV-A, wear test on 5W-30 engine oil.
That is purely deceptive marketing fluff.
All that means is that they scored less-than 90 microns on that Sequence IVA, which is required by all oils that get granted SN status. So they could basically say, to be truthful, "QSUD wears good enough to get SN designation. Job over."
No, I disagree in part...the test when run on different oils gives a continuum of performance, so you CAN say that one is better than the other.
Did they test every other oil out there ?
I doubt it, so I doubt the claim, but your assertion is on the wrong path.
By THAT logic you can say something about Amsoil's 5w30 synthetic oil paper...
Originally Posted By: GemStater
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Cost: I don't know where some of the Amsoil bashers got their costs. Just yesterday I ordered a case of 0w20 OE in the gallon containers. Cost as a preferred customer was 4.34 per quart, and $15 shipping to rural Montana brought it to $5.28 per quart. That's delivered to my door. Single quarts/gallons are more expensive, as with everything you have to shop a little to get a better price. The per-quart price for a case of 4, 1-gallon containers is significantly lower than buying singly. To compare, last time I shopped oil, I shook my head. M1 in quarts was $7.98. 5 quart jug was $27.98 which made it $5.59 per quart.
So I get a quality oil delivered to me at home, at less than M1 prices. I don't have to go fight traffic, walk through a [censored] of toys and HBA and stand waiting in a line then drive home in order to get it. My time is worth much more than that.
For me, Amsoil works.
Cost: The cost comparison in my previous post is taking into account a Preferred Customer 6-month trial fee in addition to Shipping cost and Sales tax. In order to buy Amsoil at wholesale cost, one has to pay a fee. That should be included into overall costs to purchase product. In that post, my example in which Joe Average wants to try a five quart oil change with oil filter, he pays $10 dollars to buy it wholesale.
Yup you are right, factoring the cost of being in the Amsoil club is required. In your example of buying a 6 month trial, my oil cost would have been 63 cents more per quart. I didn't include that since peoples' intervals and buying habits are so variable....with a person that has a large stash the cost per quart can almost disappear - or they can get a 30 gallon drum.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Cost: I don't know where some of the Amsoil bashers got their costs. Just yesterday I ordered a case of 0w20 OE in the gallon containers. Cost as a preferred customer was 4.34 per quart, and $15 shipping to rural Montana brought it to $5.28 per quart. That's delivered to my door. Single quarts/gallons are more expensive, as with everything you have to shop a little to get a better price. The per-quart price for a case of 4, 1-gallon containers is significantly lower than buying singly. To compare, last time I shopped oil, I shook my head. M1 in quarts was $7.98. 5 quart jug was $27.98 which made it $5.59 per quart.
So I get a quality oil delivered to me at home, at less than M1 prices. I don't have to go fight traffic, walk through a [censored] of toys and HBA and stand waiting in a line then drive home in order to get it. My time is worth much more than that.
For me, Amsoil works.
Cost: The cost comparison in my previous post is taking into account a Preferred Customer 6-month trial fee in addition to Shipping cost and Sales tax. In order to buy Amsoil at wholesale cost, one has to pay a fee. That should be included into overall costs to purchase product. In that post, my example in which Joe Average wants to try a five quart oil change with oil filter, he pays $10 dollars to buy it wholesale.
Yup you are right, factoring the cost of being in the Amsoil club is required. In your example of buying a 6 month trial, my oil cost would have been 63 cents more per quart. I didn't include that since peoples' intervals and buying habits are so variable....with a person that has a large stash the cost per quart can almost disappear - or they can get a 30 gallon drum.
I believe its a good oil, and I like the fact that it is made by a “small” American company. Whether or not it is any better or worse than oils available from a local retailer is irrelevant. The price is also irrelevant, if I pay a few more bucks to the middle man and shipping - so be it. I do not think too many of us will go broke over an extra $15-20 once a year. Most local Napa’s carry some of it, so I can stock up a few quarts at a time until its oil change time anyway.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: lawnguy
What's really so special about Amsoil synthetic oil, compared to Mobil 1,etc ?
THIS IS THE MOST EASY POST TO ANSWER IN HERE. THE ANSWER IS AMSOIL IS THE ONLY OIL COMPANY NOT SELLING "SNAKE OIL" MARKETING CLAIMS.
AMSOIL ACTUALLY BACKS UP ALL THEIR MARKETING WITH REAL INDUSTRY STANDARD TESTS.
BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES NEGATIVELY THEY HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OIL COMPANY THAT BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH TRUE TESTS, NOT ONE, NONE, ZERO.
You maybe surprised to find I do not use Amsoil because I change my oil often but without question it is the only oil on the market that proves why it is the best.
Everyone else is just snake oil marketing and claims. If you are using another oil in the price class of Amsoil but not Amsoil you would have to be crazy.
Amsoil is the only oil with real standardized tests ... so why would one pay the same for another oil?
Hope I answered your question!
Here is Amsoils test library ... PAGES of industry tests compared against the others ...
Click here for the test library
Im sure some might flame me, but fact is, they wont be able to back it up with any facts.
What's really so special about Amsoil synthetic oil, compared to Mobil 1,etc ?
THIS IS THE MOST EASY POST TO ANSWER IN HERE. THE ANSWER IS AMSOIL IS THE ONLY OIL COMPANY NOT SELLING "SNAKE OIL" MARKETING CLAIMS.
AMSOIL ACTUALLY BACKS UP ALL THEIR MARKETING WITH REAL INDUSTRY STANDARD TESTS.
BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES NEGATIVELY THEY HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OIL COMPANY THAT BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH TRUE TESTS, NOT ONE, NONE, ZERO.
You maybe surprised to find I do not use Amsoil because I change my oil often but without question it is the only oil on the market that proves why it is the best.
Everyone else is just snake oil marketing and claims. If you are using another oil in the price class of Amsoil but not Amsoil you would have to be crazy.
Amsoil is the only oil with real standardized tests ... so why would one pay the same for another oil?
Hope I answered your question!
Here is Amsoils test library ... PAGES of industry tests compared against the others ...
Click here for the test library
Im sure some might flame me, but fact is, they wont be able to back it up with any facts.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Originally Posted By: lawnguy
What's really so special about Amsoil synthetic oil, compared to Mobil 1,etc ?
THIS IS THE MOST EASY POST TO ANSWER IN HERE. THE ANSWER IS AMSOIL IS THE ONLY OIL COMPANY NOT SELLING "SNAKE OIL" MARKETING CLAIMS.
AMSOIL ACTUALLY BACKS UP ALL THEIR MARKETING WITH REAL INDUSTRY STANDARD TESTS.
BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES NEGATIVELY THEY HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OIL COMPANY THAT BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH TRUE TESTS, NOT ONE, NONE, ZERO.
You maybe surprised to find I do not use Amsoil because I change my oil often but without question it is the only oil on the market that proves why it is the best.
Everyone else is just snake oil marketing and claims. If you are using another oil in the price class of Amsoil but not Amsoil you would have to be crazy.
Amsoil is the only oil with real standardized tests ... so why would one pay the same for another oil?
Hope I answered your question!
Here is Amsoils test library ... PAGES of industry tests compared against the others ...
Click here for the test library
Im sure some might flame me, but fact is, they wont be able to back it up with any facts.
Did you do cocaine before posting this?
Are you familiar with the ACEA and API? These are the companies that define the "industry standard" tests. Every oil that carries the approvals of these bodies have passed these tests.
Above and beyond those basic testing protocols are things like GM Dexos, the Ford WSS specs, Honda's HTO-06 spec, and of course the extremely stringent European OEM testing protocols like Porsche A40, the Mercedes 229.xx specs, BMW's long-life specs....etc. Which also are "standardized".
Originally Posted By: lawnguy
What's really so special about Amsoil synthetic oil, compared to Mobil 1,etc ?
THIS IS THE MOST EASY POST TO ANSWER IN HERE. THE ANSWER IS AMSOIL IS THE ONLY OIL COMPANY NOT SELLING "SNAKE OIL" MARKETING CLAIMS.
AMSOIL ACTUALLY BACKS UP ALL THEIR MARKETING WITH REAL INDUSTRY STANDARD TESTS.
BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES NEGATIVELY THEY HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OIL COMPANY THAT BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH TRUE TESTS, NOT ONE, NONE, ZERO.
You maybe surprised to find I do not use Amsoil because I change my oil often but without question it is the only oil on the market that proves why it is the best.
Everyone else is just snake oil marketing and claims. If you are using another oil in the price class of Amsoil but not Amsoil you would have to be crazy.
Amsoil is the only oil with real standardized tests ... so why would one pay the same for another oil?
Hope I answered your question!
Here is Amsoils test library ... PAGES of industry tests compared against the others ...
Click here for the test library
Im sure some might flame me, but fact is, they wont be able to back it up with any facts.
Did you do cocaine before posting this?
Are you familiar with the ACEA and API? These are the companies that define the "industry standard" tests. Every oil that carries the approvals of these bodies have passed these tests.
Above and beyond those basic testing protocols are things like GM Dexos, the Ford WSS specs, Honda's HTO-06 spec, and of course the extremely stringent European OEM testing protocols like Porsche A40, the Mercedes 229.xx specs, BMW's long-life specs....etc. Which also are "standardized".
Sheesh, calm down buddy, it's just oil.
[/quote]
Did you do cocaine before posting this?
Are you familiar with the ACEA and API? These are the companies that define the "industry standard" tests. Every oil that carries the approvals of these bodies have passed these tests.
Above and beyond those basic testing protocols are things like GM Dexos, the Ford WSS specs, Honda's HTO-06 spec, and of course the extremely stringent European OEM testing protocols like Porsche A40, the Mercedes 229.xx specs, BMW's long-life specs....etc. Which also are "standardized".
[/quote]
If I am on cocaine, you must be on CRACK.
Not sure what part of the tests above you are referring too. But I bet, if you put a group of oils through the same tests you mentioned, one or two brands would come out on top on those tests. So what your rambling is about I have no idea. Amsoil ran a bunch of oils through a bunch of standardized tests and Amsoil came out in the top 2 or 3.
Maybe if you read the tests, you will understand, until that time, stay off the crack.
Did you do cocaine before posting this?
Are you familiar with the ACEA and API? These are the companies that define the "industry standard" tests. Every oil that carries the approvals of these bodies have passed these tests.
Above and beyond those basic testing protocols are things like GM Dexos, the Ford WSS specs, Honda's HTO-06 spec, and of course the extremely stringent European OEM testing protocols like Porsche A40, the Mercedes 229.xx specs, BMW's long-life specs....etc. Which also are "standardized".
[/quote]
If I am on cocaine, you must be on CRACK.
Not sure what part of the tests above you are referring too. But I bet, if you put a group of oils through the same tests you mentioned, one or two brands would come out on top on those tests. So what your rambling is about I have no idea. Amsoil ran a bunch of oils through a bunch of standardized tests and Amsoil came out in the top 2 or 3.
Maybe if you read the tests, you will understand, until that time, stay off the crack.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
If I am on cocaine, you must be on CRACK.
I ask only because you seemingly felt the need to intensely scream your point in our faces using not only all caps but bold text as well. As if by the very act of screaming that it made what you were trying to convey beyond reproach; that by yelling it somehow made your point that much more valid.
It doesn't.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Not sure what part of the tests above you are referring too.
Then perhaps you'd be best served familiarizing yourself with the API and ACEA testing protocols as a starting point. If you don't know what tests I speak of, but claim that a specific company does "best" in these standardized tests, how are we supposed to take you seriously?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
But I bet, if you put a group of oils through the same tests you mentioned, one or two brands would come out on top on those tests.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of marketing. Are you aware that Valvoline uses the Sequence IVA (a recognized, standardized test, part of the API testing protocol) to claim the lowest wear?
Are you aware that the SOPUS claims about piston cleanliness are also based on one of the sequence tests? Yet another standardized test.
Companies advertise their performance in the tests they do the best in.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
So what your rambling is about I have no idea.
That's quite obvious.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Amsoil ran a bunch of oils through a bunch of standardized tests and Amsoil came out in the top 2 or 3.
Maybe if you read the tests, you will understand, until that time, stay off the crack.
I've read the tests and comprehension is far from a weak point for me. I think perhaps you need to revisit what tests exist in the standard certification regimen and then ask yourself why a company would only choose to advertise their performance in a select few of them.
On top of that, the OEM testing protocols are far more demanding, particularly for the Euro marques. AMSOIL has only recently obtained some of these approvals on one of their Euro spec products, which was a welcome move for those of us that are dealers and were looking for an approved product that we could safely recommend for somebody with a BMW, Mercedes or VW. I have yet to use it in my current BMW, but I did use their Euro oil in the 328i we used to have.
Unlike you, I actually do actively use AMSOIL products, particularly their ATF and gear lubes. Their ATF has no VII's in it, making it a very good choice for PS fluid, which is an environment of high shear. But I also don't feel anybody's marketing is straight-up honest and this is why AMSOIL continues to use the completely meaningless 4-ball wear test, something that is designed for gear lubes and has no relevance to an engine. It is also a standardized test BTW, but not for motor oils
If I am on cocaine, you must be on CRACK.
I ask only because you seemingly felt the need to intensely scream your point in our faces using not only all caps but bold text as well. As if by the very act of screaming that it made what you were trying to convey beyond reproach; that by yelling it somehow made your point that much more valid.
It doesn't.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Not sure what part of the tests above you are referring too.
Then perhaps you'd be best served familiarizing yourself with the API and ACEA testing protocols as a starting point. If you don't know what tests I speak of, but claim that a specific company does "best" in these standardized tests, how are we supposed to take you seriously?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
But I bet, if you put a group of oils through the same tests you mentioned, one or two brands would come out on top on those tests.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of marketing. Are you aware that Valvoline uses the Sequence IVA (a recognized, standardized test, part of the API testing protocol) to claim the lowest wear?
Are you aware that the SOPUS claims about piston cleanliness are also based on one of the sequence tests? Yet another standardized test.
Companies advertise their performance in the tests they do the best in.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
So what your rambling is about I have no idea.
That's quite obvious.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Amsoil ran a bunch of oils through a bunch of standardized tests and Amsoil came out in the top 2 or 3.
Maybe if you read the tests, you will understand, until that time, stay off the crack.
I've read the tests and comprehension is far from a weak point for me. I think perhaps you need to revisit what tests exist in the standard certification regimen and then ask yourself why a company would only choose to advertise their performance in a select few of them.
On top of that, the OEM testing protocols are far more demanding, particularly for the Euro marques. AMSOIL has only recently obtained some of these approvals on one of their Euro spec products, which was a welcome move for those of us that are dealers and were looking for an approved product that we could safely recommend for somebody with a BMW, Mercedes or VW. I have yet to use it in my current BMW, but I did use their Euro oil in the 328i we used to have.
Unlike you, I actually do actively use AMSOIL products, particularly their ATF and gear lubes. Their ATF has no VII's in it, making it a very good choice for PS fluid, which is an environment of high shear. But I also don't feel anybody's marketing is straight-up honest and this is why AMSOIL continues to use the completely meaningless 4-ball wear test, something that is designed for gear lubes and has no relevance to an engine. It is also a standardized test BTW, but not for motor oils
That is the beauty of using Schaeffer oils. I get wholesale pricing, free shipping to my place, free oil sample kits and analysis, and I don't have to pay a fee on some preferred pricing game. To be fair, there are a couple of Amsoil products I use on an occasional basis, but I wouldn't consider the bulk of my oil and lube being Amsoil. Not that they aren't good, just not cost effective.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
If I am on cocaine, you must be on CRACK.
I ask only because you seemingly felt the need to intensely scream your point in our faces using not only all caps but bold text as well. As if by the very act of screaming that it made what you were trying to convey beyond reproach; that by yelling it somehow made your point that much more valid.
It doesn't.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Not sure what part of the tests above you are referring too.
Then perhaps you'd be best served familiarizing yourself with the API and ACEA testing protocols as a starting point. If you don't know what tests I speak of, but claim that a specific company does "best" in these standardized tests, how are we supposed to take you seriously?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
But I bet, if you put a group of oils through the same tests you mentioned, one or two brands would come out on top on those tests.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of marketing. Are you aware that Valvoline uses the Sequence IVA (a recognized, standardized test, part of the API testing protocol) to claim the lowest wear?
Are you aware that the SOPUS claims about piston cleanliness are also based on one of the sequence tests? Yet another standardized test.
Companies advertise their performance in the tests they do the best in.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
So what your rambling is about I have no idea.
That's quite obvious.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Amsoil ran a bunch of oils through a bunch of standardized tests and Amsoil came out in the top 2 or 3.
Maybe if you read the tests, you will understand, until that time, stay off the crack.
I've read the tests and comprehension is far from a weak point for me. I think perhaps you need to revisit what tests exist in the standard certification regimen and then ask yourself why a company would only choose to advertise their performance in a select few of them.
On top of that, the OEM testing protocols are far more demanding, particularly for the Euro marques. AMSOIL has only recently obtained some of these approvals on one of their Euro spec products, which was a welcome move for those of us that are dealers and were looking for an approved product that we could safely recommend for somebody with a BMW, Mercedes or VW. I have yet to use it in my current BMW, but I did use their Euro oil in the 328i we used to have.
Unlike you, I actually do actively use AMSOIL products, particularly their ATF and gear lubes. Their ATF has no VII's in it, making it a very good choice for PS fluid, which is an environment of high shear. But I also don't feel anybody's marketing is straight-up honest and this is why AMSOIL continues to use the completely meaningless 4-ball wear test, something that is designed for gear lubes and has no relevance to an engine. It is also a standardized test BTW, but not for motor oils
Well, then, why dont you answer the person who started this thread? My response was to him/her, not you.
I only say that because your condescending post full of words that mean nothing because you didnt answer the OP question.
Your reference to "more demanding OEM" tests mean nothing because there are no results. Your words "completely meaningless 4 ball wear test" mean nothing because you offer no results or alternative results of standardized tests of some motor oils to compare.
I offered the OP some standard tests to answer his question WHY Amsoil vs Mobile 1 etc. ... nothing is absolute but its all we can work with, that and UOAs, since everything else in the industry is smoke and mirrors and lets not forget royalty payments for stamping a product that meets an OEM spec that most oils will also meet..
At times, more so with motorcycles, there is a correlation in the UOAs when compared to the Amsoil results in their tests. Besides tests, everything else is smoke, mirrors and meaningless words. More or less, no need for an oil forum, just buy whats on the shelf at any price as long as your OEM stamp is on it, your good to go. But honestly, that goes for any API rated oil, engines will far outlast the vehicles but some, like myself have fun picking a well rounded product that MIGHT give me an extra edge over the others.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
If I am on cocaine, you must be on CRACK.
I ask only because you seemingly felt the need to intensely scream your point in our faces using not only all caps but bold text as well. As if by the very act of screaming that it made what you were trying to convey beyond reproach; that by yelling it somehow made your point that much more valid.
It doesn't.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Not sure what part of the tests above you are referring too.
Then perhaps you'd be best served familiarizing yourself with the API and ACEA testing protocols as a starting point. If you don't know what tests I speak of, but claim that a specific company does "best" in these standardized tests, how are we supposed to take you seriously?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
But I bet, if you put a group of oils through the same tests you mentioned, one or two brands would come out on top on those tests.
I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of marketing. Are you aware that Valvoline uses the Sequence IVA (a recognized, standardized test, part of the API testing protocol) to claim the lowest wear?
Are you aware that the SOPUS claims about piston cleanliness are also based on one of the sequence tests? Yet another standardized test.
Companies advertise their performance in the tests they do the best in.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
So what your rambling is about I have no idea.
That's quite obvious.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Amsoil ran a bunch of oils through a bunch of standardized tests and Amsoil came out in the top 2 or 3.
Maybe if you read the tests, you will understand, until that time, stay off the crack.
I've read the tests and comprehension is far from a weak point for me. I think perhaps you need to revisit what tests exist in the standard certification regimen and then ask yourself why a company would only choose to advertise their performance in a select few of them.
On top of that, the OEM testing protocols are far more demanding, particularly for the Euro marques. AMSOIL has only recently obtained some of these approvals on one of their Euro spec products, which was a welcome move for those of us that are dealers and were looking for an approved product that we could safely recommend for somebody with a BMW, Mercedes or VW. I have yet to use it in my current BMW, but I did use their Euro oil in the 328i we used to have.
Unlike you, I actually do actively use AMSOIL products, particularly their ATF and gear lubes. Their ATF has no VII's in it, making it a very good choice for PS fluid, which is an environment of high shear. But I also don't feel anybody's marketing is straight-up honest and this is why AMSOIL continues to use the completely meaningless 4-ball wear test, something that is designed for gear lubes and has no relevance to an engine. It is also a standardized test BTW, but not for motor oils
Well, then, why dont you answer the person who started this thread? My response was to him/her, not you.
I only say that because your condescending post full of words that mean nothing because you didnt answer the OP question.
Your reference to "more demanding OEM" tests mean nothing because there are no results. Your words "completely meaningless 4 ball wear test" mean nothing because you offer no results or alternative results of standardized tests of some motor oils to compare.
I offered the OP some standard tests to answer his question WHY Amsoil vs Mobile 1 etc. ... nothing is absolute but its all we can work with, that and UOAs, since everything else in the industry is smoke and mirrors and lets not forget royalty payments for stamping a product that meets an OEM spec that most oils will also meet..
At times, more so with motorcycles, there is a correlation in the UOAs when compared to the Amsoil results in their tests. Besides tests, everything else is smoke, mirrors and meaningless words. More or less, no need for an oil forum, just buy whats on the shelf at any price as long as your OEM stamp is on it, your good to go. But honestly, that goes for any API rated oil, engines will far outlast the vehicles but some, like myself have fun picking a well rounded product that MIGHT give me an extra edge over the others.
Last edited:
Honestly, don't you think that if the API and the manufacturers found that a 4ball could replace the very costly to run Sequence IVA they would do so in a heartbeat ?
Amsoil's dinky tests don't prove anything that their engine oils are marginally superior if you are stuck in the desert and need to put engine oil in your gearbox.
Amsoil's "meets or exceeds, then recommending lubricants that clearly CAN'T even "meet" the test via their own product data sheets indicate that they aren't quite the honest John that they claim to be in the face of royalties and secret tests.
and your "most oils will meet"...needs some...evidence.
Or it means that Amsoil isn't anything particularly impressive either, in the fleet of "most oils"
Amsoil's dinky tests don't prove anything that their engine oils are marginally superior if you are stuck in the desert and need to put engine oil in your gearbox.
Amsoil's "meets or exceeds, then recommending lubricants that clearly CAN'T even "meet" the test via their own product data sheets indicate that they aren't quite the honest John that they claim to be in the face of royalties and secret tests.
and your "most oils will meet"...needs some...evidence.
Or it means that Amsoil isn't anything particularly impressive either, in the fleet of "most oils"
As to whether it is (was) better than mobile
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to whether it is (was) better than mobile
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
Good read, years ago I remember the Ford tests regarding "as oil ages."
Problem is this stuff and the tests on the link above is a decade old.
Ive been on the search for my next oil change for my HD bike, most likely going to go with Conv Valvoline MC 20/50 but only wish I could find a UOA on an attractive C rated 15/50 oil (which is almost impossible to find in a 15/50) Looks like a good semi oil (smoke and mirrors*L*), made by Citgo but, have no proof. Its Mystic JT8 15/50 CJ rated oil. Im afraid to use it, not sure I saw a UOA or VOA on it that wasnt over 8 years old.
As to whether it is (was) better than mobile
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
Good read, years ago I remember the Ford tests regarding "as oil ages."
Problem is this stuff and the tests on the link above is a decade old.
Ive been on the search for my next oil change for my HD bike, most likely going to go with Conv Valvoline MC 20/50 but only wish I could find a UOA on an attractive C rated 15/50 oil (which is almost impossible to find in a 15/50) Looks like a good semi oil (smoke and mirrors*L*), made by Citgo but, have no proof. Its Mystic JT8 15/50 CJ rated oil. Im afraid to use it, not sure I saw a UOA or VOA on it that wasnt over 8 years old.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Honestly, don't you think that if the API and the manufacturers found that a 4ball could replace the very costly to run Sequence IVA they would do so in a heartbeat ?
Amsoil's dinky tests don't prove anything that their engine oils are marginally superior if you are stuck in the desert and need to put engine oil in your gearbox.
Amsoil's "meets or exceeds, then recommending lubricants that clearly CAN'T even "meet" the test via their own product data sheets indicate that they aren't quite the honest John that they claim to be in the face of royalties and secret tests.
and your "most oils will meet"...needs some...evidence.
Or it means that Amsoil isn't anything particularly impressive either, in the fleet of "most oils"
Not so sure I disagree with you *L* As some might not see, Im not defending Amsoil, Im just stating they are the only ones I know of that publish tests. So other then Amsoil, listening to other companies tell me how great their oil is, is no different then government telling me, how good big government is for me.
I will say, looking through motorcycle UOAs its hard to find a bad one with Amsoil and also find a bad one with Valvoline oils (which one conv Valvoline MC oil did well and beat some of the syns in Amsoils tests)
Honestly, don't you think that if the API and the manufacturers found that a 4ball could replace the very costly to run Sequence IVA they would do so in a heartbeat ?
Amsoil's dinky tests don't prove anything that their engine oils are marginally superior if you are stuck in the desert and need to put engine oil in your gearbox.
Amsoil's "meets or exceeds, then recommending lubricants that clearly CAN'T even "meet" the test via their own product data sheets indicate that they aren't quite the honest John that they claim to be in the face of royalties and secret tests.
and your "most oils will meet"...needs some...evidence.
Or it means that Amsoil isn't anything particularly impressive either, in the fleet of "most oils"
Not so sure I disagree with you *L* As some might not see, Im not defending Amsoil, Im just stating they are the only ones I know of that publish tests. So other then Amsoil, listening to other companies tell me how great their oil is, is no different then government telling me, how good big government is for me.
I will say, looking through motorcycle UOAs its hard to find a bad one with Amsoil and also find a bad one with Valvoline oils (which one conv Valvoline MC oil did well and beat some of the syns in Amsoils tests)
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES NEGATIVELY THEY HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OIL COMPANY THAT BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH TRUE TESTS, NOT ONE, NONE, ZERO.
Riiiight. Some companies don't need to make marketing claims. They can just list the official mfg specs that they actually meet, instead of using weasel words like "recommended for" that Amsoil tends to do 99% of the time.
BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES NEGATIVELY THEY HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OIL COMPANY THAT BACKS UP THEIR CLAIMS WITH TRUE TESTS, NOT ONE, NONE, ZERO.
Riiiight. Some companies don't need to make marketing claims. They can just list the official mfg specs that they actually meet, instead of using weasel words like "recommended for" that Amsoil tends to do 99% of the time.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Well, then, why dont you answer the person who started this thread? My response was to him/her, not you.
Your response was a caps-lock and bold text screaming effort. It was also presented as being fact when it is not, it is simply your opinion based on your interpretation of their marketing material.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
I only say that because your condescending post full of words that mean nothing because you didnt answer the OP question.
Why is it a requirement that I answer the OP's question in a way that satisfies you in order for my post to mean anything?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Your reference to "more demanding OEM" tests mean nothing because there are no results.
It means they passed the requirements. A pass is a result. And another result, one of the pass, is that you get an approval that guarantees a specific level of performance.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Your words "completely meaningless 4 ball wear test" mean nothing because you offer no results or alternative results of standardized tests of some motor oils to compare.
So you feel that performance in a test not designed for motor oil has value because a company decides to use it in their marketing material? And I gave you two examples of results in standardized tests, both in marketing material from two competitor oil companies, Ashland and SOPUS. This is despite your posit in your first post that AMSOIL is the only one using standardized tests in their advertising
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
I offered the OP some standard tests to answer his question WHY Amsoil vs Mobile 1 etc. ... nothing is absolute but its all we can work with,
But that's not what you did. You made some very absolute statements regarding AMSOIL being the only company that advertises their performance in standardized tests when that is clearly not the case.
And that is not "all we can work with". If an engine requires a lubricant meeting Porsche A40, you should be using an oil that has passed Porsche's testing protocol because it is above and beyond the API testing. Also of note was a statement made by Doug Hillary regarding what he was told by Porsche engineers about their certification program and that is that any oil on their approval list will perform the same as any other in application; that a pass of their test and a stamp of approval guarantees a minimum level of wear control, deposit control, oxidation resistance....etc. above and beyond the requirements of the engine. This is all validated through tear-down testing. AMSOIL's mid-SAPS 5w-40 meets the requirements of Porsche A40 BTW and is formally approved.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
that and UOAs, since everything else in the industry is smoke and mirrors and lets not forget royalty payments for stamping a product that meets an OEM spec that most oils will also meet.. At times, more so with motorcycles, there is a correlation in the UOAs when compared to the Amsoil results in their tests.
UOA's are a tool designed to gauge contamination and lubricant life, they are not a wear barometer. There's an article on the front page of this site that does a great job laying out and explaining their intended use:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Besides tests, everything else is smoke, mirrors and meaningless words. More or less, no need for an oil forum, just buy whats on the shelf at any price as long as your OEM stamp is on it, your good to go. But honestly, that goes for any API rated oil, engines will far outlast the vehicles but some, like myself have fun picking a well rounded product that MIGHT give me an extra edge over the others.
And I have no problem with that line of thinking. It was the absolute terms used in your bold and caps-lock post that rubbed me the wrong way. My point was that these tests are ALSO marketing material. Specific tests chosen to show a product in a particular light based on their performance in that test. It doesn't mean that this level of performance; this top-shelf achievement is across the board. Of course that's the designed take-away but it isn't the truth. Oils are all a compromise designed to at minimum meet all the performance requirements for a given suite of tests so they can check all those boxes.
The oil that does the best in the Seq. IVA may not pass the Porsche A40 certification process for example. And the oil that does the best in the piston cleanliness test may not do all that well relative to its peers in the Seq. IVA. That's why my approach regarding lubricant selection is to favour the oils with the most OEM approvals, which generally points to a Euro-spec product. Within that envelope are then products that can be contrasted based on some additional metrics like cold temp performance (CCS and MRV). Of course this is a bit more difficult if you have a xW-20 spec application
It would be nice if the oil companies were required to publish their results in all of the sequence tests for their products. One could then choose the appropriate product not only based on it being approved for their application but then on its performance in the test or tests that most closely resemble their operation conditions.
Well, then, why dont you answer the person who started this thread? My response was to him/her, not you.
Your response was a caps-lock and bold text screaming effort. It was also presented as being fact when it is not, it is simply your opinion based on your interpretation of their marketing material.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
I only say that because your condescending post full of words that mean nothing because you didnt answer the OP question.
Why is it a requirement that I answer the OP's question in a way that satisfies you in order for my post to mean anything?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Your reference to "more demanding OEM" tests mean nothing because there are no results.
It means they passed the requirements. A pass is a result. And another result, one of the pass, is that you get an approval that guarantees a specific level of performance.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Your words "completely meaningless 4 ball wear test" mean nothing because you offer no results or alternative results of standardized tests of some motor oils to compare.
So you feel that performance in a test not designed for motor oil has value because a company decides to use it in their marketing material? And I gave you two examples of results in standardized tests, both in marketing material from two competitor oil companies, Ashland and SOPUS. This is despite your posit in your first post that AMSOIL is the only one using standardized tests in their advertising
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
I offered the OP some standard tests to answer his question WHY Amsoil vs Mobile 1 etc. ... nothing is absolute but its all we can work with,
But that's not what you did. You made some very absolute statements regarding AMSOIL being the only company that advertises their performance in standardized tests when that is clearly not the case.
And that is not "all we can work with". If an engine requires a lubricant meeting Porsche A40, you should be using an oil that has passed Porsche's testing protocol because it is above and beyond the API testing. Also of note was a statement made by Doug Hillary regarding what he was told by Porsche engineers about their certification program and that is that any oil on their approval list will perform the same as any other in application; that a pass of their test and a stamp of approval guarantees a minimum level of wear control, deposit control, oxidation resistance....etc. above and beyond the requirements of the engine. This is all validated through tear-down testing. AMSOIL's mid-SAPS 5w-40 meets the requirements of Porsche A40 BTW and is formally approved.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
that and UOAs, since everything else in the industry is smoke and mirrors and lets not forget royalty payments for stamping a product that meets an OEM spec that most oils will also meet.. At times, more so with motorcycles, there is a correlation in the UOAs when compared to the Amsoil results in their tests.
UOA's are a tool designed to gauge contamination and lubricant life, they are not a wear barometer. There's an article on the front page of this site that does a great job laying out and explaining their intended use:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Besides tests, everything else is smoke, mirrors and meaningless words. More or less, no need for an oil forum, just buy whats on the shelf at any price as long as your OEM stamp is on it, your good to go. But honestly, that goes for any API rated oil, engines will far outlast the vehicles but some, like myself have fun picking a well rounded product that MIGHT give me an extra edge over the others.
And I have no problem with that line of thinking. It was the absolute terms used in your bold and caps-lock post that rubbed me the wrong way. My point was that these tests are ALSO marketing material. Specific tests chosen to show a product in a particular light based on their performance in that test. It doesn't mean that this level of performance; this top-shelf achievement is across the board. Of course that's the designed take-away but it isn't the truth. Oils are all a compromise designed to at minimum meet all the performance requirements for a given suite of tests so they can check all those boxes.
The oil that does the best in the Seq. IVA may not pass the Porsche A40 certification process for example. And the oil that does the best in the piston cleanliness test may not do all that well relative to its peers in the Seq. IVA. That's why my approach regarding lubricant selection is to favour the oils with the most OEM approvals, which generally points to a Euro-spec product. Within that envelope are then products that can be contrasted based on some additional metrics like cold temp performance (CCS and MRV). Of course this is a bit more difficult if you have a xW-20 spec application
It would be nice if the oil companies were required to publish their results in all of the sequence tests for their products. One could then choose the appropriate product not only based on it being approved for their application but then on its performance in the test or tests that most closely resemble their operation conditions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
