Oil comparision...
- Thread starter steelervenom
- Start date
- Status
Since it was published by AMSOIL, yeah, they probably paid for it. However, all the tests are ASTM and reproduceable.
that study has SO many holes in it i could turn an oil tanker ship around in them. jeeez!
for instance:
where are the results of EACH oil in EACH bike?
those 4 bikes will NOT produce results even remotely simular. ok, the cbr and yzf might, but as the motorcycle UOA's on the site have shown, no harley is gonna give the same results as a yz450f!!!
too bad they didn't include some oils that would have KILLED the motorcycle spec oil too. cough superflow cough vr1 cough srt cough
for instance:
where are the results of EACH oil in EACH bike?
those 4 bikes will NOT produce results even remotely simular. ok, the cbr and yzf might, but as the motorcycle UOA's on the site have shown, no harley is gonna give the same results as a yz450f!!!
too bad they didn't include some oils that would have KILLED the motorcycle spec oil too. cough superflow cough vr1 cough srt cough
I could be wrong, but I dont think they performed any of the tests on actual oil used in the motorcycles listed. The bikes listed at the begining were for statistical comparisons between eah other. I think the tests were on virgin samples. Maybe I'm wrong.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
no wonder the amsoil showed no shearing. it wasn't an ACTUAL test, but a dream of what they would hope to (and fail) to see.
no wonder the amsoil showed no shearing. it wasn't an ACTUAL test, but a dream of what they would hope to (and fail) to see.
What wrong with starting with virgin oil? Sheesh....
they didn't actually put it in any bikes pablo.
what kind of a test is it if you don't use the product in its intended environment?
what kind of a test is it if you don't use the product in its intended environment?
Complain complain complain
Did you read what the purpose of the test was all about? Its a product comparsion test.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide information regarding motorcycle applications, their lubrication needs and typical lubricants available to the end user. It is intended to assist the end user in making an educated decision as to the lubricant most suitable for his or her motorcycle application.
Did you read what the purpose of the test was all about? Its a product comparsion test.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide information regarding motorcycle applications, their lubrication needs and typical lubricants available to the end user. It is intended to assist the end user in making an educated decision as to the lubricant most suitable for his or her motorcycle application.
never mind if it ACTUALLY holds up in that application.
that test data isn't worth lining a bird cage.
that test data isn't worth lining a bird cage.
I have no problem with the tests on virgin samples, it keeps the playing field level.
I am more interested to hear what members that are very experinced in dealing with these tests can help me to learn from them. I have been leaning towards trying Amsoil, I've been a Mobil 1 user for nearly 10 years....lol....but you know what they say about the fence and greener grass on the other side. I recently bought a new bike and I've been considering trying some new oils and doing some UOA's. I wanted to try Amsoil,Royal purple, and test my Mobil 1. Someone was saying in this forum a few weeks ago how Royal purple is 400% more shear resistant. Obviously, according to this paper, this is not true. Mobil 1 seems to have a sever foaming problem, that I need to find more about.
So I may test my Mobil 1 and I'd like to try Amsoil, my main problem with Amsoil is finding it...I've been looking for weeks and I cant find it anywhere, besides online.
I wouldnt bash the virgin sample tests, its a great starting point. Its our job to take it from there in our own bikes and UOAs, since there are so many variables from bike to bike, locations, drivers etc.
I am more interested to hear what members that are very experinced in dealing with these tests can help me to learn from them. I have been leaning towards trying Amsoil, I've been a Mobil 1 user for nearly 10 years....lol....but you know what they say about the fence and greener grass on the other side. I recently bought a new bike and I've been considering trying some new oils and doing some UOA's. I wanted to try Amsoil,Royal purple, and test my Mobil 1. Someone was saying in this forum a few weeks ago how Royal purple is 400% more shear resistant. Obviously, according to this paper, this is not true. Mobil 1 seems to have a sever foaming problem, that I need to find more about.
So I may test my Mobil 1 and I'd like to try Amsoil, my main problem with Amsoil is finding it...I've been looking for weeks and I cant find it anywhere, besides online.
I wouldnt bash the virgin sample tests, its a great starting point. Its our job to take it from there in our own bikes and UOAs, since there are so many variables from bike to bike, locations, drivers etc.
Steelervenom, here is my usually mentioned oil: Maxima www.maximausa.com
Pricey, yes. Built like a tank, yes. Do I use it, yep, but then I'm known around here as the gourmet botique oil user.
I use the Ultra 0w30 oil, and am hoping to get a VOA done shortly on this to give the specs on it, but I still use it with confidence, particularly after giving their tech guy a call and chatting for a while with him.
Pricey, yes. Built like a tank, yes. Do I use it, yep, but then I'm known around here as the gourmet botique oil user.
I use the Ultra 0w30 oil, and am hoping to get a VOA done shortly on this to give the specs on it, but I still use it with confidence, particularly after giving their tech guy a call and chatting for a while with him.
Dad2leia,
Thanks, I'll look into it too. Its funny, my last bike I had for nearly 10 years and it ran nothing but Mobil 1 (Auto 5-30 and 10-30) from day 1, I put 27,000+ on the bike, which was run very hard at times. I never had a single problem with the Mobil 1 auto in my bike. Of course I dont do extended oil changes so its not as critical a question for me, I never put more than 3000 miles on the oil and usually change it between 1500 and 2000. I just want the best protection period, I dont mind changing my oil often, in fact I enjoy the time working on my bike...I guess I'm just restless and want to be sure I'm doing the best for vehicles as I get older....
Thanks, I'll look into it too. Its funny, my last bike I had for nearly 10 years and it ran nothing but Mobil 1 (Auto 5-30 and 10-30) from day 1, I put 27,000+ on the bike, which was run very hard at times. I never had a single problem with the Mobil 1 auto in my bike. Of course I dont do extended oil changes so its not as critical a question for me, I never put more than 3000 miles on the oil and usually change it between 1500 and 2000. I just want the best protection period, I dont mind changing my oil often, in fact I enjoy the time working on my bike...I guess I'm just restless and want to be sure I'm doing the best for vehicles as I get older....
It is EXTREMELY difficult and super time consuming and very expensive to do a meaningful actual use test between a whole group of oils.
Then when you are done - what do the critics say? Oh - "the testing is not standardized to ASTM" etc....
So then everyone asks Amsoil to test their oils to standards......so they do.....and people still throw rocks.
Then when you are done - what do the critics say? Oh - "the testing is not standardized to ASTM" etc....
So then everyone asks Amsoil to test their oils to standards......so they do.....and people still throw rocks.
Amsoil makes very good MC oils, but they only recently reformulated bc Mobil 1 one uped them. M1 did very well in this test. Why no Redline? Amsoil never tests Redlilne. I don't have an issue with this testing. I'm sure if Mobil or Redline did the same test they would have their brands on top as well. Actual engine service is more important and I'm sure all of the top 5 would do extremely well.
Very well stated **** in Falls Church.
I also would like to say that I've been an Amsoil user, along with the botique oils that I've discovered in the recent past. Good oil, no, great oil, I just hate having to order oil through the mail so to speak.
The botique oil that I use now, I can get through a dealer 'round me, so I call him up, place my order, and within 3 days, I go pick it up sans shipping charges.
Let me also say that I probably will use Amsoil again in the future (yep, I keep ALL smaller manufacturers of oil happy as a clam!!!
)
I also would like to say that I've been an Amsoil user, along with the botique oils that I've discovered in the recent past. Good oil, no, great oil, I just hate having to order oil through the mail so to speak.
The botique oil that I use now, I can get through a dealer 'round me, so I call him up, place my order, and within 3 days, I go pick it up sans shipping charges.
Let me also say that I probably will use Amsoil again in the future (yep, I keep ALL smaller manufacturers of oil happy as a clam!!!
The real link is here.
http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf
The mods didn't used to allow random Amsoil dealers web addresses here.
Anyway - the report is the report. Of course it's biased and funky. I'm not expecting people to take it any more seriously than if Mobil, Castrol, Redline, etc paid for and published such information. It's kind of a fun read none-the-less, if you are into oil.....
http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf
The mods didn't used to allow random Amsoil dealers web addresses here.
Anyway - the report is the report. Of course it's biased and funky. I'm not expecting people to take it any more seriously than if Mobil, Castrol, Redline, etc paid for and published such information. It's kind of a fun read none-the-less, if you are into oil.....
It's kind of a fun read...Yeah...kind of what I was thinking.
Jaybird
Please elaborate, I'm trying to understand as much as I can about the testing and results. Good or bad, opinion or fact, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the paper.
Jaybird
Please elaborate, I'm trying to understand as much as I can about the testing and results. Good or bad, opinion or fact, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the paper.
Also, please use the link posted by Pablo, its the correct one for this forum. If any mods read this please change the link in my original post to the one in Pablos.
My appologies for the original link.
My appologies for the original link.
Amsoil has always forced comparisons between themselves and the majors as part of their marketing efforts.
My take on the report is that it's just what it seems to be -- a comparison. Standard tests, informational format...and let the reader decide. There's a lot of data there, and Amsoil would have been hard pressed to present it any other way.
It is a shame that Redline is excluded, though.
Likewise, it's a bummer that no other oil company commissions reports like these -- but then, maybe they don't consider Amsoil to be worth worrying about.
My take on the report is that it's just what it seems to be -- a comparison. Standard tests, informational format...and let the reader decide. There's a lot of data there, and Amsoil would have been hard pressed to present it any other way.
It is a shame that Redline is excluded, though.
Likewise, it's a bummer that no other oil company commissions reports like these -- but then, maybe they don't consider Amsoil to be worth worrying about.
- Status
