Amsoil Injector Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
blano, thanks for that link. I’ve seen it before. I think it was ben wa who posted it months ago in another thread. I grabbed the text and saved it in a Word document somewhere. I was making a bundle of info for baby brother who uses a lot more 2-cycle oil than I do … but doesn’t bother to do his homework regarding brand an application. I re-read it a month ago … maybe I need to read it again.
confused.gif


I guess my understanding falls woefully short in understanding the role ‘ash’ plays in 2-cycle oil operation. Without thinking too much about it, I would see ash as a negative in nearly every oil application; 2-stroke as well as 4-stroke. Does ash play some sort of lubricating function at higher temps and is therefore required for certain applications?
confused.gif


As far as Amsoil and credibility goes, I have to say there are a number of people on this board who are decent, intelligent people and they help balance out some of the whackos who so heavily taint the brand. Also, there is a fair amount of testing of lab samples which indicate that the oil performs well even over slightly extended drain intervals … even if their 25K intervals are almost pure B.S.

Regarding 2-cycle oils, I find the “Big A’s” ester-based formulas interesting … because Red Line’s formulas are at least related.
wink.gif


I just caution people to keep their rhetoric to a civilized level. Certainly, it should not get personal. I mean, how can things around here be personal … if we barely know each other?
spaz.gif


Besides, if I can refrain from taking shots at Royal Purple, EVERYONE here should be able to get along.
grin.gif


--- Bror Jace
 
blano, you wrote:

quote:

TCw3 oils require a ashless additive package no matter what base oil is used. Conversly iso egd fluids require a low ash additive chemistry. Therefor it is impossible for one oil to meet both specs.Amso8il claims their AIO does this, which is a lie as ot cant possibly.

I'm honestly trying to get along with you and have a civil discussion. Your name calling and accusations are getting a bit old.

Here is my question for you: I never said AIO meets ISO-EGD. Amsoil never wrote this on any web page, spec sheet, catalog or bottle. Why do you continue to beat this up?

I and Amsoil say: AIO meets NMMA TC-WII and TC-W3 with ease.
 
"I never said AIO meets ISO-EGD. Amsoil never wrote this on any web page, spec sheet, catalog or bottle. Why do you continue to beat this up? "

Pablo, Your right. They list AIO as "meeting" tcw3, jaso fc, tc specs. Fc and TC are aircooled specs which a tcw3 oil CANNOT pass. MY point was Amsoil is claiming they can meet several specs that are not compatable with each other.

Bror, Ash in a oil is indicative of how much high temp metallic detergants are present in the oil. High ash levels foul plugs. Conversly ashless oils can not keep the ring belt area, and exhaust port clean when ran at high temps. Some ash is good, but too much can cause deposit issues. BTW When the term ash is used they are talking about a bench test that reacts sulfuric acid with a sample and then measures how much mettalic residue is left. It has nothing to do with deposits left over fromm combustion as some people think.

[ January 03, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: blano ]
 
Blano, here's how it's done.

1. You set up a test for specification 'A'. You install the product and run the test. It passes or it fails. Write the result down.

2. You set up a test for specifiation 'B'. You install the product and run the test. It passes or it fails. Write the result down.

If the product under test passes both test '1' and test '2', then that company can print on the bottle that it passes both specs.

Andy
 
Thats true Andy H, but bear in mind, just because of this, most of us do not put blind faith in the cert's for quality purposes but for warr purposes. The api standards are nothing more than min requirements so passing that doesnt' mean it's a good or bad oil, just that using this cert will ensure no warr denial by any dealer/manufacturer and as long as it has that seal, that means I have not voided any warr contract as such.

That is ALL I would even consider getting out of those certs. The tests mean nothing IMO as they just have min standard requirements.

[ January 13, 2003, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
 
Andy, in your post you are makeing the assumption that all certs are performance based. They are not. Many such as tcw3 spec the type of additives that must be used to be certified. In the case of tcw3 this is a ashless package. Jaso fc on the other hand specs a low as additive chemistry. Therefor it is impossible for amsoil to pass both specs as they suggest. It doesnt really matter how good your oil is if it is not certified for warranty purposes which amsoil is not.

[ January 13, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: ben walker ]
 
I appreciate your comments, Bob and Ben, I really do. However...

Many, Many people do just that - put blind faith in the cert. Just reading here in these forums, visiting any auto parts store, any Wallyworld, and you'll find that oil choice is about 98.5 percent emotion and marketing. I'd suggest that most people shopping for oil go into the store with an advertizing slogan and a viscosity requirement in their head and that's all. I know I did for years. 3K oil changes, Quaker State or Penzoil or Castrol GTX just like Daddy did.

I agree that the API certs are simply a lower limit. I also know that the companies selling the most oil are just getting over that minimun bar if the bar has a little crisco on it.

I've read lots of posts where folks gather around the 'warranty' flag. Even tho the Magnuson-Moss act was passed in 1975, outboard manufacturers continue to brow-beat dealers, who intimidate customers into using the OEM gear lube and 2-cycle oil. It's illegal in the US to deny warranties if the customer uses a lube that meets their RECOMMENDED requirement. And that's the wording. The law and the warranty doesn't say it has to be API certified, but it says the oil has to meet that cert. The only way a company can deny a warranty claim is if they can prove that the lubricant caused the failure. The burden of proof is on the manufacturer, NOT the consumer. Even if you put castor oil in your gearbox and it burns everything to a crisp -- the manufacturer has to prove that the lube caused the problem. They cannot legally void the warranty until they present that proof.

Folks, I know that oil choice is more religion than science - even for many of us here. We don't serve each other by taking shots at each other's choices, or by perpetuating myths. Ya'll know that synthetic oil is thinner than real oil and it'll cause leaks? Better stay away from that stuff.

Ben -- I'm not suggesting it's a performance test, tho my firmly tongue-in-cheek evaluation checklist did suggest that. What I'm saying is that the certification requirements for API certs and the JASO certs and the rest are known and repeatable. If an oil meets the stack of tests for an API cert, and pays lots of money, it can use the API donut on the bottle. What happens most often, tho, is that the lube isn't even tested. It's blended from the same standard building blocks as everyone else. If they use an accepted base, and accepted additives, and blend the lube in an accepted way, the lube can carry the API donut. EVEN THO THAT OIL HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED in it's complete state. And even if the formulation is JUNK, they can't afford to change it until they sell enough to pay-off the API fees, reformulate the oil, and get a new approval.

And as Bob pointed out, many of the oils on the street don't meet the API standard. Why doesn't the API enforce their standard? Because they've already been paid? Because there aren't enough hours in the day to track down all the junk on the shelf that we keep buying? Dunno.

As for ash vs ashless -- does the spec actually state that the lube MUST HAVE ASH, or just that it be LOW ASH? These are two very different things. If a lube can do without ash what another lube can do with a little ash, which is better?

Bob has also proven in a valve seal test that AMSOIL is the superior cleaner. And synthetic bases are better detergents than many petroleum base oil's detergent additives. If the low ash content is simply an indicator of metalic detergents, and the oil can keep the ring lands clean without additional metalic cleaners, then that oil would be able to meet or exceed the spec without ask, wouldn't it?

Lots of ground covered. Sorry for the combination reply.

Andy
 
Andy h, I will try to clarify. TCW3 fluids must be ashless to meet the tcw3spec. This is regardless of base oils. Jaso fc and iso egd oils must be low ash. It matters not if they are a full synthetic or not. The temperature that dispersant work at is the key here. ashless dispersant will not work above 300 degrees. aircooled engines and high performance liquid cooled engines reach this temp easily thus the require a mettalic detergant and hence the low ash spec for jaso fc and iso egd. base oil does not come into play hear. A synthetic CAN NOT get away with a ashless dispersant and still be iso jaso ceertified. Amsoil claims there oil "meets"(what ever that means) both the jaso and tcw3 specs when it is impossible to do so.
warranty- The moss act will only protect you from warranty being voided by the installation of aftermarket parts provided they did cause damage(proof is in the hands of the person seeking warranty) and from a oem forcing you to buy there oil for a valid warranty. boat oems do neither of these. They simply say the oil must be certified to a minimum performance spec (tcw3). if you run a oil that is not certified to this spec you are left holding the bag so to speak. BTW the "proof" is always up to the consumer in matters like this and I believ the moss act states this.

That being said I have no love for the API or the NMMA. I would like to seee iso standard developed for outboards and I would like to see the API that didnt have the oil caompanies and the epa in its pockets.

Andy- I would also hope you would state your affiliation if any with specific companies. IE are you a amsoil dealer/salesman?
 
Ben,

My understanding is that the 100:1 premix is the JASO FC and ISO EGD formulation and that the regular injector oil is an ashless, TC-W3 formulation that does not meet JASO FC.

The two stroke racing oil is "recommended" for both TC-W3 and JASO FC applications, but they never claim to meet the spec. I have no idea if this is an ashless formula,but it's the cleanest burning stuff I've ever used in my Stihl trimmer and 029 chainsaw @ 50:1.

You really should run your own comparison test - two outboards on your current two stroke and two on the Amsoil Series 2000 racing oil. Take the motors apart after a full season of fishing and see what you think, both in terms of wear and piston deposits.

I'd be glad to supply the oil for free - anything in the name of science
wink.gif
 
Too slick, Amsoil list AIO as meeting both jaso fc and rcw3 specs on its website unless it has changed it in the last week. Amsoil 100:1 is listed as being jaso fc, but not iso egd(the toughest standard).
I would never run amsoil two stroke racing oil in anything but a high reving, highly loaded motor. I have seen MANY guys use it in bikes and get deposits as well as some people have the same problem with sleds. Redline, maxima and other high cst ester oils have the same problem in these apps. I have seen some sleds that ran relitivly clean on it also I might add. I all depends on how much heat the oil is subjected to. Low heat= imcomplete combustion and deposits. This fact is made worst by very high temp esters amsoil is fond of.
As far as then offer. Ill do it. But in all fairness I would think AIO would be the best product for a boat. BTW TS I dont have a problemn with you and other honest/reputable dealers. You always seem to be fair and objective on this board and freds. Its these guys that think amsoil is a godsend with little to no facts to back them up that tee me off. It would help if Amsoil changed there marketing sceme to one that didnt give every tom **** and harry a dealership and one that didnt rely on so much smoke and mirrors salesmanship.BTW I still say Mobile MX2t is the best two cycle(non Marine) oil for the money bar none.

[ January 14, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: ben walker ]
 
ben wa: " I still say Mobile MX2T is the best two-cycle (non Marine) oil for the money bar none."

But, by your own admission, you've never tried the similarly priced Red Line Allsport.
wink.gif


Hey, anyway, I look forward to the Amsoil test/comparison.
smile.gif


--- Bror Jace
 
"But, by your own admission, you've never tried the similarly priced Red Line Allsport."
I wouldnt buy anything from Reline after the expierance I had with there two stroke race oil. It wasnt so much the actual problem , but the fact they gave me the run around, denyed it and then finaly fessed up. IMO all sport will not hold a candle to Mx2t perfromance or price wise. Pefromance wise Mx2t is much better than Redline TCRO. It should have no problem outperforming a low perfromance oil like allsport.
 
This will help some clarification on tcw3's requirement and honestly I don't see where it is discussing if an additive is used it can or can't pass. It just uses basic tests to determine the condition under certain situations as to if it will qualify not types of chemistry used. There may be some new type of chemistry tommorow that would blow all of them out of the water and because of that, they cannot dictate what can be used in an oil but can test for chemical reactions due to certain additives but as andy pointed out, one may have less amounts or have a proper mix that can possibly pass both tests.. Anyway, that's a personal opinion but here is the facts on tcw3s and such..

http://www.lubrizol.com/ReadyReference/EngineOils/9-smallengine/default.htm

NMMA Recertified TC-W3®
 
Bill, you dig a little deeper and show me as I appear to be wayyyyy behind on this subject from your perspective, so I leave that up to you to educate me with a little more info as to where you're digging. thanks.
 
quote:

Originally posted by blano:
Bob, dig alittle deaper and you will find all tcw3 oils are ashless. It is in the spec.

blano,
I think you need to dig deeper imo and you will find the spec is dated and now a new spec has arrived.

A pull from Lubrizol:

"Also, a new low-ash reference oil is being used instead of the original ashless oil because the ashless oil had experienced hot ring sticking problems over the last decade"

Another pull from Lubrizol:
"In 1994, the Japanese Automobile Standards Organization (JASO) defined a specification that describes three quality levels for low-ash air-cooled two-cycle engine oils: FA, FB, and FC. Lubricant performance is assessed according to four performance criteria: detergency, lubricity, exhaust blocking, and smoke. Performance of a candidate oil is rated against that of a reference oil"

It says low ash not no ash.

[ January 18, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: dragboat ]
 
"I wouldnt buy anything from Red Line after the experience I had with their two-stroke race oil. It wasn't so much the actual problem, but the fact they gave me the run around, denyed it and then finaly 'fessed up. IMO, All Sport will not hold a candle to MX2T performance or price wise. Performance wise, MX2T is much better than Red Line TCRO. It should have no problem outperforming a low performance oil like All Sport."

Ben, I remember you detailing the problem you had with water absorption with Red Line's racing formula oil and the subsequent frustrating phone experience. Those of us who have been experimenting a lot with lubes over the past decade all carry around the scars of dealing with the different companies. I'll summarize a few more:

Pennzoil - One of the regulars here called them several months ago to ask them about their motor oil formulas, specifically their recent addition of moly. He got a hold of a (wacky) woman who gave him a hard time about doing independent oil analysis, stating that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed, etc ... Here's a decent company who let someone get on the phone who didn't know what she was doing/talking about. But, I wouldn't hold this against Pennzoil or switch brands because of it. Most companies are a little reluctant to release technical info because there's a never ending supply of scumbags out there who would love to steal a formula/idea in order to make a quick buck, etc ...

Amsoil - I think I've detailed all over this site why I won't consider this brand for my use anytime soon so I won't repeat myself too much here. Mostly, I got sick of dealers/users who treat the brand too much like a religion and not a product. Perhaps if most other specialty lube makers went out of business I'd relax my biases and give 'em a whirl, but for now, that's just not in the cards.

Mobil - I used Mobil 1 (Tri-Syn & its predecessor) faithfully for 5+ years straight in my Honda ... and it came down with a bad case of piston slap just like many Grand Ams and other cars prone to have the condition. This is fairly well documented on this site and in other places. Mobil ran ads about "virtually zero wear" and it was all a bunch of empty hype. As a result I feel more than a little burned. Switching to many other (cheaper) oils was a significant improvement in the awful "rod-knock" noise in cold weather (was -20F this morning here). Mobil's SuperSyn motor oil is an significant improvement and their MX2T 2-stroke oil might be fabulicious, but I'm in no hurry to try either.

Castrol - The whole Group-III-is-synthetic switcharoo and the sleazy/misleading way they handled the whole fiasco caused me to discontinue using any of their products.

Valvoline - Probably the worst example of all. I and others called their 1-800-team-val hotline in 2000 and 2001 to be told that 1) Their Synpower motor oils were 100% PAO (when they were actually Group III mineral) and their Max-Life was a Group III oil fortified with an ester ... when it's base stock was actually just an indifferent Group II. These were numerous phone calls by myself and others I talked with on-line at the time, not just one call on a bad day when the wrong person answered the phone. So, their whole B.S. routine was a systematic problem I have yet to forgive them for.
rolleyes.gif


So, keeping in mind what I wrote above, I'd just ask you to put your Red Line experience in perspective. I'm not asking you to like Red Line or even recommend it, but I think that on a bad day, you could get the same kind of stupid $#i+ run-around treatment from just about any company.
wink.gif


I have used Red Line's MTL gear oil and fuel system cleaner with excellent results and I see no reason to believe their other products would be a disappointment. I hope to give their motor oils another try in the future, when I have a newer car which isn't suffering from a glycol leak like my last one. As for the 2-stroke oils, I think baby brother is using All-Sport in his daughter's Kitty-Cat child's snowmobile this year. I bought him a bottle last year which remained unopened. But, I bet he could use any old junk in that low performance bugger. Next year, his son will be old enough to ride the snowmobile and may tax the stuff that much more ... that is, if he truly takes after my brother.
wink.gif


--- Bror Jace
 
Dragboat, TCW3 is the current spec for marine use. Jaso fc and iso egd are air cooled specs intended for land based vehicles only.
BTW ash refers to the additive package. In particular the dispersant type.

Bob, If you would like more info on tcw3 I can get you a e mail addy from a freind of mine that works with Phillips 66.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top