the claimed increase may have been from reducing the viscosity of the lubes. Amsoil claims are hard for me to believe as I have used alot of their products and they have not matched their performance to their hype. I am not saying the products are bad , They are fine , but the claims are well I would say over rated.
Syn payback on fuel economy?
- Thread starter nascarnation
- Start date
- Status
This is for Over the Road Trucking Fleets, and it wasn't just for the engine oil. They changed over the entire drive train and ran an independant test with a fleet of trucks. Of coarse by doing this the 8% fuel saving more than paid for the lubricants for that entire year.
$1 million in Fuel with an 8% savings is $80,000 of which is didn't cost that much to run Amsoil at 120,000 mile drain interval in those trucks.
So yes you can make it cost effective to run synthetics in some applications. But for the average joe, it would not pay for itself in 1 year.
I've generally see gains of 3%-5% with the Amsoil Series 2000, 0w-30, compared to 10w-30 conventional oil. Changing over the transmission and differential might gain you another 1%-2%, particularly in cold weather.
Tooslick
Dixie Synthetics
Tooslick
Dixie Synthetics
Hi,
claims such as those noted for fuel economy savings in heavy trucks are usually inaccurate
There are so many variables in use, load mass, weather, geography and the right foot are but some
I have accurate fuel economy reading for my fleet of heavy trucks that go back for many years!
As for 120000k MILES OCIs - well I have considerable experience in this field and I can say with confidence that the 125k kms we attained with Delvac 1 5w-40 is near the limit with a modern electronic US diesel. And this was using a MANN-HUMMEL centrifuge too!!
Soot pollution is usually the killer even with top up at 6k kms per litre!
See under Detroit Diesel etc in the diesel UOAs section
Be very suspicious of fuel ecomy claims uknless all the relevant data is forthcoming!
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
claims such as those noted for fuel economy savings in heavy trucks are usually inaccurate
There are so many variables in use, load mass, weather, geography and the right foot are but some
I have accurate fuel economy reading for my fleet of heavy trucks that go back for many years!
As for 120000k MILES OCIs - well I have considerable experience in this field and I can say with confidence that the 125k kms we attained with Delvac 1 5w-40 is near the limit with a modern electronic US diesel. And this was using a MANN-HUMMEL centrifuge too!!
Soot pollution is usually the killer even with top up at 6k kms per litre!
See under Detroit Diesel etc in the diesel UOAs section
Be very suspicious of fuel ecomy claims uknless all the relevant data is forthcoming!
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
Doug,
The test Amsoil had performed was an SAE standard test to evaluate fuel efficiency and it was done under tightly controlled conditions of temp, loads, wind, road speed,etc. As I recall, they showed a fuels savings of about 3.2% with the Series 3000, 5w-30; compared to Rotella T, 15w-40. The remaining 5% savings was from replacing a petroleum based 85w-140 gear lube w/ a 75w-90 and a 90wt transmission fluid with their 20w-50 synthetic engine oil.
In other words, the bulk of these savings was from the lower viscosity synlubes, which makes perfect sense.
TS
The test Amsoil had performed was an SAE standard test to evaluate fuel efficiency and it was done under tightly controlled conditions of temp, loads, wind, road speed,etc. As I recall, they showed a fuels savings of about 3.2% with the Series 3000, 5w-30; compared to Rotella T, 15w-40. The remaining 5% savings was from replacing a petroleum based 85w-140 gear lube w/ a 75w-90 and a 90wt transmission fluid with their 20w-50 synthetic engine oil.
In other words, the bulk of these savings was from the lower viscosity synlubes, which makes perfect sense.
TS
3.42% and 4.83%, the actual results were 8.25% total but Amsoil rounded down to 8.2% for the literature. I believe that had the 15w40 Amsoil been used it would have showed close to a 2.2% decrease in consumption. I believe the viscosity change in the engine doesn't account for the majority of the savings. I have seen mobil test results for the 5w40 Delvac 1 showing 2.2 or 2.3% savings so I assume the same for Amsoil 15w40.
The Effects of Crankcase Oil Viscosity on Engine Friction at Low Temperatures, Cockbill et al:
By using lower viscosity oils there is less friction, improved cold weather starting, improved fuel economy, a savings of starting system components and less wear by increasing the rate of oil pressurization and flow in the upper oil galleries.
Switching to a synthetic will allow you to use a 0W-20 or 30 oil and not only help gas milage but also increase the life of many other systems in your car.
The synthetic lubricated engine will turn over easier. This has the effect of using less power from your starter motor. It will last longer. Your battery has less of a current draw. This will also last longer. The battery was discharged less during the start so the alternator will rob less power from your engine to recharge. The alternator lasts longer and you get a little better gas economy.
Going to a GF-4 and SM rated oil of the same viscosity you are using now will increase fuel economy. It may allow you to go one grade lower and that will improve your payback.
If after the second (extended) oil change you see no difference you can always go back to mineral oil and still not have lost anything. You have nothing to lose by trying. But there may be a lot to gain.
aehaas
By using lower viscosity oils there is less friction, improved cold weather starting, improved fuel economy, a savings of starting system components and less wear by increasing the rate of oil pressurization and flow in the upper oil galleries.
Switching to a synthetic will allow you to use a 0W-20 or 30 oil and not only help gas milage but also increase the life of many other systems in your car.
The synthetic lubricated engine will turn over easier. This has the effect of using less power from your starter motor. It will last longer. Your battery has less of a current draw. This will also last longer. The battery was discharged less during the start so the alternator will rob less power from your engine to recharge. The alternator lasts longer and you get a little better gas economy.
Going to a GF-4 and SM rated oil of the same viscosity you are using now will increase fuel economy. It may allow you to go one grade lower and that will improve your payback.
If after the second (extended) oil change you see no difference you can always go back to mineral oil and still not have lost anything. You have nothing to lose by trying. But there may be a lot to gain.
aehaas
I can't say this is scientific, but I'm still on the original batter in my 97 F150, that we bought in the spring of 1996. This battery is almost 9 years old. Couple of things, is I keep the engine very clean, I also make sure the terminals are free of corrosion.
And lastly it's had synthetic in it since 3000(Castrol Syntec until 18K then Amsoil)
Couple of mornings it was in the teens here I was worried for sure!! It keeps start though. I think this will be the last year on this battery.
I agree with Doug. In my high HP cars I use Mobil 1 not because I think it is better but because they offer the viscosity range I want and is relatively cheap and easy to get, same goes for Pennzoil mineral based oils.
aehaas
aehaas
The biggest fuel savings from low visc oils should be seen in the case where the engine has to idle a lot, eg. tow trucks that sit at the side of the road, waiting for a business opportunity.
A idle, most of the fuel is used to overcome engine friction, so oil make a big difference.
A idle, most of the fuel is used to overcome engine friction, so oil make a big difference.
I can't say this is scientific, but I'm still on the original batter in my 97 F150, that we bought in the spring of 1996. This battery is almost 9 years old. Couple of things, is I keep the engine very clean, I also make sure the terminals are free of corrosion.
And lastly it's had synthetic in it since 3000(Castrol Syntec until 18K then Amsoil)
Couple of mornings it was in the teens here I was worried for sure!! It keeps start though. I think this will be the last year on this battery. [/QB][/QUOTE]
In all my Ford vehicles I've always been able to keep the original Motorcraft battery for 8 years. They still started the vehicles in the winter. Though by the 8th year when it got down into the teens I didn't feel too comfortable anymore
Whimsey
Hi,
oilriser - I totally agree with your comments regarding the savings made at idle - especially with heavy diesel engines (12ltrs>)!
However, the comments made in here were applied to "over the road" heavy trucks and then idling typically becomes less than 8% of "engine on" time (badly managed fleets may be around 15% - well managed fleets are around 6% - mine are at 6.2%). Idle time is electronically recorded on the engine's ECM and includes traffic stopped times etc.
Whimsey - As stated too - a simple (conforming) viscosity change downwards may give similar savings in many of the points raised.
Certainly in Australia the common HDEO is 15w-40. This viscosity would be used here in about 98% of heavy truck engines regardless of their operating application. Mostly they would all benefit from a 5w-40 or 5w-30 viscosity oil but warranty requirements prevent their use
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
oilriser - I totally agree with your comments regarding the savings made at idle - especially with heavy diesel engines (12ltrs>)!
However, the comments made in here were applied to "over the road" heavy trucks and then idling typically becomes less than 8% of "engine on" time (badly managed fleets may be around 15% - well managed fleets are around 6% - mine are at 6.2%). Idle time is electronically recorded on the engine's ECM and includes traffic stopped times etc.
Whimsey - As stated too - a simple (conforming) viscosity change downwards may give similar savings in many of the points raised.
Certainly in Australia the common HDEO is 15w-40. This viscosity would be used here in about 98% of heavy truck engines regardless of their operating application. Mostly they would all benefit from a 5w-40 or 5w-30 viscosity oil but warranty requirements prevent their use
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
Hi,
Tooslick - Ted, my reply was in response to your comments;
"I've generally see gains of 3%-5% with the Amsoil Series 2000, 0w-30, compared to 10w-30 conventional oil."
If you had indicated you were referring to an Official and SAE controlled Lab test to a set protocol with published outcomes using your stated oil I would NOT have responded at all
You won't though were you?? And of course the oils you refer to do not have similar viscosities
Lab testing is another thing - you said "I've GENERALLY see gains..........."
Fuel economy gains were well discussed here over a year ago and these same points were raised then
We all know that there are fuel economy gains in changing from a mineral to a synthetic engine oil of similar viscosity - Lab tests do show this. THE BRAND OF SYNTHETIC OIL USED IS TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IRRELEVANT.
Quantifying these gains in the real world is not so easy
One good measure of the potential savings (in heavy trucks at least) is to see the variance in operating temperatures (logged and rationalised) in gearboxes (RoadRanger,mineral v syn SAE50) and in diffs (Meritor, mineral 85w-140 v syn 75w-90).IMHE and in the real world these are usually reduced by 10C to 25C respectively
In trucking circles the fuel economy gains MAY be greater here than from the engine oil (of similar viscosities of course)
It is unlikely that anybody will get a "Syn payback on fuel economy" the title of this thread. Not fuel economy alone at least!
The "payback" will most likely be by a combination of things in order such as:
a) extending drain intervals (using UOAs of course)
b) extending filter use (as for a) above)
c) some fuel economy improvement
d) longer starter/battery life
e) and etc
The BRAND of synthetic used is mostly irrelevant - more religion than reality perhaps?
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
[ January 23, 2005, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
Tooslick - Ted, my reply was in response to your comments;
"I've generally see gains of 3%-5% with the Amsoil Series 2000, 0w-30, compared to 10w-30 conventional oil."
If you had indicated you were referring to an Official and SAE controlled Lab test to a set protocol with published outcomes using your stated oil I would NOT have responded at all
You won't though were you?? And of course the oils you refer to do not have similar viscosities
Lab testing is another thing - you said "I've GENERALLY see gains..........."
Fuel economy gains were well discussed here over a year ago and these same points were raised then
We all know that there are fuel economy gains in changing from a mineral to a synthetic engine oil of similar viscosity - Lab tests do show this. THE BRAND OF SYNTHETIC OIL USED IS TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IRRELEVANT.
Quantifying these gains in the real world is not so easy
One good measure of the potential savings (in heavy trucks at least) is to see the variance in operating temperatures (logged and rationalised) in gearboxes (RoadRanger,mineral v syn SAE50) and in diffs (Meritor, mineral 85w-140 v syn 75w-90).IMHE and in the real world these are usually reduced by 10C to 25C respectively
In trucking circles the fuel economy gains MAY be greater here than from the engine oil (of similar viscosities of course)
It is unlikely that anybody will get a "Syn payback on fuel economy" the title of this thread. Not fuel economy alone at least!
The "payback" will most likely be by a combination of things in order such as:
a) extending drain intervals (using UOAs of course)
b) extending filter use (as for a) above)
c) some fuel economy improvement
d) longer starter/battery life
e) and etc
The BRAND of synthetic used is mostly irrelevant - more religion than reality perhaps?
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
[ January 23, 2005, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
To use my favorite consulting phrase. "It depends."
It will depend on oil consumption, oil change interval, fuel consumption rate of vehicle (mpg), price difference of the two oils being compared, just to name some variables which come to mind.
On vehicles which get very poor fuel economy (otr trucks) the amount of fuel economy increase doesn't need to be so great even when comparing with the same oil change intervals. Ie: on a 500 hp detroit getting 5.5mpg with a 11 gallon scapacity and a 30,000 mile OCI and $2.00 diesel you would only need to see about .67 % increase in fuel economy to call it even with a price difference of $7.40/gallon. .74% with 6mpg, .81% with 6.5mpg, and .88% with 7mpg. A 2% increase would see about $140 extra money every oil change in the hypothetical truck. That is $500 to $600 more per year per truck.
To get the most out of your oil (any product for that matter) you should determine what its lifespan is in your vehicle. You wouldn't change out higher quality brakes, belts, hoses, antifreeze, atf, tires, etc at the same rate as cheaper versions if they still have more useful life left in them. Not all products are comparable on price alone.
example: I had my front cv boots split on my toyota 4x4 after about 9 years. I replaced both of them but could only get 1 replacement from Autozone and the other from Checker auto. After 2.5 years one of them has split and needs replacing again. Was my savings over the factory boots worth it to have one fail at about 1/4 the time frame. I don't think so! Now I need to reboot one again. I am going to go for factory boots and replace both sides when I do it so that I shouldn't have to worry again for another 9+ years or 100k miles.
On my diesel I go 4 times longer than the recommended interval of 5k with synthetic and only use 25% more oil than a single oil change. 20qts for 20k miles versus 64 qts for conventional. I also use 1 less oil filter. I could probably get away with just 2 filters per 20k miles if I really wanted to.
It will depend on oil consumption, oil change interval, fuel consumption rate of vehicle (mpg), price difference of the two oils being compared, just to name some variables which come to mind.
On vehicles which get very poor fuel economy (otr trucks) the amount of fuel economy increase doesn't need to be so great even when comparing with the same oil change intervals. Ie: on a 500 hp detroit getting 5.5mpg with a 11 gallon scapacity and a 30,000 mile OCI and $2.00 diesel you would only need to see about .67 % increase in fuel economy to call it even with a price difference of $7.40/gallon. .74% with 6mpg, .81% with 6.5mpg, and .88% with 7mpg. A 2% increase would see about $140 extra money every oil change in the hypothetical truck. That is $500 to $600 more per year per truck.
To get the most out of your oil (any product for that matter) you should determine what its lifespan is in your vehicle. You wouldn't change out higher quality brakes, belts, hoses, antifreeze, atf, tires, etc at the same rate as cheaper versions if they still have more useful life left in them. Not all products are comparable on price alone.
example: I had my front cv boots split on my toyota 4x4 after about 9 years. I replaced both of them but could only get 1 replacement from Autozone and the other from Checker auto. After 2.5 years one of them has split and needs replacing again. Was my savings over the factory boots worth it to have one fail at about 1/4 the time frame. I don't think so! Now I need to reboot one again. I am going to go for factory boots and replace both sides when I do it so that I shouldn't have to worry again for another 9+ years or 100k miles.
On my diesel I go 4 times longer than the recommended interval of 5k with synthetic and only use 25% more oil than a single oil change. 20qts for 20k miles versus 64 qts for conventional. I also use 1 less oil filter. I could probably get away with just 2 filters per 20k miles if I really wanted to.
Hi,
wulimaster - yes the matrix of variables is complex and much depends on such things as labour rates, time taken for service (one hour for a safety service v 2.25 hours for OC combined), viability of FF oil filters for extended whole of OCI use and their cost etc etc. (Actually the best fuel economy is obtained in OTR trucks - car carriers are generally worst followed by tautliners). Here the Australian National Fleet average has risen from 5mpg (Imperial gal)in 1980 to near 6mpg in 2000. This is mainly due to engien technology, gearing, use of radial tyres and aerodynamic aids etc.
City trucks are the heaviest on fuel due to idling etc.
My savings tracked from 15k kms on a 15w-40 mineral oil to 30k kms OCI with a semi syn 15w-40, to the break-even point at 80k kms with a full synthetic 5w-40 was interesting and the data was gathered over a ten year period
We averaged a 90k kms OCI - 10k kms more than the break even point!
The savings were agreed as $13000 per annum per truck at an annual distance of 240k kms. The loaded factor with my vehicles is 98%! Maximum loads are 42500 kgs - we always loaded to that but never above it
The biggest saving was the ability to entirely avoid the valve train adjustments usually required at 200k kms intervals - they were simply no longer required at up to 1.2m kms
This was also partly attributed to the use of a MANN-HUMMEL centrifuge by-pass oil filter
The next was the very low wear rates of major
components to 1.2m kms - these savings were estimated against similar vehicle's requirements
We estimated that battery life was 50% longer and that starter life was probably near doubled
My vehicles operate in an ambient from -5C to 40C+ and can see both in a 12hour cycle
We could not conclusively factor in any fuel savings and quantify them in dollar terms due to the OTR use factors as mentioned in an earlier post
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
wulimaster - yes the matrix of variables is complex and much depends on such things as labour rates, time taken for service (one hour for a safety service v 2.25 hours for OC combined), viability of FF oil filters for extended whole of OCI use and their cost etc etc. (Actually the best fuel economy is obtained in OTR trucks - car carriers are generally worst followed by tautliners). Here the Australian National Fleet average has risen from 5mpg (Imperial gal)in 1980 to near 6mpg in 2000. This is mainly due to engien technology, gearing, use of radial tyres and aerodynamic aids etc.
City trucks are the heaviest on fuel due to idling etc.
My savings tracked from 15k kms on a 15w-40 mineral oil to 30k kms OCI with a semi syn 15w-40, to the break-even point at 80k kms with a full synthetic 5w-40 was interesting and the data was gathered over a ten year period
We averaged a 90k kms OCI - 10k kms more than the break even point!
The savings were agreed as $13000 per annum per truck at an annual distance of 240k kms. The loaded factor with my vehicles is 98%! Maximum loads are 42500 kgs - we always loaded to that but never above it
The biggest saving was the ability to entirely avoid the valve train adjustments usually required at 200k kms intervals - they were simply no longer required at up to 1.2m kms
This was also partly attributed to the use of a MANN-HUMMEL centrifuge by-pass oil filter
The next was the very low wear rates of major
components to 1.2m kms - these savings were estimated against similar vehicle's requirements
We estimated that battery life was 50% longer and that starter life was probably near doubled
My vehicles operate in an ambient from -5C to 40C+ and can see both in a 12hour cycle
We could not conclusively factor in any fuel savings and quantify them in dollar terms due to the OTR use factors as mentioned in an earlier post
Regards
Doug
MY02 Subaru Outback 2.5 manual (Delvac 1)
MY98 BMW Z3 2.8 manual (Delvac 1)
MY89 Porsche 928 S4 Auto (Delvac 1)
BS. They have not published any tests done to an SAE standard. They also did not publish the full data set, but rather claims of achieving "up to" 8.2% fuel economy improvements.
Also, the Amsoil test referenced replaced thicker conventional lubes with thinner Amsoil lubes.
Until Amsoil publishes ALL the data from that test, not just the "up to" best results they claim to have gotten it is nothing but marketing BS.
SAE fuel economy tests are well controlled laboratory tests ... and I have yet to see Amsoil publish any data from such well controlled laboratory tests to industry standard methods. In fact, I have never seen any motor oil company publish their results of SAE fuel economy testing.
John
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
