Recent Topics
Castrol Edge (Black Bottle) now with titanium?
by 209paulc
14 minutes 7 seconds ago
Yukon pinion and carrier bearings....
by kenwin30
21 minutes 32 seconds ago
Some really interesting state rankings
by Apollo14
23 minutes 53 seconds ago
Parents got a new used truck...
by 01rangerxl
45 minutes 51 seconds ago
Harbor Freight weekend blowout sale
by L_Sludger
Today at 03:36 PM
GE Nighthawk Headlight Bulbs 2-Pack for $10.60
by Tony_Mack
Today at 03:05 PM
Impact gun advice
by zppeterson
Today at 02:52 PM
Expensive Fram Ultra filters around $30 each
by tommygunn
Today at 02:21 PM
Graphite / Moly brake caliper grease is awesome
by PandaBear
Today at 01:46 PM
"Keeping in touch" after moving...
by 97tbird
Today at 01:44 PM
Oil Change Place put universal fluid in a Chrysler
by carguy996
Today at 01:21 PM
Chrysler 2.7 Burning Oil Smell
by carguy996
Today at 01:16 PM
Newest Members
FabSpecialists, Sanddog, 87Diesel, genericnj, Quickvr4
51341 Registered Users
Who's Online
97 registered (05LGTLtd, 209paulc, 2010_FX4, 97tbird, 1foxracing, 901Memphis, 8 invisible), 1747 Guests and 246 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51341 Members
64 Forums
219480 Topics
3463989 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#2467440 - 12/19/11 04:23 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33623
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?


It should be, shouldnt it? Makes sense.

What is interesting to me is that when Chevron was trying to push isosyn 15w-40 Delo a few years back, they proved in an SAE paper that there was negligible difference between running their oil and Delvac 1.

Top
#2467442 - 12/19/11 04:23 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Stud [Re: Artem]
carwreck Offline


Registered: 04/04/09
Posts: 464
Loc: CT
Look closely at the test data. You could get the same type of results just by having the same driver in the same truck without changing anything, just doing a bunch of test runs.

The problem with these tests is not just the variables in driver/truck. The problem also is the way they can interpolate the results. Notice the arrows where it is says "acceptable 2 percent range". That means that they ignore values that they don't like when they do the "increased mileage" calculations. If I do my own calculations without this fuzzy math, the "test vehicle" with Amsoil actually got worse mileage (5.771 gal.fuel consumed) than the control vehicle ( 5.629 gal consumed) with Texaco.

Just as way of showing more about J1321, this is an example of a test run by PAVE that showed a 3.04% variance just by changing the thermostat. http://www.evanscooling.com/assets/pdfs/Type-II-Fuel-Report-for-Evans-final.pdf

Top
#2467450 - 12/19/11 04:29 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4361
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?


Exactly my point. the same can be had with lower viscosity CONVENTIONAL oil, in this test. popcorn
_________________________
2011 Toyota Avalon Limited 3.5L V6 - 52k - 5w30 Mobil 1

2014 RAM 3500HD work truck

2014 Mazda 3 hatch i Touring 2.0L & 6spd - Mobil 1 0w30

Top
#2467456 - 12/19/11 04:34 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46628
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?


Exactly my point. the same can be had with lower viscosity CONVENTIONAL oil, in this test. popcorn


Then drop it down to 0 F.

Top
#2467461 - 12/19/11 04:36 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4361
Loc: Florida
Not the point of the test. Stop changing the subject, Pablo. grin2
_________________________
2011 Toyota Avalon Limited 3.5L V6 - 52k - 5w30 Mobil 1

2014 RAM 3500HD work truck

2014 Mazda 3 hatch i Touring 2.0L & 6spd - Mobil 1 0w30

Top
#2467470 - 12/19/11 04:42 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46628
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Didn't think I changed the subject, just pointing out the obvious. Point is - although the usual guys want to twist it - you can get a small but noticeable change in MPG using oils with a lower viscosity at any given temperature. I don't think Amsoil is cheating, lying, conniving or otherwise falsifying the results in any way.

Top
#2467474 - 12/19/11 04:46 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
fdcg27 Offline


Registered: 09/25/09
Posts: 9255
Loc: OH
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.
_________________________
12 Accord LX 22K HGMO 0W-20
09 Forester 64K PU 5W-30
02 Accord 127K G-Oil 5W-30
01 Focus ZX3 98K Synpower 10W-30
95 BMW 318iC 146K Defy 10W-40

Top
#2467481 - 12/19/11 04:52 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29145
Loc: NJ
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?


It should.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#2467486 - 12/19/11 04:57 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: fdcg27]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46628
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.


Exactly.

Top
#2467524 - 12/19/11 05:31 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: fdcg27]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4361
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.


That's not the point of the this thread. I have no doubt in my mind that ANY 5w40 oil would have produced similar results when compared to 15w40 like it was in this test.

I personally don't like going down in viscosity for the sake of fuel economy. The engine manufacturer specified a certain oil thickness FOR A REASON.

Just my 2cents on the matter
_________________________
2011 Toyota Avalon Limited 3.5L V6 - 52k - 5w30 Mobil 1

2014 RAM 3500HD work truck

2014 Mazda 3 hatch i Touring 2.0L & 6spd - Mobil 1 0w30

Top
#2467529 - 12/19/11 05:34 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46628
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
I don't think any of the viscosities selected are outside those recommended (?)

Top
#2467558 - 12/19/11 06:16 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4361
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I don't think any of the viscosities selected are outside those recommended (?)


Definitely within the recommended viscosity spec... for that specific temperature.

Like i said though, the same can be had with a Conventional oil so besides the extended drain ability of the Synthetic, (which is what they should be advertising) it's a pointless test.

_________________________
2011 Toyota Avalon Limited 3.5L V6 - 52k - 5w30 Mobil 1

2014 RAM 3500HD work truck

2014 Mazda 3 hatch i Touring 2.0L & 6spd - Mobil 1 0w30

Top
#2467926 - 12/20/11 06:58 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21092
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You mean that a 5W-40 provides better fuel economy than a 15W-40?
Who knew?
I have no doubt that the fuel savings claimed are real, but there are a number of synthetic 5W-40s that probably would have done as well.


Bingo!


Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I don't think any of the viscosities selected are outside those recommended (?)


Definitely within the recommended viscosity spec... for that specific temperature.

Like i said though, the same can be had with a Conventional oil so besides the extended drain ability of the Synthetic, (which is what they should be advertising) it's a pointless test.



Exactly! Its an adverstisement. Put a SOPUS product, or a Mobil product in the sump and expect similar results. All this was is an attempt by a marketing dept do show Amsoil gave better mpg, when in reality it was the change in viscosity that was responsible for the gains. IMO that would be the letter "D", in the word FUD. And I'll still bet they did everything they could by changing shift points etc to tweak the results a bit more. Once again JMO.

As a side note Amsoil isn't the only company that uses FUD in their advertising.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2467983 - 12/20/11 08:25 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Tom NJ Offline


Registered: 07/27/06
Posts: 1619
Loc: New Jersey & Virginia
The question is not so much whether the SAE test method is valid, but rather, what should we conclude.

Do we conclude:

1. AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy ( as the title of the article says), or

2. Lower Viscosity Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

3. Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

4. Lower Viscosity Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

5. All of the above

Tom NJ

Top
#2467993 - 12/20/11 08:32 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Tom NJ]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21092
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The question is not so much whether the SAE test method is valid, but rather, what should we conclude.

Do we conclude:

1. AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy ( as the title of the article says), or

2. Lower Viscosity Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

3. Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

4. Lower Viscosity Synthetic Lubricants Increase Fuel Economy, or

5. All of the above

Tom NJ


I know what Amsoil wants us to conclude. LOL
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >