Recent Topics
Some interesting ford charts and commentary
by Shannow
09/30/14 04:59 AM
How long may I use brake fluid after opening it?
by Ayrton
09/30/14 03:46 AM
A first at a gas station
by Apollo14
09/30/14 03:16 AM
04 Saturn ION, 2.2L Ecotec, PP 5w30, 8,000 miles
by linksep
09/30/14 02:23 AM
Carquest to stop selling wix filters
by 29662
09/30/14 12:35 AM
Anyone have the Amazon Fire phone?
by bvance554
09/29/14 11:14 PM
What temp does oil need to reach / maintain ?
by Johnny248
09/29/14 10:28 PM
2014 HD Recall #0159
by loneryder
09/29/14 09:40 PM
Educate me about Amsoil
by Wills05
09/29/14 09:24 PM
Aftermarket Strut Mounts - question
by JC1
09/29/14 09:01 PM
Arrowhead Stadium 142.2 decibles!!!
by chiefsfan1
09/29/14 08:55 PM
Mopar 0FE00292 cut open
by OVERKILL
09/29/14 08:28 PM
Newest Members
JoshsCummins, Bushman03, luceze, moog8008, Jay_K
51452 Registered Users
Who's Online
36 registered (Char Baby, bornconfuzd, bradepb, asharris7, Biggun, BISCUT, 4 invisible), 704 Guests and 145 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51452 Members
64 Forums
220006 Topics
3473710 Posts

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

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#2467303 - 12/19/11 01:49 PM Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
I figured this is the appropriate forum section to post this in, if i'm wrong, mods please move to the correct section.

Posting pics of the Magazine articles and will state my opinion below.







_________________________
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
#2467319 - 12/19/11 02:06 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
Having read the whole study, i've come to the conclusion that the test is severally flawed with many reasons...


  • two different trucks
  • two different drivers
  • too many variables in driver error to accurately calculate fuel consumption
  • test truck received a SECOND FLUSH
  • A dyno with controlled weather conditions was NOT USED


Looking at the baseline and test results, the before / after numbers of the test truck using Amsoil are so small that i'm shocked how any actual and TRUE numbers were pulled from this.

The fact that the test truck received a SECOND flush of all the fluids alone could account for the 6% difference. I feel that it could have gotten the same results with a SECOND flush of conventional lube, since the second flush would help to further remove / clean the internals, helping everything run more efficiently, resulting in improvements.

I feel that a dyno and lab controlled testing is the only way to truly spot the difference. Old engines with 750,000 miles of wear should not be used as the testing equipment. A new block that is fully broken in should be used.

It's the same with Royal Purple and their silly oil tests.
They take a car with old synthetic oil of another brand and run it on a dyno, taking HP readings. They then change the oil to RP and run another dyno which results in more power, claiming that it's their oil which is the cause.

^The same can be had by simply changing the used oil with new oil OF THE SAME BRAND!! duh

Top
#2467332 - 12/19/11 02:24 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21166
Loc: NY
Anytime an increase in fuel economy is mentioned here be it from changing oil to adding something to the gas tank it is quickly challenged here. This is no different, Amsoil paid for the testing, then stuffed it into their own publication. I'll believe some of the members claiming fuel economy increases before I believe some article from an oil company pushing product.

BTW I agree their testing is flawed! Any oil company could have done the exact same testing then pushed their results.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2467338 - 12/19/11 02:30 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: demarpaint]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
Agreed. I mean, we know synthetic performs better then conventional. Nothing new here.

Now if they got a 6% difference with their synthetic vs another synthetic, THAT would be interesting but in reality, the difference between the two would be 1% +/- since both are high quality lubes and would perform almost identical.
_________________________
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
#2467350 - 12/19/11 02:40 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29157
Loc: NJ
Amsoil .... smirk

Thank you for sharing Artem.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#2467352 - 12/19/11 02:45 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29157
Loc: NJ
Amsoil also let some noob claim in their magazine that moly is a solid and bad for engines. Amsoil has very tacky and sketchy marketing sometimes.

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

Top
#2467357 - 12/19/11 02:53 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
tommygunn Offline


Registered: 01/27/11
Posts: 2659
Loc: usa
Being a former trucker driving in a fleet of thousands of trucks, the company I used to work for would be using this stuff if it was true. Everybody would be using it and they wouldn't have to advertise it because a 6% increase in fuel is about $25 a day in savings.

Top
#2467364 - 12/19/11 02:56 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: buster]
SuperDave456 Offline


Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 2254
Loc: Dallas, Texas
It just makes me want more data points.

BTW, Everyone's marketing has questionable ethics.
Marketers over sell their wares, engineers over engineer their wares.

Unfortunately It's the world we live in.

Top
#2467367 - 12/19/11 02:59 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 4215
Loc: Michigan
Originally Posted By: Artem
Having read the whole study, i've come to the conclusion that the test is severally flawed with many reasons...


  • two different trucks
  • two different drivers
  • too many variables in driver error to accurately calculate fuel consumption
  • test truck received a SECOND FLUSH
  • A dyno with controlled weather conditions was NOT USED


Looking at the baseline and test results, the before / after numbers of the test truck using Amsoil are so small that i'm shocked how any actual and TRUE numbers were pulled from this.

The fact that the test truck received a SECOND flush of all the fluids alone could account for the 6% difference. I feel that it could have gotten the same results with a SECOND flush of conventional lube, since the second flush would help to further remove / clean the internals, helping everything run more efficiently, resulting in improvements.

I feel that a dyno and lab controlled testing is the only way to truly spot the difference. Old engines with 750,000 miles of wear should not be used as the testing equipment. A new block that is fully broken in should be used.

It's the same with Royal Purple and their silly oil tests.
They take a car with old synthetic oil of another brand and run it on a dyno, taking HP readings. They then change the oil to RP and run another dyno which results in more power, claiming that it's their oil which is the cause.

^The same can be had by simply changing the used oil with new oil OF THE SAME BRAND!! duh


How can you conclude that the test was severely flawed when they followed the standard SAE J1321 test procedure? This is the procedure defined by the SAE to test fuel economy of in-service vehicles.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#2467374 - 12/19/11 03:08 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: A_Harman]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
Well then the testing procedure is bogus. I can achieve a 6% difference in my fuel consumption average by simply letting off the gas 200 feet sooner then test run #1 and bam! 6% difference and i didn't change a thing with the car! shrug

A vehicle should be strapped to a dyno AFTER receiving 2 or 3 oil changes of conventional lube having the engine idle for x amount of time between changes to circulate the oil and leave a good film on every part. THEN begin testing.

Same with lube #2. Do a few oil changes, running the engine x amount of time to insure the oil has plenty of time to do it's thing and leave a good film on all the internals. THEN strap the car to the dyno and begin testing.

That way it's 100% accurate and the oil inside is 100% concentration of oil #1 and it's formulation vs 100% concentration of oil #2 and it's formula.

It makes sense to me.
_________________________
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
#2467379 - 12/19/11 03:14 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 4215
Loc: Michigan
Then fire off a note to the SAE telling them that their procedure is flawed.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#2467384 - 12/19/11 03:17 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21166
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Artem
Well then the testing procedure is bogus. I can achieve a 6% difference in my fuel consumption average by simply letting off the gas 200 feet sooner then test run #1 and bam! 6% difference and i didn't change a thing with the car! shrug

A vehicle should be strapped to a dyno AFTER receiving 2 or 3 oil changes of conventional lube having the engine idle for x amount of time between changes to circulate the oil and leave a good film on every part. THEN begin testing.

Same with lube #2. Do a few oil changes, running the engine x amount of time to insure the oil has plenty of time to do it's thing and leave a good film on all the internals. THEN strap the car to the dyno and begin testing.

That way it's 100% accurate and the oil inside is 100% concentration of oil #1 and it's formulation vs 100% concentration of oil #2 and it's formula.

It makes sense to me.


+1 Anyone can easily skew mpg test results just by warming up an engine longer, coasting, or changing shift points. Unless I was there to actually see the test for myself I'll never be a believer.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2467391 - 12/19/11 03:28 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: A_Harman]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21166
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Then fire off a note to the SAE telling them that their procedure is flawed.


Amsoil ran the test the SAE didn't. If the SAE published those results it would carry more weight, odds are that isn't going to happen. So we have to A$$UME Amsoil followed procedure. What are the odds of the SAE calling them out? Does anyone know? It would help me to learn more that's for sure.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2467410 - 12/19/11 03:52 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: buster]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7226
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: buster
Amsoil also let some noob claim in their magazine that moly is a solid and bad for engines. Amsoil has very tacky and sketchy marketing sometimes.


Didn't amsoil claim for years that moly wasn't good for engines but now put it in their oil. Don't get me wrong. I like the product for the price. If I had to pay retail I'm not sure if I would like it as much.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#2467433 - 12/19/11 04:18 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?

Top
#2467440 - 12/19/11 04:23 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33683
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: 4364
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: 46652
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: 4364
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: 46652
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: 9276
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: 29157
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: 46652
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: 4364
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: 46652
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: 4364
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: 21166
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: 1625
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: 21166
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
#2468037 - 12/20/11 09:33 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29157
Loc: NJ
LOL
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#2470385 - 12/22/11 03:58 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Doug Hillary Offline


Registered: 05/30/03
Posts: 4840
Loc: Airlie Beach Australia
Hi,
Artem - About 1998 I went down this path with my Detroit Series 60 500hp powered heavy trucks used OTR

Stage 1 was on mineral 15W-40 engine lubricant, Stage 2 a semi-synthetic 15W-40 and finally Stage 3 a 5W-40 synthetic. At Stage 3 I converted all vehicles to synthetic drive line lubricants

It is very difficult to obtain accurate operational fuel economy with heavy trucks. There are simply too many variables even with my Reefers! I kept the best records possible and over my entire Fleet and no discernable differences occurred!!!

The benefits were in extended OCIs, less downtime and in some areas, reduced maintenance costs. I also completed tear down inspections

The fuel economy benefits of synthetic drive-line lubricants accrue mostly in short haul operations

In heavy vehicle drive-lines there is a lot of lubricant to get up to operating temperature - in my case a total of around 30+ quarts(32+ litres) in each vehicle.

In OTR operations the drive-line lubricant temperatures reduced by around 20C on synthetics - this extended seal and bearing life
_________________________
Regards
Doug

Top
#2470466 - 12/22/11 05:26 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
Thanks for the info Doug, i figured the fuel economy difference would be very small, even with lighter viscosity oils. Auto manufacturers going down to 0w20 obtain what, like 0.5 mpg difference? (coming from 5w20) grin2

I agree that the main benefit is from extended drain ability and some better anti-wear.
_________________________
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
#2472017 - 12/24/11 02:58 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Tom NJ]
fsskier Offline


Registered: 07/22/08
Posts: 770
Loc: Iowa
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


Or we can add one more:

6. Test drivers that know that it would be desirable if the synthetic oil vehicles would obtain better mileage.

Remember years ago when Motor Trend magazine..... sort of already famous for "fall for anything" reporting tested a magnetic in line fuel gadget and got way better mileage??
Now, if the driver had not so badly wanted the gadget to work, his results would have matched the rest of the world: Worthless.

Just publishing this study, in my eyes, lowers the credibility of Amzoil claims even lower, similar to the "4 ball" results.

Top
#2472264 - 12/24/11 10:06 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: fsskier]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21166
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: fsskier

Just publishing this study, in my eyes, lowers the credibility of Amzoil claims even lower, similar to the "4 ball" results.



You're not alone!
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2472334 - 12/25/11 02:10 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26578
Loc: a prison island
Come on, it's a "study" in the AMSOIL rag, not an SAE/Lancet publication, but a fluff piece for the already interested/initiated/converted.

Don't know how that detracts from what anyone thinks of the company, when any company is free to pay money to put their statements in the middle of your evening news without your participating in their koolaid.

Top
#2472396 - 12/25/11 08:17 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Shannow]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Come on, it's a "study" in the AMSOIL rag, not an SAE/Lancet publication, but a fluff piece for the already interested/initiated/converted.

Don't know how that detracts from what anyone thinks of the company, when any company is free to pay money to put their statements in the middle of your evening news without your participating in their koolaid.


Thanks Shannow. Some of the guys saying that stuff look for such reasons, if you know what I'm saying. If one really reads the ad, I mean word for word, Amsoil is NOT saying much different than the fact filled posts here. They clearly state what viscosities they compared (no hiding there). They say it's a very small sample and the numbers are the numbers. At least no one here says "Amsoil just made up the numbers" - so I think BITOG is making real progress. Amsoil states the variables make this pretty tough and they strictly follow the ASTM.

Top
#2509227 - 01/29/12 09:39 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Doug Hillary]
Y_K Offline


Registered: 05/29/09
Posts: 1002
Loc: WA (USA)
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
In heavy vehicle drive-lines there is a lot of lubricant to get up to operating temperature - in my case a total of around 30+ quarts(32+ litres) in each vehicle.

The other way around with quarts and litres. It is not significant, though. You main point is valid and important: larger amount of the fluids and thermal dynamics, e.g. thermal mass transfer, etc.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
SAE/Lancet

Loved it. Good Dr. Haas to the rescue smile
_________________________
Corruptissima republica plurimae leges
"The first step in community organization is community disorganization." - Alinsky

Top
#2535461 - 02/13/12 06:51 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
3311 Offline


Registered: 07/24/10
Posts: 1026
Loc: Fl
6.54% is a huge claim. I think every other company out there claim is around 1-2%? Just makes me look at Amsoil with a bit more skepticism.


Edited by 3311 (02/13/12 06:51 PM)
_________________________
04 2500hd 6.0 258k(: Delo 15w40mix XG3675 VML ATF,PGL
03 C7500 Dmax7.8l 128k Delo 15w40,M1ATF,Dexcool
06 2500hd 6.0 181k T5 10w30 PL25288 ST DexVI,PGL

Top
#2537314 - 02/15/12 09:20 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29157
Loc: NJ
Yep. And they still use misleading marketing to this day.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#2537327 - 02/15/12 09:27 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: buster]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21166
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: buster
Yep. And they still use misleading marketing to this day.


LOL popcorn2 Waiting for the ADT [Amsoil Defense Team] to arrive. LOL Just kill'in time on a rainy day.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2537391 - 02/15/12 10:15 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29157
Loc: NJ
They are better than they used to be.

Still use the 4-ball wear test. Haven't seen any new product comparison tests latley. Hopefully they won't try to mislead with the TFOUT again.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#2539661 - 02/17/12 11:32 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Vikas Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 8123
Loc: NorthEast
Yes, not 6.53% nor 6.55% but 6.54%, with that kind of precision, it has be right, right???

Top
#2539664 - 02/17/12 11:34 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Vikas]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
It's called math, bud. LOL
_________________________
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
#2539685 - 02/17/12 11:48 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29157
Loc: NJ
Originally Posted By: Artem
It's called math, bud. LOL


It's called "fuzzy math" LOL
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#2540021 - 02/17/12 06:40 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26578
Loc: a prison island
It'll be that 0.9346 is 1.07...

Learned that one years ago when a contract site manager who was allowed "cost +10%" for goods and services that he needed to by tried 10% gross margin on me, or 11.1%

Top
#2544796 - 02/22/12 10:02 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Vikas Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 8123
Loc: NorthEast
When your underlying data does not have the 3 digit precision, showing your results with 3 digit precision tells me all I need to know about the underlying research.

Top
#2547111 - 02/24/12 02:37 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Shannow]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14837
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Come on, it's a "study" in the AMSOIL rag, not an SAE/Lancet publication, but a fluff piece for the already interested/initiated/converted.

Don't know how that detracts from what anyone thinks of the company, when any company is free to pay money to put their statements in the middle of your evening news without your participating in their koolaid.


Can't say it any better. It's called advertising!
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#2549395 - 02/26/12 05:07 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: carwreck]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5247
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: carwreck

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.


I noticed the same thing, they plainly cheated. How shameful.

Top
#2549586 - 02/26/12 08:17 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: carwreck

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.


I noticed the same thing, they plainly cheated. How shameful.


You guys don't even understand the test. How can you criticize it? Take your Amsoil hate hat off and read the text, nice and slow.

You call something cheating and a company shameful because you jump to conclusions? Wow.

Top
#2549588 - 02/26/12 08:20 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
I fail to see why so many posters don't understand two simple things:

1) How the test was run.
2) A 6.5% improvement could easily come from the fluid changes to synthetic, just going to from a 15W-40 to 5W-40 will help, but a lower vis tranny fluid and diff fluid helped as well.

Top
#2549621 - 02/26/12 08:47 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5247
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: Pablo

You guys don't even understand the test. How can you criticize it? Take your Amsoil hate hat off and read the text, nice and slow.

You call something cheating and a company shameful because you jump to conclusions? Wow.


OK my friend. I will walk you through the reading. Look at the page 3 of the "study". There are 7 test measurements. The highest 3 are discarded and the lowest 3 (1.00) were used to calculate the 6% "improvement".

Is this the way to do an objective study?

There is no hate on my part, just science.

Top
#2549630 - 02/26/12 08:58 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek


OK my friend. I will walk you through the reading. Look at the page 3 of the "study". There are 7 test measurements. The highest 3 are discarded and the lowest 3 (1.00) were used to calculate the 6% "improvement".

Is this the way to do an objective study?

There is no hate on my part, just science.


No - that's not how it worked at all. You don't understand the test. Please, re-read the text. It's a little hard to read the scanned docs. But you WILL understand it if you take the time to read it, word for word.

Top
#2549647 - 02/26/12 09:06 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5247
Loc: southeast US
I did read it. Even if you insist on following the standard and remove the outsiders over 2%, the table 2 shows how data was cherry picked. If you didn't remove the run 1 (for a lame reason of flush), the 2% range values should be 1.04-1.05 and that would produce only marginal difference over control. Instead the test was continued to get a string of favorable numbers that were used for calculation.

Besides, for the test to be scientific, the drivers and statisticians should be blinded to which truck is test vs control.

I'm not saying that there couldn't be a real difference in the range of 1-2%, but Amsoil did the study to produce a bigger difference.

Top
#2549663 - 02/26/12 09:20 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I did read it.


How can you say that and agree with a guy who is just comparing the test vehicle with the control vehicle. It makes no sense to do that, yet you 100% sided with him. Why?

So we aren't supposed to follow the SAE standard? It's almost as if you don't understand why the outliers are removed.

I do agree a double blind study would be the best way to go. But you and others wrote that Amsoil cheated, and you are not correct on that count. The numbers are the numbers. It bugs you, maybe file a claim or something.

Top
#2549680 - 02/26/12 09:34 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5247
Loc: southeast US
You do not understand how the J1321 (type II) standard works. Even if the run 1 was rejected on legitimate ground (I doubt), the testing should have been stopped at the run 6 as you have 3 results already within 2% (1.04-1.05), instead, run 7 was added and the lowest readings of 1.00 were selected. This is in clear violation of the J1321 protocol.

If you use the proper calculation, the fuel saving is in the 2% range, as expected.

How can you argue when the facts are obvious?

Top
#2549705 - 02/26/12 09:51 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
You do not understand how the J1321 (type II) standard works. Even if the run 1 was rejected on legitimate ground (I doubt), the testing should have been stopped at the run 6 as you have 3 results already within 2% (1.04-1.05), instead, run 7 was added and the lowest readings of 1.00 were selected. This is in clear violation of the J1321 protocol.

If you use the proper calculation, the fuel saving is in the 2% range, as expected.

How can you argue when the facts are obvious?


Wait, you said the Amsoil test vehicle got worse MPG. Now you are changing your tune?

You can choose the readings from the test to get the numbers you do and Amsoil chooses the most consistent under 2% numbers. I don't think that's cheating or a violation of protocol.

Top
#2549716 - 02/26/12 10:08 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Pablo]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5247
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: Pablo

Wait, you said the Amsoil test vehicle got worse MPG. Now you are changing your tune?


Why do you put words in my mouth? I never said that.

Originally Posted By: Pablo

You can choose the readings from the test to get the numbers you do and Amsoil chooses the most consistent under 2% numbers.


No, this is not in the J1321 standard.

Top
#2549723 - 02/26/12 10:21 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21166
Loc: NY
Jack it just might be Amsoil's version of the J1321 standard. LOL Anytime I see numbers in print in an ad I take them with a grain of salt, it goes for any company. 99% of all advertising IMO is pure [censored]. After all the Amsoil paper is advertising Amsoil isn't it?
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2549845 - 02/27/12 05:55 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

Why do you put words in my mouth? I never said that.


OK YOU didn't say it. But you agreed with it. You didn't challenge it.

Originally Posted By: carwreck
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.


Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I noticed the same thing, they plainly cheated. How shameful.

Top
#2549857 - 02/27/12 06:11 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14837
Loc: Sunny Florida
such baloney. It's ADVERTISING! Everyone plays with the numbers.

I don't get it why Amsoil is such a target. We've all heard equally questionable claims from other manufacturers.

Why the 'grudge match' against the big A?
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#2549860 - 02/27/12 06:15 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: SteveSRT8]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 46652
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
I get the whole hate thing. It is what is it. It just gets a little ridiculous when long term posters here just jump in threads as cheerleaders for the wrong/haters.

Top
#2549883 - 02/27/12 06:52 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14837
Loc: Sunny Florida
Sounds a lot like my biz. i guess you must be making a pretty good product or you would likely not receive all the attention!
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#2549938 - 02/27/12 08:15 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: SteveSRT8]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5247
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
such baloney. It's ADVERTISING! Everyone plays with the numbers.

I don't get it why Amsoil is such a target. We've all heard equally questionable claims from other manufacturers.

Why the 'grudge match' against the big A?


Maybe it's advertizing all right, but they made it appear like a study while clearly it's not. A lot of not so sophisticated readers will fall for this "scientific" study. This is the same misleading advertizing they do with the 4 ball scar test and similar.

I actually think Amsoil is a good product, but they employ some really sleazy marketing. I sure hate being lied to.

Top
#2550140 - 02/27/12 11:55 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4364
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
such baloney. It's ADVERTISING! Everyone plays with the numbers.

I don't get it why Amsoil is such a target. We've all heard equally questionable claims from other manufacturers.

Why the 'grudge match' against the big A?


Maybe it's advertizing all right, but they made it appear like a study while clearly it's not. A lot of not so sophisticated readers will fall for this "scientific" study. This is the same misleading advertizing they do with the 4 ball scar test and similar.

I actually think Amsoil is a good product, but they employ some really sleazy marketing. I sure hate being lied to.


Amsoil user here and i agree with you. Some of their marketing techniques are strange duh

In the end, it's just oil. It can only do but so much.

Regarding this report. I've already stated that the standard test itself is seriously flawed. Too many variations to throw off the results.

The same truck should have been used and strapped to a dyno / ran for x amount of time. Then had the fluids changed and re-ran without any human errors / climate change.

^In my heart, i still believe that with that test, the lower viscosity synthetic would clearly show better performance (it's kinda obvious without even doing the test and lower viscosity oils will help reduce drag and increase MPG)

OF course that sort of testing is expensive and i see why Amsoil choose to do a simple backyard test and call it a day.
_________________________
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
#2605385 - 04/20/12 10:39 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: friendly_jacek]
LargeCarManX2 Offline


Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 2279
Loc: Up here in the NorthWest
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
such baloney. It's ADVERTISING! Everyone plays with the numbers.

I don't get it why Amsoil is such a target. We've all heard equally questionable claims from other manufacturers.

Why the 'grudge match' against the big A?


Maybe it's advertizing all right, but they made it appear like a study while clearly it's not. A lot of not so sophisticated readers will fall for this "scientific" study. This is the same misleading advertizing they do with the 4 ball scar test and similar.

I actually think Amsoil is a good product, but they employ some really sleazy marketing. I sure hate being lied to.


I believe they have pulled most of their (white papers) because of creditability issues....I like some of their marketing like the Buell motorcycle ad. Thank goodness they have some very credible users of their oil. I think a power struggle is brewing....only time will tell.
_________________________
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
Sir Winston Churchill

Top
#2605448 - 04/21/12 12:53 AM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26578
Loc: a prison island
Seen a few companies go through stuff like the last few weeks when the family owners are gearing up to cut out and take the money through a sellout

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >