ASTM data, ATM,GC,M1,RL

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Terry

Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
3,844
12/16/04 ASTM data. Comparing blinded, independent, off the retail shelf, random samples of these 4 oils. All are domestic except for the German Castrol SLX 0w-30. All are 10w-30, except for GC.

Source Savant,Institute of Materials. This testing lab compiles a book of all lubes they collect world wide for $10,000 a year. Any takers ?
shocked.gif

Merry Christmas.

Oxidation resistance D 4742
All 4 exceeded the >300 min level.
Yes Pabs my data was old this is not! Amsoil did change formulas.


Shear stability D5275 %
ATM 7.91
GC 0.32 not a typo
M1 1.19
RL 1.3

Pump vis D4684 cP note: 0w @ -40C, 10w @ -30C
ATM 7040
GC 20900
M1 10800
RL 10063

Start vis D5293 cP
ATM3443
GC 6200
M1 4609
RL 3049

Gelation Index D5133
All 4
Operating vis D4683
ATM3.31
GC 3.45
M1 3.12
RL 3.48

Volatility D5800/SAVLAB VOL %
ATM12.06
GC 11.28
M1 9.77
RL 6.85

TBN D 2896 mg/g
ATM 13.18
GC 10.36
M1 12.00
RL 11.56


For complete test data on any or all oils contact us.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
Shear stability D5275 %
ATM 7.91
GC 0.32 not a typo
M1 1.19
RL 1.3
Click to expand...
Holy cow, Batman!! If I'm reading that correctly, CG's .32% shear stability kicks butt. Patman will cream his shorts when he reads this.
grin.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by Terry:


Start vis D5293 cP
ATM3443
GC 6200
M1 4609
RL 3049
Click to expand...
Terry, on this measurement, is the GC measured at -35C, while the others measured at -25C?

By the way, thanks for the Christmas present.
worshippy.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by Terry:

Operating vis D4683
ATM3.31
GC 3.45
M1 3.12
RL 3.48
Click to expand...
Hmmm, GC and RL are farther from what specs I've seen. Although the RL data I have was measured with the D4741 tapered-plug viscometer models so that may be where the differences come from?
dunno.gif


[ December 18, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
quote:
Originally posted by Terry:

Volatility D5800/SAVLAB VOL %
ATM12.06
GC 11.28
M1 9.77
RL 6.85
Click to expand...
I guess this would explain why GC and ATM tends to thicken more than others over longer drain intervals. Although all are within SL/GF-3 specs.
 
Very interesting. I'm surprised at ATM's shear stability # and Volatility #. Many have found Amsoil to reduce consumption over other oils and contribute that to it's low Noak Volatility # of 5%. But these #'s show it as 12? The Mobil 1 Volatility # matches what Amsoil tested Mobil 1 as at 9.8%. The shear # seems to be weird too. Any explanations on these?
dunno.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
I don't believe that shear number. Especially when we rarely see ATM thin.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because it's evaporating the more volatile fractions faster than it shears?
dunno.gif


Shear stability D5275 %
ATM 7.91

Volatility D5800/SAVLAB VOL %
ATM 12.06
 
quote:
Anybody remember these old tests?
Click to expand...
I do. I don't understand how thest #'s differ so greatly from what Amsoil posts of their oils. How can they post a Noak of 5% yet these tests are showing 12%?
dunno.gif
 
3 things come to mind when looking at these numbers:

1. Amsoil fabricates or makes their numbers look better then they are.

2. This lab has testing inconsistancies.

3. What goes on inside an engine in real world operating conditions is what really makes an oil good, hence, specs are not that important.

Very strange.
 
Terry, danke schön, meine Freunde. (I will tell you though, the elves, though normally very humble, are doing just a little bit of strutting over the shear stability %. Their work requires them to return to Das Schwartzwald today so it won't be a problem for me...but those poor Lufthansa stewardesses..."Fraulein, did vee tell you zat our Elixer scored .32 on the D5275 Shear Stability test?" They will get tired of that after about the hundreth time!)
cheers.gif
 
Pabs, you don't believe me, don't believe this independent lab, the company who compiles reams of BLINDED, testing that is run to the same spec on each oil and they don't know what it is ??

Thats why I didn't send you data from my own database to prove my historical comments about certain chemistries and what they show in UOA's. It just doesn't pay the bills and you wouldn't accept it.

I still like you though !
cheers.gif


Keep this bench ( not mensch
smile.gif
) testing in context.

Each of these oils did very well and all of them are suitable for extended drains with low wear.

Amsoil ATM 10w-30 is a superb cold weather oil and now with changes in chemistry is more oxidatively stable. You folks that need really cold starts need to look to AJ Amatuzio for your lubes.

The Redline formula that was shown here and in the earlier tests is exactly the same so their SJ formula is very competitive with these SL oils.

Thats why API spec is not impressive to me.

The shear or volatility values here are measurements to gauge severe service and not what that oil will see in a well maintained engine on the street.

These tests rate the oils in their weight and API class and against other samples of the same oil from another geographic source. I am not posting that data.

427 that's 2 for you now !
shocked.gif


Max start vis cP for the 10w rated = 3500 @-20C.

For 0w rated = 3250 @ -30C.


If those specs have changed I am not aware of it.

IOM is like Dyson Analysis they don't care about brand they care about accurate data or no one buys the stuff and that book is purchased by all the big players.


ATM = amsoil code for their all syn 10w-30


pscholte, have the elves come over and help me clean up a race car to sell!

Buster Amsoil shows the best they can from their own testing , they are in business to sell oil. To their credit, for years, Amsoil has attempted to OUT more of this kind of testing.

Just keep it all in context but isn't it a BITOG dream to see this up to date stuff !!!
 
M1 0W-40 stands up pretty good for the only one of the 4 that I can get with any sort of regularity.
 
quote:
Thats why I didn't send you data from my own database to prove my historical comments about certain chemistries and what they show in UOA's. It just doesn't pay the bills and you wouldn't accept it.
Click to expand...
hmmm ..a Conneticut Yankee in King Authur's Court comes to mind ...err make that Texas Cowboy ..
grin.gif


The facts/truth just don't pay sometimes.
dunno.gif


Thanks for the peek
smile.gif
 
Gary and Terry - I think you TOTALLY miss my point. When there is such a disparity between data points and such a gap between lab results and reality it must be questioned. I simply need to be closer to the source and see tests such as this before I believe them.

I don't believe much of anything on my computer screen. All I've seen is some numbers and words punched into a little "Post a reply" box. It's the nature of such a forum.

I thank you for your efforts. This has nothing to do with trusting or not trusting you.

Some newby will read your posts and say: "See I told you x oil is better than y oil". I know you can't control this - but I'm going to question ALL data and ALL test methods.

I don't believe Amsoil results either, btw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top