Amsoil Euro 5w30 -- 3,041 miles -- 07 Civic Si

[Artem]

Hey Guys and a Gal or two

Pulled a sample @ 3k for comparison purposes and to see how it's doing considering it starts out with a TBN of 5.8 according to Amsoil.

I ran Amsoil OE 5w30 for 1,500 miles to flush out any remaining Redline Oil outta the system.

One things that i noted with this Oil (Euro Formula) is that my oil consumption has decreased by A LOT! I only added 1/4qt @ 2,000 miles (vs having to add a full quart by 1,500 in the past like clock work, since the engine was new)

Blackstone thinks it's due to the thicker viscosity but i think it has something to do with Amsoil's Formula for the Euro Blend and it's simply not burning off as much as pretty much every other oil i've tried. (they consist of; Mobil 1 EP, Pennzoil Ultra, Eneos, Motul, Amsoil, and Royal Purple, just to name a few off the top of my head.)

Amsoil has the Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt = 76.3 but B_S lists the used oil @ 64.5 @210F. Could it really have sheared that much or if i send in a virgin sample, B_S will list the value @ 6x.x using their different scale??

The car is driven harder then ever and that's what surprised me more and more every time i pulled the dipstick to check the oil level. Hmmmm, interesting...

Anyway, the oil is still in the engine and i plan to resample @ 5,000 miles. I only have another 1,500 miles to go. Shouldn't be too long as i have several road trips coming up.

Comments are appreciated.

 

[BobFout]

Mmmm AEL

Visco at 40C is not the same as SUS at 210F. SUS and cSt are different units of measure, and 40C is ~100F.

Amsoil says visco at 100C is 12.3.

 

[Artem]

So... which value do i compare to B_S's SUS Viscosity @ 210°F = 64.5???

I know they are different units of measuring flow @ certain temps but looking @ what Amsoil lists for ASL compared to AEL, its obvious that AEL is thick as can be for a 5w30

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: Artem
So... which value do i compare to B_S's SUS Viscosity @ 210°F = 64.5???

I know they are different units of measuring flow @ certain temps but looking @ what Amsoil lists for ASL compared to AEL, its obvious that AEL is thick as can be for a 5w30


I just ignore SUS and focus on the cSt visco at 100C. (12.3 vs. your 11.5, it sheared some)

AEL, like all Euro xw30s, has a high HTHS and visco for the grade. (just like GC and others)

 

[Artem]

Got cha. Thanks Bob.

 

[whitson01]

i always loved the amsoil 5w30 in my sti i use to own. def more expensive than some of the other amsoil stuff. i always wonder if its worth it though?

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: Artem


I ran Amsoil OE 5w30 for 1,500 miles to flush out any remaining Redline Oil outta the system.


I'm guess the lower TAN count is due to running a "flush", if you will. I'm sure there's a better concentration of new-old fluid in the system.

Either that or AEL is less acidic then other oils i've used... but then again, my previous UOA of Amsoil ASL showed TAN @ 1.9 and then it slowly started growing with each new fill/sample for some unknown reason.

I'm lost.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: whitson01
i always loved the amsoil 5w30 in my sti i use to own. def more expensive than some of the other amsoil stuff. i always wonder if its worth it though?


It's $0.45c more then ASL and the like. Not THAT much more and it seems to have performed rather well, even compared to the more expensive to purchase Redline Oil.

We'll see how the 5k sample will look like for comparison.

 

[tig1]

Oil is oxidizing??

 

[Artem]

What makes you think that, Tig? The Euro Blend starts out thick.

 

[Turk]

Artem: Zinc, Calcium & Phos. took a "Nosedive like the stocks today" with this!!

 

[Artem]

Yea i noticed that as well, regardless, the oil seems to perform just as well as the ASL and Redline before it, so obviously, additive count doesn't tell the whole story.

Amsoil claims this oil is perfect for high performance, high HP engines. It's gotta be good.

 

[chubbs1]

Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Artem: Zinc, Calcium & Phos. took a "Nosedive like the stocks today" with this!!



Ya, B-S is way off, it should look like other 507.00 oils.

(this is really the 507.00 5w30 flavor and not the 229.51-only 5w40)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?


Wear was great? We know this because he tore the engine down and measured? Or we assume so because the numbers are in-line with his previous results which also mean we are making assumptions about "wear".....

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?


I agree. Wear numbers are low, TBN retention is GREAT, IMO, what's not to love?

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Ya, B-S is way off, it should look like other 507.00 oils.

(this is really the 507.00 5w30 flavor and not the 229.51-only 5w40)

Possibly but you're comparing M1 to Amsoil

I'll email them asking about the low numbers but we'll see what the second UOA @ 5k will look like.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?


Wear was great? We know this because he tore the engine down and measured? Or we assume so because the numbers are in-line with his previous results which also mean we are making assumptions about "wear".....


Overkill, you kill me...

Since the numbers didn't jump out, outta the blue, isn't it safe to assume that the oil is protecting the engine just as well as the oil before it?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Artem
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?


Wear was great? We know this because he tore the engine down and measured? Or we assume so because the numbers are in-line with his previous results which also mean we are making assumptions about "wear".....


Overkill, you kill me...

Since the numbers didn't jump out, outta the blue, isn't it safe to assume that the oil is protecting the engine just as well as the oil before it?


Nope. LOL! That's the fun about UOA's. You are looking at a VERY narrow range of particle sizes. I think we can safely assume your engines "signature" of metals doesn't change much regardless of the oil used. And that it doesn't have any "signature" metals that show up. Other than that, we can't really determine much about "wear". That requires a tear-down and actual measurements.

But your engine appears healthy with no coolant or contaminants in it. And the oil held up well.

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?


Wear was great? We know this because he tore the engine down and measured? Or we assume so because the numbers are in-line with his previous results which also mean we are making assumptions about "wear".....


Right. People can say/think low additives wear just fine, but if you took 2 engines made with the same tight tolerances (almost impossible), drove them the same for, say 250k, one with a robust, beefy add. pack and one with the weak add. pack, I BET the engine with the beefier add. pack wears less & lasts longer. That's what I'm getting at.

But, most people don't keep a car 250k, so most don't care which add. pack they use, cause the car will be someone else's!

I keep my cars and I care!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Re. tpitcher: Who really cares?? All the moly Phos Calcium, the wear was great, TBN retention was good who cares?


Wear was great? We know this because he tore the engine down and measured? Or we assume so because the numbers are in-line with his previous results which also mean we are making assumptions about "wear".....


Right. People can say/think low additives wear just fine, but if you took 2 engines made with the same tight tolerances (almost impossible), drove them the same for, say 250k, one with a robust, beefy add. pack and one with the weak add. pack, I BET the engine with the beefier add. pack wears less & lasts longer. That's what I'm getting at.

But, most people don't keep a car 250k, so most don't care which add. pack they use, cause the car will be someone else's!



I agree. But you know, I bet it would be hard to determine that from just UOA's

In fact UOA's may show the opposite. The stronger add-pack oils sometimes yield "worse" UOA's because of the higher additive concentrations.