Amsoil signature Series 10W30 API SN Plus

[CarfriendXX]

We Pay 12€ for one us quart. It is not very expensive. Ravenol will be cost More than amsoil Here. We can pay it here.
www.ato24.de

 

[Popsy]

I would say...whatever floats your boat
Still you seemed to have good success with M1.

 

[kschachn]

Amsoil sulfatash 1.0-1.1; Mobil 1 1.4+
Do you See the difference?

Hmm, I was looking around on Amsoil's website for that value on the 10W-30 product but I didn't find it. Is it listed in their PDS?

 

[kschachn]

You could use Castrol 0W40 instead then.
Total Quartz 0W30 is also a very good choice with lower SAPS than M1.

I think you're in Europe? As long as getting Amsoil isn't prohibitively expensive...

Really any C3 oil is appropriate here. 0.8% ash and minimum 3.5 HT/HS.

 

[CarfriendXX]

I wonder why amsoil is rarely proposed here in the forum? The analyses I saw of this oil were great, there are hardly any bad ones. They are a little more expensive but definitely have good modern additive package. Or have you had bad experiences with amsoil? Mobile 1 ESP 5W30 is midsaps and good I think. Any other options?

 

[kschachn]

I wonder why amsoil is rarely proposed here in the forum? The analyses I saw of this oil were great, there are hardly any bad ones. They are a little more expensive but definitely have good modern additive package. Or have you had bad experiences with amsoil? Mobile 1 ESP 5W30 is midsaps and good I think. Any other options?

There's nothing wrong with the oil and it's a very fine one. But a UOA does not give you comparative oil quality, it gives you a snapshot into the engine and operating conditions. As has been noted before, Blackstone has stated that there is no statistically significant difference in UOA results between any oils they have tested. A UOA is the wrong tool to try and judge oil "quality".

Good or bad UOA using Amsoil aren't because of the oil. Oil quality is judged by far more sophisticated and expensive tests than a $30 spectrographic analysis.

 

[kschachn]

I wonder why amsoil is rarely proposed here in the forum? The analyses I saw of this oil were great, there are hardly any bad ones. They are a little more expensive but definitely have good modern additive package. Or have you had bad experiences with amsoil? Mobile 1 ESP 5W30 is midsaps and good I think. Any other options?

So can you point me to the SAPS value for Signature Series 10W-30? I still can't find it.

 

[CarfriendXX]

How can you find out how good or bad the engine oil is to the engine? How is it to find out if you can't consult an oil analysis?

 

[kschachn]

How can you find out how good or bad the engine oil is to the engine? How is it to find out if you can't consult an oil analysis?

By the specifications, licenses and approvals the oil holds or does not hold. If you don’t have any of those then it’s by the blender’s reputation and recommendations. Judging oil quality is a complex business.

 

[CarfriendXX]

Here you can see from the new api sp amsoil 0w40 the sulfated ash.

https://oil-club.de/index.php?thread/2896-amsoil-signature-series-0w-40/

 

[kschachn]

Oh okay, somebody’s independent test. Is the value the same for their 10W-30 product? The 0W-40 is directed at a particular market which may be interested in a lower ash level.

 

[CarfriendXX]

But I think that a good engine oil has good analysis results. If this were not the case, then any oil with the required specification could be taken without any differences. There are enough oils without specifications that work very well. Rowe synthesis 5w40, Motul 300v and so on ...

 

[CarfriendXX]

Oh okay, somebody’s independent test. Is the value the same for their 10W-30 product? The 0W-40 is directed at a particular market which may be interested in a lower ash level.

The additive is similar, just like TBN and ZDDP, sulphur and molybdenum. There will be little to no difference to the 10w30, I think the sulphate bag will be even lower than higher.

 

[kschachn]

But I think that a good engine oil has good analysis results. If this were not the case, then any oil with the required specification could be taken without any differences. There are enough oils without specifications that work very well. Rowe synthesis 5w40, Motul 300v and so on ...

Well you’re free to ascribe whatever you wish to a UOA but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily an accurate conclusion. Nobody that knows what they are doing claims a spectrographic analysis is a valid indicator of or surrogate for comparative oil quality determination.

 

[CarfriendXX]

Personally, I think that an analysis with higher wear values speaks for a "worse" quality or less suitable use for the respective engine than an analysis with lower wear values in the same engine under the same driving conditions.

 

[kschachn]

Personally, I think that an analysis with higher wear values speaks for a "worse" quality or less suitable use for the respective engine than an analysis with lower wear values in the same engine under the same driving conditions.

So when you see that higher wear value you can unequivocally determine that it was due to the specific oil and not the particular engine under the particular operating conditions? If that were the case then manufacturers could dispense with expensive and complicated tests under SAE J300, ACEA sequences and manufacturer approvals and go with a $30 UOA instead.

Seeing something is only the first part and is generally the easiest. Ascribing what you see to an isolated variable is the far more difficult part. It’s also the part that most people do not comprehend.

 

[CarfriendXX]

The specifications are already important but they simply describe the least that this oil has to fulfil. So it can just fulfil or far exceed the requirements. I think that one can draw conclusions about the quality of the oil. On the other hand, the tendency to coking and the formation of deposits of an engine oil in the engine cannot be recognised by an analysis, I agree with you.

 

[kschachn]

The specifications are already important but they simply describe the least that this oil has to fulfil. So it can just fulfil or far exceed the requirements. I think that one can draw conclusions about the quality of the oil. On the other hand, the tendency to coking and the formation of deposits of an engine oil in the engine cannot be recognised by an analysis, I agree with you.

Lol the UOA describes the least. Even if you somehow believe it quantitatively describes comparative wear, what about oxidation resistance? What about HT/HS? What about foaming tendencies? What about seal compatibility? Scuffing wear? Low-temperature sludge formation? Ring sticking? All is these are part of the certification or approval as you note.

But again if you want to draw conclusions about quality from a UOA you are free to do so. Just be aware that there isn’t a body of technical data to draw upon in order to support that conclusion.

 

[Popsy]

UOA can be useful to establish trends. For example, I'm watching Na and K in my Mazda's UOA.

The thing is, like said above, Amsoil SS doesn't have any approval. Could it pass some? Probably. But that's all we can conclude.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

It's always nice to see the eisen, kupfer and blei at zero on a virgin sample.

Ja! mein Schatz