Amsoil TEOST 33C - High Mileage Comparison

[buster]

We've had quite a few good posts about the TEOST 33C test and whether it's relevant. Star polymer VII, very high levels of moly, concentration of VI, AO and base oils all play a role.

ASTM D8447 - Turbo Charger Deposits by Thermo-Oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test

ASTM D8447 - Turbo Charger Deposits by Thermo-Oxidation Engine Oil Simulation Test - Testing now available at Savant Labs.

www.savantlab.com

GM turbocharger test: No correlation for deposits with TEOST 33C or moly

It turns out that TEOST 33C test is useless for judging turbocharger protection. Antioxidant is the key, along with the VII (or the lack of it) and dispersant. Moly has no effect. However, I think TEOST 33C may be better correlated with intake-valve deposits (IVD) in turbo gasoline...

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[fantastic]

Amsoil beats again.

 

[Slick3914]

Deleted

 

[ltslimjim]

Makes me wonder what M1 EP HM and Valvoline EP HM would test out at. One would assume their better product would be an improvement over the ones tested in the OP.

 

[Brian123]

I like the Tests that Amsoil runs, they Win Every Time.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I like the Tests that Amsoil runs, they Win Every Time.

Amsoil is good stuff, pretty much across their portfolio. I’ve bought it, used it, and recommend it for where it’s going to succeed and have benefits over shelf stock. But let’s be real, it’s not super hard to: 1. Formulate an oil to excel at certain tests when shelf price is not a constraint; and 2. I’m pretty sure there’s at least one (possibly more?) small-volume blenders that would has shown better results on certain tests.

But, let’s be real again: every finished oil is a balancing act of attributes and compromises, so in a given application there may be some nearly identical contestants, but if you change one or two of the variables the final tally may change re: superiority (no pun on their HQ location ).

Any time we get drawn into these comparisons, you have to put yourself on the receiving end of supply and demand: “Price, quality, delivery: pick two.” Meaning, if you want high quality and cheap price, the delivery times are gonna suck. If you want quality and delivery, the price will be dear. But you’re free to choose whatever combination of two variables you want. Then, the third variable (most generally, it’s ALWAYS price) falls where it may, and you pick which fits your budget. Amsoil tries to strike a good enough compromise on all 3 that regardless which 2 are your priorities, they’re in the running for your business if you’ve got an open mind.

 

[fantastic]

Makes me wonder what M1 EP HM and Valvoline EP HM would test out at. One would assume their better product would be an improvement over the ones tested in the OP.

Exactly right..

 

[Brian123]

Amsoil is good stuff, pretty much across their portfolio. I’ve bought it, used it, and recommend it for where it’s going to succeed and have benefits over shelf stock. But let’s be real, it’s not super hard to: 1. Formulate an oil to excel at certain tests when shelf price is not a constraint; and 2. I’m pretty sure there’s at least one (possibly more?) small-volume blenders that would has shown better results on certain tests.

But, let’s be real again: every finished oil is a balancing act of attributes and compromises, so in a given application there may be some nearly identical contestants, but if you change one or two of the variables the final tally may change re: superiority (no pun on their HQ location ).

Any time we get drawn into these comparisons, you have to put yourself on the receiving end of supply and demand: “Price, quality, delivery: pick two.” Meaning, if you want high quality and cheap price, the delivery times are gonna suck. If you want quality and delivery, the price will be dear. But you’re free to choose whatever combination of two variables you want. Then, the third variable (most generally, it’s ALWAYS price) falls where it may, and you pick which fits your budget. Amsoil tries to strike a good enough compromise on all 3 that regardless which 2 are your priorities, they’re in the running for your business if you’ve got an open mind.

I agree that Amsoil is good stuff, there Outboard 2 cycle oil and there Saber Pro is the best IMO
There tests on Motor Oil seem to be 1 sided, there are better oils out there.

 

[Pablo]

Makes me wonder what M1 EP HM and Valvoline EP HM would test out at. One would assume their better product would be an improvement over the ones tested in the OP.

True most likely but this is a HM oil comparison.

 

[vinu_neuro]

So presumably Castrol and Pennzoil did better.

 

[doublebase]

So does that mean 0W20 Mobil1 high mileage and Valvoline high mileage synthetic do NOT meet ISLAC GF6 (a) licensing and approvals? If they’re above the thresholds of a test?

 

[buster]

So does that mean 0W20 Mobil1 high mileage and Valvoline high mileage synthetic do NOT meet ISLAC GF6 (a) licensing and approvals? If they’re above the thresholds of a test?

I'm not sure if the HM oils meet GF-6 licensing.

I'm curious how relevant the TEOST 33C is. I linked one of the posts about it. Some in the industry think it's a useless test (SonofJoe). I really don't know.

Usually when I see two industry majors neglecting it I tend to think it's not as relevant as it once was.

 

[Pablo]

But, let’s be real again: every finished oil is a balancing act of attributes and compromises

Of course and Amsoil 100% agrees. Buster posted this, not me or Amsoil. I know the outcome here. Very few folks have attempted to answer @buster 's question. The way Buster started this thread, and naturally the responses follow - make it seem like this singular characteristic was the the only thing Amsoil tested, the only thing evaluated and so on.

https://www.amsoil.com/p/amsoil-0w-20-100-synthetic-high-mileage-motor-oil-hm020/?zo=515729

Pretty sure this testing isn't cheap, pure speculation that other oils not listed were tested - and must have done better. How about assuming Amsoil just choose two oils to compare. I find it ironic - some want comparison tests. Then want more.

What is interesting, this is an API Licensed oil. Amsoil uses ASTM D8256 on the first page:

 

[buster]

I like that Amsoil does these tests. I took issue with them using the 4-ball wear test (see latest Lubrication Explained video on that one), but showing the IIIH, GM turbo test is really good. Otherwise you're going on blind faith and specifications.

 

[Pablo]

I like that Amsoil does these tests. I took issue with them using the 4-ball wear test (see latest Lubrication Explained video on that one), but showing the IIIH, GM turbo test is really good. Otherwise you're going on blind faith and specifications.

And despite all the $$$$ Amsoil has spent on testing equipment, space and people - they will still pay for independent testing. I mean, again, that's what people asked for.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Amsoil is good stuff, pretty much across their portfolio. I’ve bought it, used it, and recommend it for where it’s going to succeed and have benefits over shelf stock. But let’s be real, it’s not super hard to: 1. Formulate an oil to excel at certain tests when shelf price is not a constraint; and 2. I’m pretty sure there’s at least one (possibly more?) small-volume blenders that would has shown better results on certain tests.

But, let’s be real again: every finished oil is a balancing act of attributes and compromises, so in a given application there may be some nearly identical contestants, but if you change one or two of the variables the final tally may change re: superiority (no pun on their HQ location ).

Any time we get drawn into these comparisons, you have to put yourself on the receiving end of supply and demand: “Price, quality, delivery: pick two.” Meaning, if you want high quality and cheap price, the delivery times are gonna suck. If you want quality and delivery, the price will be dear. But you’re free to choose whatever combination of two variables you want. Then, the third variable (most generally, it’s ALWAYS price) falls where it may, and you pick which fits your budget. Amsoil tries to strike a good enough compromise on all 3 that regardless which 2 are your priorities, they’re in the running for your business if you’ve got an open mind.

You could of named / added SOPUS in an identical trickster summation.
I just don't see where either producer is tricking anyone into buying their oils. Shoppers read the labels and the oil seems to perform according to the jug text. Sounds plain & simple..... sounds truthful to me.
Both of em' simply work great and they excel in individual areas of their craft.

The only area of the formulation craft that I feel a wee-bit disappointed in - is engine noise levels have not improved using the Amsoil Euro 0w30. I need to investigate what formulas Ester is showing authority in and buy it for the sewing machine sounding engine that Kia exhibits in it's 2020 2.0 MPI.

However, I still have confidence in that engine. I once had a 1984 Pontiac 6000 with 2.5 four cylinder. Everyone I knew then stated it sounds like a diesel. Yet the engine sounded loud still 18 years later with 280k and only used a quart in-between 3k OCIs.

So I find fault in oils that don't improve engine sound. But perhaps I shouldn't. So I give Amsoil a passing grade easily. For the Kia already begun to use oil at 20k and the Amsoil stopped the consumption in it's tracks, despite it being a 0w oil. I've read numerous theories on this board that one should never use a 0w oil to curb consumption. Well, it depends on what brand you're conducting your test on. Maybe that's why Amsoil is listed as a Super Premium brand, for it works well for my needs.

I just need to find where Ester is hiding....

 

[edhackett]

So does that mean 0W20 Mobil1 high mileage and Valvoline high mileage synthetic do NOT meet ISLAC GF6 (a) licensing and approvals? If they’re above the thresholds of a test?

0W-20 is exempt from the TEOST 33C test. The add is disingenuous by including the GF6 limits applied to the other grades of oil. It successfully tricks people into thinking other oils don't met the standard but AMSOIL does.

0w-16 is exempt from the sequence VIII test for bearing corrosion. The corrosion originates with the amount and type of anti-wear additives used in the formulation. 0W-16 relies heavily on its add pack for wear protection, so much so that it can't economically meet the corrosion standard set for other grades.

If an oil grade formulated to meet mainstream pricing can't meet a parameter the API deemed important, it just exempts it. The API is a joke.

Ed

 

[Azimuth]

If an oil grade formulated to meet mainstream pricing can't meet a parameter the API deemed important, it just exempts it. The API is a joke.

Interesting. I assume that the Euro specs are more stringent in this regard?

 

[buster]

I would still rather take a 0w20 that does well on the TEOST vs one that does not.

 

[edhackett]

Interesting. I assume that the Euro specs are more stringent in this regard?

That would appear to be the case. ACEA C5 and C6 address oils with an HTHS viscosity of 2.6-2.9, which would include 0W-20. They don't appear to address oils with an HTHS below 2.6(0W-16) yet. The ACEA sequences include a Toyota test for turbo deposits in diesel engines. The only HTHS range that specifies a limit is C6. The other HTHS ranges are report only. Why? This is a guess, and only a guess, is that if the other sequences are met that exceeding a problematic level on that test is not likely.

In every case that I could see, The ACEA is holding the thin oils to the same standards, or even more strict wear limits than the thicker oils(see C6). The ACEA is addressing the elephant in the room concerning the thiner oils. The API is telling you the elephant standing on your foot does not exist.

ACEA Sequences

Ed