Amsoil - Worth it?

[Spooner65]

You guys are awesome. So much info, and a few dealers among you obviously. When I started this thread I was interested in running Amsoil in my 7.3L diesel. That has since expanded.

Because of this thread I have decided (edit - mod), because I like the prospect of earning money from something I enjoy. I am a college student, work part time, own a hauling business, now this.

You guys have so much knowledge to offer and I hope to absorb it all. (edit - mod).

I saw a few of you mentioned negative interactions with Amsoil and I think that is why it has gained such a negative reputation. (edit - mod).

My answer is simple. "Its not." I believe any synthetic oil that meets the right qualifications is better than a conventional oil. And Amsoil guarantees it.

I am hesitant to run my oil to 25,000 miles too. I am looking at running the XL oil for modest oil change intervals, as will be monitored by UOAs. I have other things to worry about other than additives. I am told my engine likes to shear oil. I will need to learn about this too (if you have answers look for my new thread.)

Thank you every body for your amazing help. I am a member on many forums and I love this one. The responses were on both sides of the fence as well as right on it, which is nice! (edit - mod). Amsoil is definitely a little more expensive, but I think they have some good products to offer too.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Spooner65
I believe any synthetic oil that meets the right qualifications is better than a conventional oil. And Amsoil guarantees it.


"I believe" that you've fallen prey to the hype and rhetoric of synthetics. Your statements clearly indicate that you believe synthetics are better in all conditions; nothing could be further from the truth.

Amsoil, as well as many other top-tier synthetics, are great products; I believe that. I've seen excellent results come from these products. I use synthetics myself in some applications. But they are not a one-size-fits-all product; little if nothing in life ever is.

There are plenty of threads here (especially in the UOA forums) that show conventional lubes are every bit as capable in short-to-moderate OCI conditions. Please spend some time reviewing factual data, and quit reading sales hype and following internet rhetoric.

Synthetics (and premium filtration) are tools. Tools can either be used properly in the right application, for excellent results, or misused in the wrong applications with poor results.

Originally Posted By: spooner65
I am hesitant to run my oil to 25,000 miles too. I am looking at running the XL oil for modest oil change intervals, as will be monitored by UOAs. I have other things to worry about other than additives. I am told my engine likes to shear oil.


- I find it odd that you don't trust the recommendations of a product line you plan to represent.
- how do you define "modest" intervals? (OEM OCIs?. If so, then why UOA?)
- Yes; PSD engines shear oil. But that rarely results in any wear acceleration. Feed a PSD some 10w-30, and it will stay in grade. It is safe to do so, despite what traditional mantra would have you believe.


There is nothing inherently right or wrong with synthetics. Synthetics don't choose to jump into a crankcase; people put them there. The question becomes this about any product one chooses to use:
Did the product provide the required level of performance, with a positive ROI?

Any product can either be over or under utilized.

Read my signature line.

 

[bigjl]

One thing to consider is the opinion of the engineers at Volvo.

They have an oil spec that can be met by many oils, synthetic or semi synthetic. But also fairly.long change intervals.

18k miles or 1yr in the case of the V70 T5, 2.4 or D5.

Now if this vehicle is operated in what Volvo.term as harsh or severe conditions then the OCI is not changed. Still 18k or 1yr.

But they do specify Fully Synthetic Oils only.

I would think that shows the superiority of synthetic oils.

They make no distinction between basestocks. Just that it is classed as Full Synth.

Though I don't think we have the same issue with oil labelling that you seem to have in the US.

I have never heard of any Full Synth being found to be part mineral oil.

Not that I have spent much time researching what individual oils are made up of.

I tend to concentrate on what specs it meets.

 

[dnewton3]

Your example illustrates my point exactly.

Synthetics do not do things "better"; they do things "longer".

If one OCIs those engines you mention at 5-7k km, and never gets close to the OEM OCI, there would be no advantage to using the syn because a conventional lube would likely be capable.

Synthetics don't make equipment last longer, they make their own lifecycle last longer relative to the alternatives.

If Volvo spec'd 10k km OCIs, would they still require syns? Probably not.
Conversely, look at an opposite extreme: would Volvo support running any synthetic, with just a normal filter, for a 50k km OCI? Probably not. Because even a synthetic oil would have been compromised to a point past condemnation in that extreme.


Synthetics generally offer two advantages:
1) superior performance in temp extremes (and I mean e-x-t-r-e-m-e)
2) longer OCIs
If one does not operate under either of those two conditions, then there is no advantage to glean; it's that simple.

Again, re-read my statment:
Any product can either be over or under utilized.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
If Volvo spec'd 10k km OCIs, would they still require syns? Probably not.


That hits the nail on the head. I think a lot of people forget why many of the European brands went to synthetic specifications and specifications with an HTHS of 3.5 and above. The fact that the Europeans did is often misused as an argument to support the notion that synthetics are superior or that a heavy oils are superior.

Many of the European vehicles have specified thicker oils for years. With potentially harder driving (particularly when we had the double nickel era here) and longer OCIs than North America, even back then, a thicker oil made sense. Back then, 15w-40 or even 20w-50 was the norm in a lot of European vehicles, with oils as light as 5w-20 allowed for winter use.

With some of the manufacturers having overly optimistic OCIs on conventional and the fact that grades such as a 5w-40 or a 0w-40, which tend to be synthetic, and that a synthetic in such a grade can eliminate the need for switching grades with seasons, the European manufacturers had good reasons and sound logic behind switching to synthetics. They used them as a tool, not as a marketing device.

Mercedes doesn't produce a superior vehicle because it requires synthetic, nor does the fact that a Mercedes requires a synthetic immediately makes synthetic a superior lube. They tend to have large sumps of oils meeting rigorous specifications that are taken out to very long OCIs.

We have to remember that Mercedes makes engines that routinely go out to hundreds of thousands of miles. They were doing that very well, too, when they still specified 15w-40 conventional.

 

[bigjl]

Unusually Garek the strange situation now exists in Europe where Ford engines appear to be the ones lasting longer than Mercedes.

Not unusual for an ex fleet Ford diesel to have 150k on it at three years old.

There is a concensus in the motor trade, not Mercedes dealers, that modern Mercedez seem to be engineered to give 150k of good service then trouble starts.

I used to work for an NHS Ambulance Trust and the newer 2.2 Sprinters were more troublesome and at lower mileages than the older 2.7's.

All serviced to the same schedule, when i was there it was 3k miles or 6 weeks usually. Though this would sometimes be extended tgrough operational pressure.

They used to use GTX in the LDV V8's at 3k/6 weeks, and used a semi synthetic for the Mercedes.

Reasoning is simply that the vehicles are on the go 24/7 in the most part and if they were ever shut off for half an hour or so sometimes had a start and WOT.

I think dnewton is correct that synthetic(full) are used in part to extend OCI. But note Volvo.says to go from Semi to Full due to harsh or severe service with no reduction in OCI. This would i.dicate to me that they have researched the subject in depth and found full synth deals with harsh or severe service better than a semi synth.

Volvo and indeed Ford who share platforms and engines don't recommend anything below a semi synth oil.

My old Mondeo Tdci with over 200k miles on it with no issues and no engine related failures or problems other than an egr clean out as a precaution at 150k miles.

I don't think a conventional would be able to do that even with 3k OCI. But it is unlikely that a mineral/conventional oil can be found to meet the A1/B1 minimum spec anyway.

It is interesting reading these different viewpoints. Though it will be several.years before the US has the number of diesel passenger vehicles we have in Europe.

I think the point is, if it works for your circumstances then go for it.

We all know people that have put 30/40k on a car without changing the oil once. Only check it occasionally, sometimes not.

We all know that sometimes they have no issues. This doesn't mean it is the right thing to do though.

In the mineral/synthetic debate my opinion is why put in an inferior product just because it might be "just good enough", why not aim higher.

I have never advocated "that'll do" maintenance. Maybe that is through ignorance or lazyness?

But if I have to drjve to my parents in an emergency I know I will not be worrying about needing to do an OC as I am on 3k intervals. And due to changing within the max lifespan of the oil I have enough headroom to put a change off for a few days or weeks when need be.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: bigjl
Unusually Garek the strange situation now exists in Europe where Ford engines appear to be the ones lasting longer than Mercedes.


It's the synthetics' fault.

Originally Posted By: bigjl
I think dnewton is correct that synthetic(full) are used in part to extend OCI. But note Volvo.says to go from Semi to Full due to harsh or severe service with no reduction in OCI. This would i.dicate to me that they have researched the subject in depth and found full synth deals with harsh or severe service better than a semi synth.


Sure. There's more than one way to deal with an issue. One could shorten OCIs or go to a more robust oil. Volvo has chosen to go to a more robust oil.

Volvo and indeed Ford who share platforms and engines don't recommend anything below a semi synth oil.

Originally Posted By: bigjl
I don't think a conventional would be able to do that even with 3k OCI. But it is unlikely that a mineral/conventional oil can be found to meet the A1/B1 minimum spec anyway.


If it wasn't something requiring an A1/B1 spec (which I haven't seen in conventional, either), I wouldn't see a problem with conventional over a short OCI. However, they've specified A1/B1 for a reason.

Nonetheless, under an "average" application over conservative OCIs, I have seen no evidence yet that a synthetic provides any longevity benefits. If one is doing very cold starts, cold starts followed by hard driving, has high oil temperatures, and/or long OCIs, then there certainly are benefits. With the old taxis that made it to 600,000 miles on 6,000 mile OCIs on conventional, what benefit would synthetic have provided? They were certainly not demanding engines, of course. A straight 30 would have probably been as effective as the 10w-30, for that matter.

And, of course, certain diesel (and gas) applications are different. There are different emissions systems that need to be protected in different ways. Generally speaking, though, provided an oil meets the specifications called for and it's a reputable oil to begin with, and the engine doesn't have any mysterious design flaws (i.e. a sludger), then meeting that minimum requirement and following the maintenance schedule will result in a very long engine life.

My issue has always been cost. It's not about being cheap, it's getting the value out of what you're using. If I'm stuck on a short OCI due to warranty (more of a North American issue than in Europe, of course) and the engine doesn't require synthetic, what's the point?

This is where the dexos1 spec, as an example, stuck in a lot of people's craws here in North America. No one is complaining about having a "better" oil. It just irks people that two otherwise identical vehicles, separated by one model year, require two different oils, with the earlier vehicle being able to use VWB 5w-30 at $9.88 for 5 litres versus the new one requiring a dexos1 speced oil at double the price. Sure, the OCI may be extended, but some consumers are skeptical.

 

[ottomatic]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Your example illustrates my point exactly.

Synthetics do not do things "better"; they do things "longer".

If one OCIs those engines you mention at 5-7k km, and never gets close to the OEM OCI, there would be no advantage to using the syn because a conventional lube would likely be capable.

Synthetics don't make equipment last longer, they make their own lifecycle last longer relative to the alternatives.

If Volvo spec'd 10k km OCIs, would they still require syns? Probably not.
Conversely, look at an opposite extreme: would Volvo support running any synthetic, with just a normal filter, for a 50k km OCI? Probably not. Because even a synthetic oil would have been compromised to a point past condemnation in that extreme.


Synthetics generally offer two advantages:
1) superior performance in temp extremes (and I mean e-x-t-r-e-m-e)
2) longer OCIs
If one does not operate under either of those two conditions, then there is no advantage to glean; it's that simple.

Again, re-read my statment:
Any product can either be over or under utilized.


Accordin to this definition you are wrong
:synthetic lubricant – a lubricating fluid made by chemically reacting materials of a specific chemical composition to produce a compound with planned and predictable properties; the resulting base stock may be supplemented with additives to improve specific properties. Many synthetic lubricants --also called synlubes --are derived wholly or primarily from petrochemicals; other synlube raw materials are derived from coal and oil shale, or are lipochemicals (from animal and vegetable oils). Synthetic lubricants may be superior to petroleum oils in specific performance areas. Many exhibit higher viscosity index (VI), better thermal stability and oxidation stability, and low volatility (which reduces oil consumption). Most synlubes offer longer service life and, in some cases, better biodegradability than conventional lubricants. Consequently, they are increasingly being used in industrial and automotive applications. Individual synthetic lubricants offer specific outstanding properties: phosphate esters, for example, are fire resistant, diesters have good oxidation stability and lubricity, and silicones offer exceptionally high VI. Polyalphaolefins are versatile lubricants with low pour points, and excellent thermal and oxidation stability; they have good compatibility with petroleum lubricants and most seals used with petroleum lubricants. Most synthetic lubricants can be converted to grease by adding thickeners. Because synthetic lubricants are higher in cost than petroleum oils, they are used selectively

From the STLE web site
http://www.stle.org/about/default.aspx?

 

[buster]

Quote:
Synthetics generally offer two advantages:
1) superior performance in temp extremes (and I mean e-x-t-r-e-m-e)
2) longer OCIs
If one does not operate under either of those two conditions, then there is no advantage to glean; it's that simple.


This is very true.

 

[salesrep]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
Synthetics generally offer two advantages:
1) superior performance in temp extremes (and I mean e-x-t-r-e-m-e)
2) longer OCIs
If one does not operate under either of those two conditions, then there is no advantage to glean; it's that simple.


This is very true.

Additives aside, I'd agree.

 

[skyship]

I used to think that full synthetics meant the engine would last longer, but the more I have read on the subject the more I have understood that it is more a question of quality in terms of the base stock and additives that makes a good oil.

The main advantage of synthetics is that they last longer in OCI terms, but if you don't intend to explore extended service intervals then a good quality dino based oil will give good results if you use the correct viscosity and a recommended or fully approved oil.

The BMW forum results that compared Castrol GTX 5/30 to other more expensive oils was interesting, as although the averaged UOA results showed a fractional improvement with Edge 5/30, many other full or HC synthetics produced slightly worse results.
If you can find an appropriate Amsoil product at a good price then as the American say, "Go for it", but don't rob a bank trying to pay for it, as many other top brand name oils will produce the same results.

As regards some problems mentioned with a few modern diesels that use full synthetics, they occur to cars in severe service (Dirty air or lots of time at idle) where no cross check UOA was done to show the oil was either contaminated or had run out of additives. For some odd reason not many car companies quote severe service data and leave that decision to the owner, although the new oil change computers do figure things out with the latest top of the range cars.

 

[effee]

Amsoil is good oil but it’s way overhyped. If it were priced competitively I might use it but not at the price they’re charging. I’ve had numerous vehicles with over 1/4 million miles on them that burned no appreciable oil and still ran like new but never had amsoil in the crankcase so I see no reason to pay twice as much or more for motor oil

 

[wpod]

Give Amsoil a try . !!! Look at the Mobil oil's M1 advertising test videos report back. The worst thing that could happen is you spent a bit much on oil

 

[wpod]

Amsoil is good oil but it’s way overhyped. If it were priced competitively I might use it but not at the price they’re charging. I’ve had numerous vehicles with over 1/4 million miles on them that burned no appreciable oil and still ran like new but never had amsoil in the crankcase so I see no reason to pay twice as much or more for motor oil

I met people in sales that have 350,000 to 400,000 miles running quick lube oil and filters. Not everyone maintains their cars like the BITOG posters.

 

[wpod]

Perfect analogy, Dnewton3!

And one persons "insignificant" costs are another's daily bread.

All of us have different needs. But I always dislike gratuitous waste "just because we can".

Steve does any one need a SRT8? Or do you have one because you can?

 

[simple_gifts]

LOL, the BITOG arbitrary economy is spend what you want on a car, tires, wax, but spend and extra $15 for an oil change over 12K miles and what a fool you are....

 

[Boczech8]

It is a good product just depends on how it fits in your maintenance of the vehicle. Do you need it or just want it ? Yes it can be costly but what I have learned over the years is just because you spend a lot of money on oil does not necessarily mean it is better than the oil that is on sale. Shopping around for deals can sometimes be fun. :--))

Good Luck

 

[Kuato]

8-year resurrection; not bad.
I recall this thread when it first came out. It's the kind of discussion that used to take place frequently here. Alas for the old days.

Amsoil worth it? Driving a port injected NA vehicle 500 highway miles per day, probably . But short tripping a DI turbo? Probably not.
As mentioned by dnewton3 numerous times, UOAs are required for each engine&oil combination to establish the proper interval.

 

[Peted]

8-year resurrection; not bad.
I recall this thread when it first came out. It's the kind of discussion that used to take place frequently here. Alas for the old days.

Amsoil worth it? Driving a port injected NA vehicle 500 highway miles per day, probably . But short tripping a DI turbo? Probably not.
As mentioned by dnewton3 numerous times, UOAs are required for each engine&oil combination to establish the proper interval.

I thought I remember reading this thread too. Eight years, wow. Great to see so many active 1st gen posters. I see BITOG mentioned all over the web now and our oil mentality has stretched far and wide. 3mi OCI's are a thing of the past.

 

[greywolf]

Evidently there are a few LML Duramax engines that have surpassed the 1,000,000 mile mark and didn't use Amsoil,
just saying.