Will AMSOIL Signature Series truly go 15k miles...

[kr_bitog]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Which is why Red Line would be my third choice for extended drains.
There are some long runs of Red Line in the used oil analysis forum.
Not all that impressive for such a costly oil.
Red Line clearly has a place, but it isn't as a cost effective long drain oil.

I dont think Redline is supposed to be extended drain, I think someone mentioned before the POE used on Redline oil is fast deteriorate with lot of moisture during short trip in high humidity environment (typical in tropical countries).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Which is why Red Line would be my third choice for extended drains.
There are some long runs of Red Line in the used oil analysis forum.
Not all that impressive for such a costly oil.
Red Line clearly has a place, but it isn't as a cost effective long drain oil.


See for me, that would mean it doesn't make the list for extended drains, just based on what I've seen

 

[fdcg27]

It was on the OP's short list, so I offered my opinion.
It wouldn't be my choice for extended drains either, which is why I ranked it third out of three.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Yeah, but the basestock used will have a direct bearing on oxidation, which will in turn have a direct effect on the depletion of detergent and dispersent adds.


One only needs to look to many of the GIII based Euro oils to see that it doesn't require PAO to accomplish that. Again, I think the additive package plays the most significant role here.


And what are these many Euro oils known to be Grp III based?
Not too many blenders are forthcoming with their basestock blends, so how would any potential user actually know?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Yeah, but the basestock used will have a direct bearing on oxidation, which will in turn have a direct effect on the depletion of detergent and dispersent adds.


One only needs to look to many of the GIII based Euro oils to see that it doesn't require PAO to accomplish that. Again, I think the additive package plays the most significant role here.


And what are these many Euro oils known to be Grp III based?
Not too many blenders are forthcoming with their basestock blends, so how would any potential user actually know?


Just look at anything meeting BMW LL-01 or the Mercedes equivalent and then see what they are classified as on the manufacturer's German site. Since in Germany, only >50% Group IV+ can be labelled as synthetic

A good example would be the "New Life" version of Mobil 1 0w40.

 

[Spector]

Going 25,000 but doing used oil analysis at 15,000 and 20,000 sure defeats the cost advantage of a long OCI. Add those two to the cost of the oil change and you may well re evaluate whether the Amsoil is worth it. Plus, you are not saving any hassle time if you do 2 used oil analysis during the run. Why bother!

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Yeah, but the basestock used will have a direct bearing on oxidation, which will in turn have a direct effect on the depletion of detergent and dispersent adds.


One only needs to look to many of the GIII based Euro oils to see that it doesn't require PAO to accomplish that. Again, I think the additive package plays the most significant role here.


And what are these many Euro oils known to be Grp III based?
Not too many blenders are forthcoming with their basestock blends, so how would any potential user actually know?


Just look at anything meeting BMW LL-01 or the Mercedes equivalent and then see what they are classified as on the manufacturer's German site. Since in Germany, only >50% Group IV+ can be labelled as synthetic

A good example would be the "New Life" version of Mobil 1 0w40.


And this means what?
You still have no idea what basestocks were blended to make this oil, and until XOM sees fit to tell you, you won't.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27


And this means what?
You still have no idea what basestocks were blended to make this oil, and until XOM sees fit to tell you, you won't.


It means they aren't majority PAO or POE. This would mean that they are majority Group III or Group III+.

I'm not simple, I understand that they are a blend of base stocks, I believe I've been here long enough to figure that one out Captain. However, in Germany they are not allowed to be labelled synthetic if the base isn't majority Group IV or above, so the logical conclusion one would draw from that is that if you are to look at the German labels for synthetic oils, the ones that are labelled fully synthetic are majority PAO or POE. The ones that aren't? Well, they aren't. It means they are majority Group III or Group III+.

 

[fdcg27]

You're drawing an inference with no data to support it.
German labeling regs aren't data.
The only definitive data would come from XOM and they aren't telling you or me.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You're drawing an inference with no data to support it.
German labeling regs aren't data.
The only definitive data would come from XOM and they aren't telling you or me.


Please explain to me how Germany labelling regulation regarding oil formulation doesn't tell us which oils are majority Group III /III+ or Group IV or higher?

These labelling regulations must be followed. It is a requirement to sell oil in Germany.

 

[fdcg27]

You aren't getting any info from the blender.
German labeling laws are presumbaly no harder to ignore than those in your country or mine.
Really nothing to explain.
I'm sure you or any other member can figure it out.
Without the real information from the blender, the actual basestock blend is unknown to you, me, or the German regulators.
Since this blend is considered proprietary information, it isn't disclosed.
Not that hard to understand.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You aren't getting any info from the blender.
German labeling laws are presumbaly no harder to ignore than those in your country or mine.
Really nothing to explain.
I'm sure you or any other member can figure it out.
Without the real information from the blender, the actual basestock blend is unknown to you, me, or the German regulators.
Since this blend is considered proprietary information, it isn't disclosed.
Not that hard to understand.


What do companies have to gain from ignoring the laws?

Instead of assuming the laws are easy to ignore, I've kindly asked Trav for his input on this as he actually lives there and would know. I could likely also ask Doug, as he's very familiar with the system in Germany as well.

But I don't know if I can figure it out big guy. You seem to think I'm pretty stupid, at least that's the impression I'm getting here.......

 

[Trav]

Quote:
However, in Germany they are not allowed to be labeled synthetic if the base isn't majority Group IV or above, so the logical conclusion one would draw from that is that if you are to look at the German labels for synthetic oils, the ones that are labeled fully synthetic are majority PAO or POE


Thats a fact.
There was a lawsuit in Germany over this and what came out was to be called a full synthetic motor oil it must be mostly true synthetic as you say.

Words like synthetic basis, part synthetic, synthetic blend are all meaningless marketing terms.
These are designed to circumvent the law and confuse the consumer into believing mineral oil is synthetic and indicate nothing about whats in the bottle.
Full synthetic (vollsynthetisch) means 100% there is true synthetic oil in the bottle plus add pack.

Manufacturers often approach the line but never cross it.
From Mobil themselves.
Quote:
With the exception of Germany, this reformulation will be invisible to
consumers and B2B customers.
• Claims are identical with the exception of some now obsolete or soon to
be obsolete claims
• Performance of new formulations are equivalent to current formulations
Testing is underway to provide read-across of current marketing
claims to new formulations
Review will take place of current marketing literature to ensure
accuracy of specific claims to new formulations (e.g. if we quote
actual pour point values then this would need to be updated).
• There will be no proactive customer communication relating to this
reformulation. However, an internal briefing document and Q&A has
been prepared to allow sales to respond in the unlikely event of a
customer question.
Due to the unique definition of synthetic in Germany (Synthetic = 100%
PAO) this reformulation is visible to the consumer and B2B customers.
• A more proactive communication is being prepared for German use


The article mentions only PAO but i have seen ester based oils labeled full synthetic also.
There is a question now about GTL.
It is technically a true synthetic but is considered GPIII+
This is another marketing scheme in the making to confuse the consumer.

 

[04SVT]

Thanks for all the informative posts. They've been most helpful in eliminating RL for my wife's car. Now it's down to two oils then. Amsoil and M1. I will never use another Pennzoil product again. I know it is a forum favorite but I've had some pretty bad experiences with their Pennzoil conventional oil in the past. We trashed a motor in a camaro because it cooked off. Out of three engines I've torn down that ran it exclusively; all three had horrible tar like sludge inside. I know their synthetics aren't even close to the same product but it is a complex, stigma, or whatever you want to call it I have. It is what it is though.

 

[fdcg27]

My point was that none of us know the basestock blend used in any oil unless the blender discloses it.
There is no inexpensive means of determining the blend used.
We can only speculate based upon an oil's specs.
Labeling regulations notwithstanding, XOM, along with most other blenders, considers basestock blend to be proprietary information.
I know that you are aware of this.
I never posted that you were stupid, and if you infered that then I apologize.
I would post that you are like a dog with a bone in defending your opinions, but I guess that would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
My point was that none of us know the basestock blend used in any oil unless the blender discloses it.
There is no inexpensive means of determining the blend used.
We can only speculate based upon an oil's specs.
Labeling regulations notwithstanding, XOM, along with most other blenders, considers basestock blend to be proprietary information.
I know that you are aware of this.
I never posted that you were stupid, and if you infered that then I apologize.
I would post that you are like a dog with a bone in defending your opinions, but I guess that would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

On that point, we can certainly agree. And yes, that was the inference that I got from your posts, so apology accepted there and no hard feelings.

And to be clear, my comment was ONLY with regards to Group III/III+ content exceeding what they allow for an oil to be classified as synthetic in Germany. The bases themselves are proprietary blends of which none of the manufacturers are forthcoming about, so we agree on that point as well.

My argument was simply that based on the German regulations, we can conclude with a reasonable amount of certainty that many of the oils meeting the Euro long-life specs contain a significant amount of Group III since they do not wear the vollsynthetisch designation, nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing to the amount of PAO or POE, AN's....etc they may also contain.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
My point was that none of us know the basestock blend used in any oil unless the blender discloses it.
There is no inexpensive means of determining the blend used.
We can only speculate based upon an oil's specs.

And it is the NOACK spec' that can tell a lot about an oil's base oil make-up. In the case of Amsoil's SS oils it's no secret that they are largely PAO based and their low NOACK figures would confirm this. One can also conclude lower than average amounts of VII's are used with the SS oils since they have a reputation for being very shear stable.

 

[fdcg27]

NOACK is always an interesting number for any oil.
Many oils that do well in used oil analysis, have decent VIs as well as cold performance also push the 15% API limit for their grade.
I'm thinking of Quaker State Ultimate Durability, but there are others.
I've thought that oils with NOACK <10% must be made with higher quality basestocks, like AMSOIL Signature Series.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
NOACK is always an interesting number for any oil.
Many oils that do well in used oil analysis, have decent VIs as well as cold performance also push the 15% API limit for their grade.
I'm thinking of Quaker State Ultimate Durability, but there are others.
I've thought that oils with NOACK div>


Mobil 1 0w40 IIRC is 8.8% FWIW, not sure if that's the VISOM or PAO version though.......

 

[fdcg27]

Which is pretty low, so it must either contain a lot of Grp IV/V or XOM is buying GTL Grp III from Shell or someone else, if anyone else is making it.
Either that, or Visom is itself a much better Grp III than the garden variety used in Quaker State Ultimate Durability.