Can someone point me to an independent test of Amsoil and competeing motor oils?? While I have no reason to doubt Amsoils claims, Their test procedures and methods, when testing their own products, might be "optimized" to give results that favor their product. Who could blame them? It's their money! How about Consumer Reports / Comsumers Union. Or a car magazine. A good independent Motor Oil Test might be enlightening...
Independent Test
- Thread starter Fuelrod
- Start date
- Status
This site is as about as close as you will come.
Years ago, Consumer reports did their taxi oil test, didn't test any synthetics but just jumped to the conclusion they aren't worth (no logic given)
Years ago, Consumer reports did their taxi oil test, didn't test any synthetics but just jumped to the conclusion they aren't worth (no logic given)
that sounds alot like Consumer Reports. They really like to make silly assumptions and not back them up, yet people rely endlessly on their "findings".
I was wondering if the "Four Ball" extreme pressure wear test was standard in the motor oil industry (API). Or was this something Amsoil dreamed up...
Consumer Reports did test synthetics during their taxi test. They ran Mobil 1 at the same OCI as dino, and at twice the dino OCI. Their conclusion was that there was no measurable difference between synthetic and dino. But the test was flawed from the beginning, so I would take their recommendations with a grain of salt.
The only independent test I'm aware of was done on the paradise garage website. They ran Amsoil and Mobil 1 taking oil samples every 1000 miles. Amsoil lasted 12,000 miles and Mobil 1 lasted 18,000 miles.
The only independent test I'm aware of was done on the paradise garage website. They ran Amsoil and Mobil 1 taking oil samples every 1000 miles. Amsoil lasted 12,000 miles and Mobil 1 lasted 18,000 miles.
The 4 ball test is a common test and tells about the extreme pressure characteristics of an oil. In my opinion it is more appropriate for gear oils than engines since extreme pressure conditions are not that common in engines. You will see similar tests such a one using a torque wrench.
Thanks, Buster, the "four ball test" has that "BS Grinder" look to it..
I did find this site...I found it very helpful..
http://www.vtr.org/maintain/oil-overview.html
I did find this site...I found it very helpful..
http://www.vtr.org/maintain/oil-overview.html
I agree that the 4-ball wear test is pointless.
I don't remember M1 in the Consumer Reports tests.
I don't agree with this:
I don't remember M1 in the Consumer Reports tests.
I don't agree with this:
This needs to be fully examined before this statement is swallowed....Mobil 1 had a filter change and top up at 12,000 miles and continued on with more miles (18K total) with the whole time factor less (than Amsoil), Amsoil was not given a filter change and top up, and as stated was used over a longer period of time (implying less highway miles).
I find it interesting that Blackstone Labs (highly respected here) has this to say about synthetic oils in their FAQ section:
"For engines operating under normal circumstances, we do not generally see any difference between the engines that use synthetic oil and the engines that use petroleum-based oil."
And......they DO have the tests to back up what they say.
"For engines operating under normal circumstances, we do not generally see any difference between the engines that use synthetic oil and the engines that use petroleum-based oil."
And......they DO have the tests to back up what they say.
They used rebuilt taxi engines for 60,000 miles in a taxi fleet. I wouldn't expect to see much difference under that use (no cold starts, for example) between any oil that meets the current API service category.
To see differences you need to either stress the engines or increase the mileage or both.
The Fast Fours and Rotaries test where they tested a bunch of "synthetic" (many were GRIII), listed Amsoil as the first palce getter.
You can read an abridged version on just about any Amsoil site...pity they don't show the entire test, as it was an interesting article.
You can read an abridged version on just about any Amsoil site...pity they don't show the entire test, as it was an interesting article.
"Years ago, Consumer reports did their taxi oil test, didn't test any synthetics but just jumped to the conclusion they aren't worth (no logic given)."
DOUBLE WRONG. They also tested Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Performax. The results: "None of the tested oils proved better than the others in our tests...Even the expensive synthetics worked no better than conventional motor oils in our taxi tests, but they're worth considering for extreme driving conditions -- high ambient temperatures and high engine load or very cold temperatures."
"That sounds a lot like Consumer Reports. They really like to make silly assumptions and not back them up, yet people rely endlessly on their 'findings'."
WRONG. Their engineers measured wear on cams, lifters, and con rod bearings down to 0.0001" and 0.0001 gram before and after the tests. Such standardized testing methods are not "silly assumptions" -- they're the basis for the entire engineering profession.
"They used rebuilt taxi engines for 60,000 miles in a taxi fleet. I wouldn't expect to see much difference under that use (no cold starts, for example) between any oil that meets the current API service category. To see differences you need to either stress the engines or increase the mileage or both."
WRONG. Most taxis are not driven overnight, so they experience at least one cold start each day. Many civilians' cars only have two cold starts: leaving to and coming home from work, and the difference between one and two, while significant, is not huge. Also overlooked is the fact that such urban, low-speed, high-temperature driving is considered SEVERE SERVICE by all engine makers.
Consumer Reports never suggests in the article that their taxi test is an end-all, last-word, applies-to-every-application test of motor oils. It was simply the most feasible, standardized, and scientifically valid test they could take on for passenger cars. Engines that see other conditions, such as many cold starts or high RPMs, might see different results. But many folks do a simple, low-RPM rush hour commute twice each day for work, with many similarities to a suburban taxi. For all this trash talking about the CR test, I find it interesting that the UOAs on this board pretty much back up CR's results: one can find PLENTY of excellent UOAs on this board using 50 cent after-rebate oils.
[ January 08, 2005, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
DOUBLE WRONG. They also tested Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Performax. The results: "None of the tested oils proved better than the others in our tests...Even the expensive synthetics worked no better than conventional motor oils in our taxi tests, but they're worth considering for extreme driving conditions -- high ambient temperatures and high engine load or very cold temperatures."
"That sounds a lot like Consumer Reports. They really like to make silly assumptions and not back them up, yet people rely endlessly on their 'findings'."
WRONG. Their engineers measured wear on cams, lifters, and con rod bearings down to 0.0001" and 0.0001 gram before and after the tests. Such standardized testing methods are not "silly assumptions" -- they're the basis for the entire engineering profession.
"They used rebuilt taxi engines for 60,000 miles in a taxi fleet. I wouldn't expect to see much difference under that use (no cold starts, for example) between any oil that meets the current API service category. To see differences you need to either stress the engines or increase the mileage or both."
WRONG. Most taxis are not driven overnight, so they experience at least one cold start each day. Many civilians' cars only have two cold starts: leaving to and coming home from work, and the difference between one and two, while significant, is not huge. Also overlooked is the fact that such urban, low-speed, high-temperature driving is considered SEVERE SERVICE by all engine makers.
Consumer Reports never suggests in the article that their taxi test is an end-all, last-word, applies-to-every-application test of motor oils. It was simply the most feasible, standardized, and scientifically valid test they could take on for passenger cars. Engines that see other conditions, such as many cold starts or high RPMs, might see different results. But many folks do a simple, low-RPM rush hour commute twice each day for work, with many similarities to a suburban taxi. For all this trash talking about the CR test, I find it interesting that the UOAs on this board pretty much back up CR's results: one can find PLENTY of excellent UOAs on this board using 50 cent after-rebate oils.
[ January 08, 2005, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
I don't have anything against Amsoil but with Mobil 1 being easy to get at any auto parts store, and with reasonable results from testing involving Mobil 1, I just use Mobil 1 myself.
I remember on my way to New Mexico one day I stopped at a gas station that (amazingly) was full service. I noticed an Amsoil sign and I talked to the guys at the station. They said that Amsoil was being sold at the station. But one guy told me 'why not just use Mobil 1?' The guy told me that he himself uses Mobil 1.
I remember on my way to New Mexico one day I stopped at a gas station that (amazingly) was full service. I noticed an Amsoil sign and I talked to the guys at the station. They said that Amsoil was being sold at the station. But one guy told me 'why not just use Mobil 1?' The guy told me that he himself uses Mobil 1.
Oh, by the way, in that Consumer's Report test of motor oils they did test Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Synthetic. They said that they did not notice any real differences in wear between the conventional motor oils and the synthetic oils. In fact, I think they said all the oils peformed about the same (although there was some sort of comment about some oils maybe eventually leading to possible sludge problems).
But personally I think that test was flawed in various ways. And, that test was so long ago, motor oils have changed completely since that time.
But personally I think that test was flawed in various ways. And, that test was so long ago, motor oils have changed completely since that time.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Help me out here. Okay ..so this kinda bolsters the idea about "wear" ..but did CR show the effect of use on the oil (I don't recall)?? That is, did they have UOA's that showed "suitable for continued use" with any oils ...yet stayed to the test criteria.
So if, instead, they had said "We're going to keep oils in the crankcase until they are deemed (by a predetermined accepted standard - oxidation/nitration/TBN/flash point/ etc.) shot and then measure wear .....how would the results/conclusions of the test be changed???
The boxer got to box ..but the wrestler wasn't allowed to wrestle ..so to speak.
Go easy guys - sheesh that CR test was awhile ago
I do remember something about them weighing the bearings before and after. I dunno really how great that would be. Sure it should measure them as being lighter in theory, with assuming the missing material is wear. I don't seem to remember any UOA's.
Anyone have a real link to the actual report?
I forgot, OK? I wasn't so "wrong" in the context of the question. (I honestly didn't remember CR actually testing the M1.
I do remember something about them weighing the bearings before and after. I dunno really how great that would be. Sure it should measure them as being lighter in theory, with assuming the missing material is wear. I don't seem to remember any UOA's.
Anyone have a real link to the actual report?
The test was for 1 year or until the oil was out of spec. They only managed to get 12k miles on the Amsoil in the year because of high gas prices and more opportunity to ride a motorcycle instead of driving the test car. The out of spec part was a moving target for a while before it was settled on. Neither oil really went out of spec because a top up or filter change usually brought the oil back in line with less than a 20% increase in viscosity, 1< tbn
Both oils could have continued on for some time with 6 month filter changes. I believe a 10w30 oil would have held up better from both Mobil and Amsoil in this particular application.
If 3mad is monitoring I vote to cut the retest of the Mobil 1 off after a few thousand miles as this will give enough of a trend for wear without going another full year before going to Redline.
I expect it to make it the full year or 18k miles. I am curious as to the wear and viscosity and tbn it will produce over the period.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Sticky
