Amsoil 5w30 Comparison Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
buster

buster

Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
38,066
Location
NJ
Link

I have a lot of questions on this one.

Mobil 1 and Redline did the worst in the TEOST, which is one of the tests Mobil 1 has always done extremely well in. Numbers in the 5-6mg range. (Mobil 1™ synthetic motor oil provides outstanding high-temperature protection and is proven to protect at engine temperatures up to 500°F. In fact, Mobil 1 synthetic oil provides superior performance versus our other full synthetic and conventional oils when tested for high-temperature deposit formation, as seen below.)

See here:

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Heat_Protection.aspx

Also, Lucas Synthetic, one of the worst on the market, placed 2nd in the 4-ball wear test.

NOACK looks accurate.
 
Does anyone here really think Lucas Synthetic outperforms Mobil 1 in a turbo? That is what this study would lead one to believe.

Honestly, after seeing the Mobil 1 Vegas study and Amsoil study, I want to say that a good majority of Amsoil's comparison testing in this report is just not that good.
 
I wish they would give up on that 4 ball wear test for engine oil. That alone make me question their methods.
Personally i think their ATF is one of the best in the business but their engine oils IMHO are no better than the other big names now.
 
^ I agree. Well, at least they gave up on the TFOUT. Seq IIIG is a much better test, but very expensive.

These are bench tests for the most part.
 
Hmmm, they mention this in the TEOST description:

Quote:
This test method can be used to screen oil samples or as a
quality assurance tool.”


Similar to the 4-ball wear test (btw Lucas Syn got 2nd place
crazy2.gif
) and TFOUT.

I thought TEOST test was the industry standard for high temperature deposits or is that now the IIIG?

According to Pennzoil, Ultra kept pistons cleaner 40% more than Castrol's Top synthetic. Mobil 1 did better than Valvoline. Different tests, obviously, but I'm not sure what that means.

Quote:
Actual advantage over competitive products is greater than visually shown. Based on ASTM Sequence IIIG piston deposit test using SAE 5W-30. Does not apply to Pennzoil Ultra™ Euro or Pennzoil Ultra™ 0W-40. Pennzoil Ultra™ keeps pistons up to 25% cleaner than Mobil 1; up to 35% cleaner than Valvoline® SynPower®; and up to 40% cleaner than Castrol® EDGE® with SYNTEC
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
I wish they would give up on that 4 ball wear test for engine oil. That alone make me question their methods.
Personally i think their ATF is one of the best in the business but their engine oils IMHO are no better than the other big names now.



I agree that Amsoil ATF and gear oils are probably some of the best out there. There engine oil is very good, but so are some easier to obtain synthetic oils.

I can almost guarantee that all the results of the tests Amsoil lists are valid. But they may have not included some competitive oils that did very well, or some ATSM tests where Amsoil did not do well. Thats pretty standard, do lots of tests and publish the ones that make you look good.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Does anyone here really think Lucas Synthetic outperforms Mobil 1 in a turbo? That is what this study would lead one to believe.

Honestly, after seeing the Mobil 1 Vegas study and Amsoil study, I want to say that a good majority of Amsoil's comparison testing in this report is just not that good.




No. But Lucas also had the worst NOACK of the bunch. Redline failed the TEOST test........ LOL!
 
Most of the tests I don't care a whole lot about.
For example CCS at -30C. At those temp's lets compare 0W oil not 5W.

-It is nice to see an "independent" measure for NOACK.

-The TEOST test is more of a deposit test as opposed to oxidation and is of value to those with DI engines. So if I had a DI engine prone to intake valve deposits I might give Castrol Edge a second look. As Buster alluded how about a separate ASTM Sequence IIIG test for comparison.

Overall no winners or losers and I certainly don't agree with Amsoil's annual cost guide claiming automatically 2.3 times the mileage.
 
Quote:
Testing was completed February 2013 by an independent, third-party lab. Formulations were
coded to eliminate bias, and samples were tested in random order. An appropriate number of trials of each oil
were run to produce results at the 95 percent confidence level when compared to Signature Series Synthetic
Motor Oil.


As long as you don't imply Amsoil just made up the numbers, they are what they are. Draw your own conclusions.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
I wish they would give up on that 4 ball wear test for engine oil. ...



I feel the same way. Even though I use Amsoil and am a supporter, the 4ball test seems to have no correlation to what's going on in our vehicles.
 
No idiot would pay $9.51 for M1 EP or $7.99 for QSUD if they have a WM nearby.
 
Booooring. I pretty much stopped looking at all these tests done by the manufacturer of oil W vs oils X, Y, Z. It's always aimed at showing that oil W is obviously better then anything else in the bunch.

If an independent company was to run these exact same tests, I'd bet that the results would be different. I just don't buy into it anymore.
 
Originally Posted By: Artem
Booooring. I pretty much stopped looking at all these tests done by the manufacturer of oil W vs oils X, Y, Z. It's always aimed at showing that oil W is obviously better then anything else in the bunch.

If an independent company was to run these exact same tests, I'd bet that the results would be different. I just don't buy into it anymore.


I would guess the test results listed are all valid. You can bet all the oil manufacturers have run the same or similar tests and know where they stand. Its then up to the marketing people to put the proper spin on things.
 
Originally Posted By: Artem


If an independent company was to run these exact same tests, I'd bet that the results would be different. I just don't buy into it anymore.


What???

Quote:
Testing was completed February 2013 by an independent, third-party lab. Formulations were
coded to eliminate bias, and samples were tested in random order. An appropriate number of trials of each oil
were run to produce results at the 95 percent confidence level when compared to Signature Series Synthetic
Motor Oil.
 
I never doubted Amsoil's numbers. I also never doubted their quality. I do question some of the tests and their results and what they mean.

For example, Tbn retention is more important than initial Tbn. 4-Ball wear test has been beaten to death, a lot by me. NOACK shows most of the synthetics have low volatility.

What surprised me the most was the TEOST test. Definitely makes question that number and test.
 
What's strange is that they state that Red Line holds the SN/GF-5 specification or at least implies that they do.

Given the fact it failed TEOST and that is a SN/GF-5 requirement it shows the difference between being an actual certified SN/GF-5 oil versus the famous "recommends" statement as many companies imply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
Which of these synthetics cleans best.pics
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Geeorge
Mugen_fn2
Civic FN2 oil choice
Replies
19
Views
674
Mugen_fn2
Q
Oil Brand consideration Mobil 1 to Kirkland
2 3
Replies
46
Views
10K
M1Accord
buster
Mobil 1 ESP X3 0w40 >FS 0w40
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
chris719
A
1989 Isuzu Trooper oil with high mileage
Replies
11
Views
687
Alexis
Back
Top