Real world tests to show Amsoil is the best?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: ronp
Originally Posted By: used_0il
ronp;
Read post #3552808 and let us know your thoughts on the topic.


It was pretty informative.


3552808, here http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3552808/4
should be required reading at the front of BITOG before anybody posts anything. It does reveal a bit of self-aggrandizement, but not much, and not too untypical of talented PhD types anyway. Truth is there. Read it and Mobil1 0w-40 becomes viable in almost anything you own.


Lol, spoken like a true fascist (not that u are, just that sounds like it). Make a requirement that everyone has to read about what, in your opinion, is ideal?

It was an informative post you referenced but there are any # of professionals involved in the creation and production of every product that would boast about the fruits of their labor.

We could get some chemist and engineers/ blenders from sopus or chevron/texaco or conoco/phillips to do the same perhaps.

Don't get yourself overly excited there. Lol
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Poked around on the web and wasn't able to find MRV numbers for Mobil 1 or Amsoil OE in 5W-30...can't say I did a truly exhaustive search, though. Interestingly enough, Amsoil did claim a slightly lower pour point than Mobil 1, I think by one degree C...???

They're not always easy to find - that's for sure. In any event, any of the majors' 5w-XX or 0w-XX do the trick nicely. I've used a lot more 5w-XX than 0w-XX, and gotten vehicles to some pretty decent mileage.
 
Originally Posted By: TFB1
He claims it's a test he developed and not a four ball test... The guy does have some decent credentials... No four ball test I've seen measures in SQUARE INCHES...
Quote:
The test procedure I use is a rubbing friction test under load, which generates a wear scar on a test specimen that is bathed in the oil being tested. The result is “pounds” of force being applied over the wear scar “area”, which is in square inches. Or in other words, pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to “psi”. The better an oil’s wear protection capability, the smaller the wear scar will be on the test specimen, and the higher the resulting psi value will be. The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I performed to generate my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, is worst case torture testing, using oil testing equipment that is for the record, NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester and NOT a “4-Ball Wear Tester”. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine ever could. So, since my oil testing compares various oils under worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If oils rank higher in my “Wear Protection Ranking List” than the oil you currently use, those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION than your current oil. It’s really that simple.
He chose to measure the wear scar (suggesting a 4 ball test or something very similar) in square inches. So instead of using MM or CM or thousands of an inch he chose square inches? Big deal. If his credentials and testing methodology were that profound, there would be new testing standards developed/accepted because of it. Every oil manufacturer I have seen that has any merit at all uses industry accepted testing standards and they all balk at "garage testing" like this. In addition, what is the point of testing oil at a level of pressure never seen in a IC engine? If the engine cannot develop the pressure, his test proves little--unless, one is anticipating using PCMO as a gear lube. If all of the oils perform at a reasonable level under normal engine pressures, then proving the oil can endure more pressure proves what exactly? Especially since the engine will never see that pressure?
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: TFB1
He claims it's a test he developed and not a four ball test... The guy does have some decent credentials... No four ball test I've seen measures in SQUARE INCHES...
Quote:
The test procedure I use is a rubbing friction test under load, which generates a wear scar on a test specimen that is bathed in the oil being tested. The result is “pounds” of force being applied over the wear scar “area”, which is in square inches. Or in other words, pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to “psi”. The better an oil’s wear protection capability, the smaller the wear scar will be on the test specimen, and the higher the resulting psi value will be. The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I performed to generate my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, is worst case torture testing, using oil testing equipment that is for the record, NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester and NOT a “4-Ball Wear Tester”. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine ever could. So, since my oil testing compares various oils under worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If oils rank higher in my “Wear Protection Ranking List” than the oil you currently use, those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION than your current oil. It’s really that simple.
He chose to measure the wear scar (suggesting a 4 ball test or something very similar) in square inches. So instead of using MM or CM or thousands of an inch he chose square inches? Big deal. If his credentials and testing methodology were that profound, there would be new testing standards developed/accepted because of it. Every oil manufacturer I have seen that has any merit at all uses industry accepted testing standards and they all balk at "garage testing" like this. In addition, what is the point of testing oil at a level of pressure never seen in a IC engine? If the engine cannot develop the pressure, his test proves little--unless, one is anticipating using PCMO as a gear lube. If all of the oils perform at a reasonable level under normal engine pressures, then proving the oil can endure more pressure proves what exactly? Especially since the engine will never see that pressure?

Was asked if anyone knows if Amsoil is best, I presented a link someone who claims it isn't... Y'all can argue all you like about his methods, I don't really care..

Myself I'm gonna use M-1 5W30 that's #11 on his list... Why? Because it's what I've been using for the last five/six years years(yes in my Grand Marquis that's specked for 5W-20)..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top