Amsoil - Strategic Direction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: dew
Sorry, I don't have the link at the moment but there is a fairly recent YouTube video comparing the ability to pour at about -40 F for 4 different 5w30 oils. Amsoil, M1, Royal Purple & Supertech dino.

It didn't look rigged to me. The M1 started running immediatly, mopping the floor with Amsoil. The presenter had lined up the oils in the expected order of performance (Ams 1st). The RP and ST were basically solids..

Not saying that makes the Amsoil bad at all, but don't think that would have happened if it were primarily PAO...


I'm struggling to see the relevence of testing a whole bunch of 5W oils at temperatures that are the realm of (readily available) 0W oils.

Need -40 ? Use a 0W...that's where they are rated at.

The test could just have easily been which oil is closest in colour to blue, which one smelled more synthetic.



Yeah, probably not a test I would have designed either. I only mentioned it as a data point with regard to what base stocks might have been used.

It is true that primarily PAO oils (even 5w30) have had excellent pour points (south of -40F) historically, correct?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: davison0976


Let's take your "strawman" metaphor as a basic premise. But isn't it the proclaimed experts like yourself who created it and were pimping PAO lubricants 10-15 years ago as the best thing that ever happened to mankind? Now, when US market no longer requires synthetic lubricants to be made of synthetic ingredients and everyone, and their sister, had converted to hydrocracked base stock you experience these psychotic outbursts at a sign of anyone mentioning PAO. This was mainly a business strategy question, which appears not to be your strongest forte.

No, I don't particularly care about how lubricants are formulated because that can't be much more than a monkey job. It's not like you are designing new molecules. Molecules that basic have been known for over 100 years now. Synthetic aspirin was created in the 60's, if not earlier, did you see what that molecule looks like? Formulation is about mixing existing ingredients and testing. It is a very intensive work, but a monkey job nevertheless, most of which has been outsourced to other continents I am sure.

The reference to Tide is a figurative speech. What's ridiculous is that you can't recognize that.


You are further confused as to the difference between Blenders and Formulators. Blenders mix according to stated blending tables from additive companies.

Coorporate formulators mostly develop new lubricant formulations, but many develop new base oils and new additives, and determine what applications are best suited for those new base oils and new additives.

I know most formulators are advanced Chemists who hold at least one post-graduate degree and contrary to your misinformation, we do design new molecules, which is not a monkey job. For example, new base oils such as Ionic Liquids, OSP's, and new PAO-Ester polymers come to mind.

Quote:
But isn't it the proclaimed experts like yourself who created it and were pimping PAO lubricants 10-15 years ago as the best thing that ever happened to mankind?


No, I was pimping advanced synthetic esters and bio-derived esters.
grin2.gif



Quote:
Now, when US market no longer requires synthetic lubricants to be made of synthetic ingredients and everyone, and their sister, had converted to hydrocracked base stock you experience these psychotic outbursts at a sign of anyone mentioning PAO.


You are simply displaying more of your ignorance of lubricant science. The World Market (not just the US or NA) will be using the newer LV lubricants such as the 0W8, 0W16, etc. SAE grades, which can only perform properly with Group IV and V base oils, not Hydrocracked oils.

And most additives today are synthetic as well, which means they are truly 'synthesized" from specific starting materials.


Quote:
Please identify what research papers you consulted.
confused2.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted By: Pablo
davison0976 said:
You guys do know Redline is PAO and some ester, right?


So, you're saying that Redline is mostly PAO with some ester? Based on their marketing material, they would have us believe that it is predominantly ester.



Here is the only statement I can find from Redline regarding their base oil constituents:

Quote:
Paragraph A. Red Line Motor Oils are designed to provide the highest degree of protection and cleanliness for your automotive, motorcycle, or marine engine. We use the most stable synthetic components available and formulate our products for wear protection across a wide range of engine operating conditions.

Paragraph B. Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks, the only lubricants which can withstand the tremendous heat of modern jet engines. This high-temperature stability makes our motor oil a necessity to properly lubricate a turbocharger or hot-running engine.

Paragraph C. The synthetic base stocks have a natural multigrade property, which means that large amounts of unstable polymeric thickeners, like those used in petroleum oils, are not required to manufacture our multigrades.


Notice what Paragraph A. and B. doesn't say:

That Polyol Ester base stocks are the Majority base oil.

That PAO base stocks are the Majority base oil.



So one is left with the inference that Redline Oils are at least a mix of Group IV and Group V base oils.

I have stated this before, a synthetic motor oil cannot be made from 100% PAO.
 
Last edited:
I had several conversations with Roy Howell of Redline back around 1994 or 1995 and was told that Redline was majority POE. That might have changed since then.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


Quote:

Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks,



Unique?

Are they?
 
Thanks to everyone, I've actually learned a lot in this thread.
(no sarcasm)
 
Originally Posted By: zveroboy
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


Quote:

Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks,



Unique?

Are they?


Unique is a value judgement term often used by the Marketing department. Take it for what it is.
smile.gif


"contains PE Polyol Ester base stocks" is a fact.
 
Last edited:
It's just like the term synthetic blend.

99% conventional and 1% synthetic (real synthetic or not) is technically a blend.

So saying it contains PE polyol Ester could mean it has anywhere from 1% to 99% of it. The rest could be PYB basestocks. lol
 
Originally Posted By: davison0976

Based on your own statements do you see where the problem is? Amsoil these days has absolutely no information about base stock they use. There is no official certifications for the SS line oils, not even API SN. And, they want you to pay a premium. A consumer has to make a serious leap of faith to trust such a product. Isn't that score 3-0 Amsoil vs any customer who chose to buy their product?


Originally Posted By: The_Eric

As was mentioned previously- many of the additives that people tend to like in large amounts (zinc/phosphorus are the first couple off the top of my head- though there are more) can't be in an oil AND still meet current API certifications.


Hold on, are you saying Amsoil formulates their oils based on popular vote of what additives it should contain? How is that a science, albeit maybe a social science? There is a reason API certifications the way they are. Phosphorous, for instance, shortens the life of catalytic converters.



Originally Posted By: The_Eric

So, to sum this thread up: You think you know what's best and what you want but have no real idea of what you're saying or getting.


You haven't provided anything as to even elude to an answer to the original question. Do you even remember what it was? What are you trying to sum up?


Originally Posted By: The_Eric

If you'd be willing to keep your mind open and your proverbial mouth closed, I'm sure that people like Molecule, Pablo, TomNJ, Doug Hillary and probably more that I'm missing- all of whom have been inside the industry for a VERY long time as sales, formulators and R&D would probably be willing to delve deeper into your questions. If you keep spouting off with inflammatory statements then longtime, knowledgeable members usually have no desire to pass their knowledge. These folks are very helpful individuals, but they don't typically show up in threads like these because it's generally a waste of their time.



This is classic. If you don't know an answer or don't like a statement attack its form. I get it that you feel a sense of kinship with people you have mentioned, and have an urge to somehow protect them. But it's ok, they are big boys and can speak for themselves. Judging by the number of posts these individuals are making they are practically have their heads taped to the screens, - talking about time wasted.
 
Originally Posted By: davison0976

No, I don't particularly care about how lubricants are formulated because that can't be much more than a monkey job. It's not like you are designing new molecules. Molecules that basic have been known for over 100 years now.


Originally Posted By: MolaKule

You are further confused as to the difference between Blenders and Formulators. Blenders mix according to stated blending tables from additive companies. Coorporate formulators mostly develop new lubricant formulations, but many develop new base oils and new additives, and determine what applications are best suited for those new base oils and new additives.


Strictly speaking those who formulate determine a mix of base oil(s) and additives to meet certain goals. They are not involved in synthesis of new molecules. Show me at least one reference where topics of formulation discuss problems of, and approaches to synthesis.



Originally Posted By: MolaKule

I know most formulators are advanced Chemists who hold at least one post-graduate degree and contrary to your misinformation, we do design new molecules, which is not a monkey job. For example, new base oils such as Ionic Liquids, OSP's, and new PAO-Ester polymers come to mind.


That's not something you can impress me with. But you can reference a paper you might had co-authored outlining a synthesis of a novel molecule that "WE" had synthesized. That will be a refreshing change to the information you post on here.



Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Please identify what research papers you consulted.
confused2.gif



Research papers that I'd consulted addressing what topic? Is that about Amsoil being a Group III?



Originally Posted By: MolaKule

You are simply displaying more of your ignorance of lubricant science. The World Market (not just the US or NA) will be using the newer LV lubricants such as the 0W8, 0W16, etc. SAE grades, which can only perform properly with Group IV and V base oils, not Hydrocracked oils. And most additives today are synthetic as well, which means they are truly 'synthesized" from specific starting materials.



And there, after much drama, you finally gave your personal answer to the original question.
 
Pretty sure Signature Series is still PAO, but the XL and OE lines are all group 3 which is just fine. I run the XL with no complaints, don't see the point in running SS because I'd never let it go more than 10k in my truck, 25k miles is just too dang long for me. I'd have to change my oil! I'd feel robbed if I let it go that long, but I enjoy changing the oil on my truck.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I gave up on the true synthetic vs faux synthetic nonsense some time ago....


The issue is paying more for an oil that is quite a bit cheaper to blend...

That being said, Amsoil still uses PAO/POE in their Signature series as Molakule stated. I would never buy their OE stuff with so many synthetics available for much less...
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I'm so sick of hearing about Amsoil, I wouldn't use it if it was free.



Seems idiotic to me for you to spend time in threads where it is clearly mentioned in the title.

i.e. the best way to avoid walmart shoppers is not to go to walmart.
 
Last edited:
Like television.

You have many choices. Just flip the channel.


Hater:
Quote:
A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's or company's success because of jealousy or other internal reason. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing an imagined flaw in that person or thing


Hate.
Quote:
expressed by a negative or super critical behavior pattern


The OP is either an Amsoil hater or he may have increased Amsoil sales by bringing up another Amsoil topic.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
MolaKule, do you really have that much skin in the game that you can't admit the basic facts? Oh, I know, it's also the peer pressure. Interesting how quickly you convert to personal characterisations in the absence of facts.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I'm so sick of hearing about Amsoil, I wouldn't use it if it was free.
Then you're missing out, it's great oil. Not the best, none of them are, but it's a top tier product. I use it because I can currently get it for cheaper than Mobil 1 or Pennzoil so why not?
 
Originally Posted By: Davison0976 #4103276
Then after being mostly away for a good number of years and finally coming back for good in one piece I bought a new car. Naturally, I had converted to Amsoil....


Originally Posted By: Davison0976 #4103538
I personally have nothing against Group III or a mix. I am currently running Castrol Edge 5w30. To me if an oil meets specs and is officially certified to meet those specs that's all I need these days.


So, which is it, Amsoil or Edge?


Originally Posted By: Davison0976
...I had converted to Amsoil. But as soon as I had done that I realized, through research, that today's Amsoil ain't the same. Now it appears to be a Group III base oil with an extra shot of detergent.


You mean you did some internet searching which we know is not biased nor written by people with an agenda? That isn't research by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted By: davison0976
... Interesting how quickly you convert to personal characterisations in the absence of facts.


It is interesting how you can only present an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one in the absence of facts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top