Amsoil S2K 0w-30 VOA

[1maniac]

Test was done by O.A.I. I sent in a VOA when taking a UOA just to see what the original looks like.

Iron=1
Chromium=0
Lead=0
Copper=0
Tin=0
Aluminum=0
Nickel=0
Silver=0
Silicon=4
Boron=74
Sodium=0
Magnesium=879
Calcium=2839
Barium=0
Phosphorus=1215
Zinc=1427
Moly=0
Titanium=0
Vanadium=0
Potassium=0

Fuel=N/A
Water NONE
Soot/Solids NONE
Glycol NONE

Visc100=11.26
Oxid=n/a
Nitr=n/a
TBN=11.57

 

[buster]

This oil has higher amounts of ZDDP compared to the ASL/ATM.

 

[Pablo]

Higher B, too.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Still no moly (not that it needs it) but I still predict Amsoil will use moly in at least one of it's viscosities sometime within the next year or two.

---

Do you think it needs it though? What I find funny, and I've stated this before, is that Amsoil always thinks of the wrong Moly when I questioned them about it awhile back. They have this fear that we are talking about the solid moly. As far as using it, I don't think it needs it. They might use more esters instead like Delvac 1. Redline uses a lot of everything and I'm not impressed by it. Whether they do or don't doesn't matter to me because the UOA's from Amsoil and Mobil 1 are some of the best around.

I think Jim V from Amsoil was right and that they do use a very basic additive package. If you look at other oils such as M1, RL or Schaeffers, they are using more boron, calcium, and moly. Amsoil tends to use high quality base stocks, esters and a lot of ZDDP which as far as I can see, does quite well.

[ October 11, 2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Patman]

Still no moly (not that it needs it) but I still predict Amsoil will use moly in at least one of it's viscosities sometime within the next year or two.

 

[Patman]

Honestly, I don't think Amsoil does need moly since it already shows awesome wear numbers, however it would be interesting to see them try it out, because it could very well make Amsoil an even more awesome oil. I'm sure they are tempted to give it a try, if they are reading this forum and seeing how many oils got better after adding moly (such as Mobil 1, Chevron Supreme, and lots of other conventional oils)

[ October 12, 2003, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[TooSlick]

It looks like they have increased the # of boron quite a bit - it used to be more like 30-40 ppm. Zinc and Phosphorus levels are also higher than I have seen in some recent analyses of the 5w-30 and 10w-30 formulations.

I honestly don't think you'll see Amsoil use moly any time soon. They can easily pass the GF-3, Energy Conserving requirements without it and I've had reports of excellent fuel efficiency with this 0w-30.

TooSlick

 

[buster]

Seems Amsoil is following the lead of others rathing then leading themselves anymore with chemistry formulations. Their oils are top notch, but the seem to now be following M1 by increasing Boron.

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

Buster-
AMSOIL has a good lab, and some good people, but they aren't working in a little cell by themselves.
Both Lubrizol and Ethyl work extremely closely with AMSOIL.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Buster-
AMSOIL has a good lab, and some good people, but they aren't working in a little cell by themselves.
Both Lubrizol and Ethyl work extremely closely with AMSOIL.

---

True, true true...I sometimes forget this, honestly. Thanks!

 

[Alex D]

This is my favorite Amsoil product for gasoline engines and I believe it to be better than ASL/ATM. I had ASL in my 96 Vette and it was no better than M1 there. I am still impresseed how much the TSO improved the way our Ford 4.6 SOHC ran.

 

[Patman]

Ted, how does the base oil in this product differ from ASL and ATM? It has a lot more esters in it correct?

 

[buster]

Their are somethings in the base stock blend that don't show up in VOA's and thats with all oils. This oil I was told does have more esters, but it's still mainly a PAO based oil. Ed Kellerman told me this. This oil doesn't even show as good of results as their ASL/ATM oils so I can't see why anyone would spend $8.35qt for this oil. Extremely over priced.

 

[TooSlick]

Patman,

I believe the original version of the S2000 released in 1995 had a higher ester content than the 5w-30 and 10w-30. The reason is that the Flash point of that formulation was 460F - the FP of the Series 2000, 20w-50 was 475F as recently as 1999. I suspect the current versions of these two oils use an advanced, VHVI, Polyalphaolefin that is sourced from ExxonMobil. The FP of the current 0w-30 is only 439F, so I don't think it has any more ester than the regular 5w-30 and 10w-30. However, the VI of 195 is extremely high, even for a 0w-30 synthetic. I think the VI of the basestock blend alone is probably 170-175 ....

I have noticed the 0w-30 is more shear stable than the regular Amsoil 5w-30, in fact it's as shear stable as the 10w-30. However, I can't determine if this is due to a lower polymer content or simply an even more expensive, shear stable, polymeric thickener? It is my understanding that Shell supplies the VI modifier for most of the Amsoil formulations.

One of main advantages I've seen with the Series 2000, 0w-30/20w-50 is improved fuel efficiency - even in comparison to the Amsoil 5w-30/10w-40, respectively. Wear rates are basically the same and I don't think the S2000 will last longer in large displacement, V-8 engines.

If I was looking to run drains over 12,000 miles in any V-8 engine, I'd run the Series 3000, 5w-30, period.

Ted

 

[1 BAD 03 MM]

Tooslick,

The recommendation for the S3K 5W30 in V-8's doesn't consider the use of a by-pass filter correct?

I have a BMK-13 by-pass installed on my 03 Mercury Marauder and I'm using S2K 0W30. SDF-15, BE-90. I'm hoping to do full flow every 6 months, by-pass annualy. I like the S2K for its friction modifiers, and can tell I get better milage, and HP.

This will be my first run at true extended drain intervals. I am going to take a sample at 8000 mi. on the oil. Let me know what you think.

 

[buster]

S3k just might be the best extended drain oil on the market. S2k does have it's place though in certain engines.