So I finally jumped on the Amsoil wagon...

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner
Originally Posted by kr_bitog
Seems Amsoil Sulphated Ash in SS series still pose issue on modern DI engine, and I am tired with their marketing that keep promoting different weight oil for different properties.
Their NOACK for 0w20 is not that stellar as well


NOACK for 0-20 is 8.5. If that isnt good enough switch to the 5-20 which is 5.8. That is what I am doing.



My post was about 10w30, which has a NOACK of 4.1. 10W30 will run just fine during summer in anything you're running a 20wt in.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by kr_bitog
Seems Amsoil Sulphated Ash in SS series still pose issue on modern DI engine, and I am tired with their marketing that keep promoting different weight oil for different properties.
Their NOACK for 0w20 is not that stellar as well


If SA was a problem they would have lowered it when they changed the formulation for LSPI. SA is only a problem in GM engines because of their choice of inferior quality chains which lead to them inventing a new oil spec to correct instead of fixing the root of the problem. The reason other oil blenders/manufacturers lowered their SA content was for Dexos certification and they aren't going to have a separate oil just for GM.

 

[Garak]

That's hard to say, Stevie. I think they're might be a little more to it than that, on both sides of the SA level issue - the oil companies and the OEMs. Some of the synthetics we already saw didn't have excessive SA numbers in the first place. That would be those already with a magnesium additive package and other products that weren't aspiring to A5/B5 or long drains. I'll have to look through my old sheets, if I still have them, but I'm pretty sure, for instance, that Petro-Canada's pre-dexos1 gen. 2 oils in SM and SN didn't go insane on SA. On the other side of the issue, when it comes to manufacturers, at least some European manufacturers have expressed a preference by way of specification for lower SA lubes in their GDI engines, where possible, let alone TGDI.

Obviously, this is quite likely platform specific, not to mention driving style specific, and tune specific. Additionally, this is only one aspect of a specification, and Signature Series very well may have other mitigating benefits.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Garak
That's hard to say, Stevie. I think they're might be a little more to it than that, on both sides of the SA level issue - the oil companies and the OEMs. Some of the synthetics we already saw didn't have excessive SA numbers in the first place. That would be those already with a magnesium additive package and other products that weren't aspiring to A5/B5 or long drains. I'll have to look through my old sheets, if I still have them, but I'm pretty sure, for instance, that Petro-Canada's pre-dexos1 gen. 2 oils in SM and SN didn't go insane on SA. On the other side of the issue, when it comes to manufacturers, at least some European manufacturers have expressed a preference by way of specification for lower SA lubes in their GDI engines, where possible, let alone TGDI.

Obviously, this is quite likely platform specific, not to mention driving style specific, and tune specific. Additionally, this is only one aspect of a specification, and Signature Series very well may have other mitigating benefits.

Ok I'll agree with that.

 

[Garak]

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with SS or most SN type oils out there for GDI or TGDI except for certain problematic cases. You've pointed it out yourself here before, an oil specification is a not the proper solution to bad engineering. That's not to say that specs are bad and we should just all run ND 30, but the engines that have been reputed to be pickiest about oil (or other maintenance items) were simply problem children in the first place.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Garak
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with SS or most SN type oils out there for GDI or TGDI except for certain problematic cases. You've pointed it out yourself here before, an oil specification is a not the proper solution to bad engineering. That's not to say that specs are bad and we should just all run ND 30, but the engines that have been reputed to be pickiest about oil (or other maintenance items) were simply problem children in the first place.

I think too, too much weight is placed on UOA's when there is a whole world of things we can't see in them that really expensive reverse engineering oil analysis would show us like its organic components and true base stock composition.

So while a shelf oil might produce the same numbers as Amsoil on a UOA there could be more going on that we don't see like exceptional piston ring / piston cleanliness or seals that are being better taken care of by one of the oils over the other or how it handles excessive fuel dilution.

Heck there could even be decreased wear/tear in the spectrum the UOA can't measure in terms of wear metals. So while UOA's are one tool they aren't the whole picture.
That's my take on it and why I don't subscribe to "Oil is Oil" philosophy.

Sure both oils will get you to say 200K miles but what about beyond that where it isn't a Toyota lovechild.

 

[Garak]

Yes, that definitely makes things difficult, placing too much into UOAs. At least one can get some idea of fuel dilution one might be seeing based on DI combined with driving habits and tune.

 

[ofelas]

Welcome to the dark side, Subie. You'll be getting all kinds of incoming heat now.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted by ofelas
Welcome to the dark side, Subie. You'll be getting all kinds of incoming heat now.

I didn't say I was a lifer yet... I still have plenty of perfectly good yellow and silver (Delo XLE 10W30) bottles on my shelf.

One neat thing I did find when playing around with FreeSSM (it's basically a freeware Subaru scan tool) is that I can access both ATF and oil temps in the live data! So, I found out quickly that on a 65*F day and some heavy right footing, trans temps climbed to about 92*C (197.6* F) and oil got up to 99*C (210*F). It definitely gave me pause, as I did not expect the tranny in such a lightweight car to get quite so hot.

I'm definitely going to splice in an LPD-4454 trans cooler, and will play around when it gets cold to see if I can bypass the radiator "cooler" and just go from the trans to the LPD. Seeing the oil get so hot on a cool day will also make me consider either a large remote-mount filter or an oil cooler to 1. add capacity and 2. keep the temps under control thru a larger volume of oil & better cooling. Whoever the engineer was that came up with the Impreza exhaust manifolds should be shot; the 2 "primary" pipes from the passenger head wrap around the oil filter mount like a boa constrictor. The Forester exhaust gives way more room and does not bake the filter. If I see oil temps above 230*F this summer, the remote filter/oil cooler will definitely be on the menu.

If I go with the remote filter, I'm going to use the dead-head adapter and some premade AN braided and insulated hoses, and go to a 1-16 filter mount so I can use the Donaldson DBL7345 filter. It will give probably 80%+ of the benefit of a bypass setup for about 20% of the cost, since the DBL line is 99% at 15 microns.

 

[ofelas]

Don't fight the urge, it's OK to have two mistresses.

I find the smaller engines/transmissions with lower fluid capacities do run a bit hotter. Still, 210F is perfectly acceptable depending where the temp is taken from.

Climate, obviously, as well as load/road grade, would affect the temps. If you see cold weather for part of the year, I'd leave the liquid-liquid heat exchanger alone...does help in warming & equalizing coolant/ATF temps.

I also don't see an issue with 230F oil temps on most modern oils, but I totally get comfort zones.

Lastly - DBL7345 - excellent choice, extended drain SynTeq media. If you're changing filters at 15k miles (23k kms) or less, might I suggest the Donaldson P551017, "mid grade" merely because it's not rated for extended drains - a moot point for Severe Service and/or fuel dilution anyway.

Same 15 micron at 99% SynTeq media as the DBL, a couple bucks cheaper, and a nicer paint scheme - though, that is purely subjective on my part, as I have a color matched Donaldson SynTeq fuel filter/.water separator on the opposite side.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

So... this is a small sample size, and like I said I believe the warmer weather is a huge boon to the boxer engine, which is horribly thirsty due to poor combustion below operating temps... but:

I am two full tanks into my Amsoil adventure. Dipstick level has not moved, and I have set two successive "best" tankfuls using Fuelly; 32.5mpg and 32.9mpg, covering about 710 miles. My lifetime mpg with this car (about 3 months now) is sitting at 29.6. So between a fuel system flush with a full bottle of Redline SI-1, and and engine scrubbing for 1000 miles with Kreen, then switching the Amsoil SS 10W30 has overall improved my mileage by roughly 10% at this time.

Now before anyone flies off the rails and says 10% is impossible, I KNOW the results are skewed slightly because of a small sample size and improved driving conditions, and not solely due to the Amsoil. What will be interesting to see is how the averages pan out during this OCI. All so far is good, the engine is still as quiet as ever coming up on 154k. First nice day I still have to drain the diffs and refill with Motul Gear 300, which may be worth a tick or two more mileage as well.

Bottom line is, between my driving style, location, and maintenance (oil, filters, MaxLife ATF) I'm currently averaging 4.5mpg more over a full tankful than the car's EPA highway rating. I'm stoked!