Amsoil new vs old SS oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
691
Location
Stewartstown PA
I think the Low Speed Pre-ignition problems have negatively or at least hindered AMSOIL Signature Series oils. Comparatively speaking they do use more detectable additives compared with other synthetic oils that have lowered calcium levels and also use combination of calcium/magnesium wear package. However-Amsoil's previous formula was absolutely loaded with Calcium like 3500 or more and still included moly and boron. I think the older formula resulted in maintaining a higher tbn throughout extended drain intervals. In several used gasoline oil analysis reports-it seems Amsoil's tbn does not hold up as well as previous formula. Virgin oil analysis also has shown a starting tbn of 9 as opposed to 12.5 on data page. Wondered if others have noted similar general observations or am I over-generalizing or not seeing this potential trend accurately.
 
Originally Posted by spiderbypass
I think the Low Speed Pre-ignition problems have negatively or at least hindered AMSOIL Signature Series oils. Comparatively speaking they do use more detectable additives compared with other synthetic oils that have lowered calcium levels and also use combination of calcium/magnesium wear package. However-Amsoil's previous formula was absolutely loaded with Calcium like 3500 or more and still included moly and boron. I think the older formula resulted in maintaining a higher tbn throughout extended drain intervals. In several used gasoline oil analysis reports-it seems Amsoil's tbn does not hold up as well as previous formula. Virgin oil analysis also has shown a starting tbn of 9 as opposed to 12.5 on data page. Wondered if others have noted similar general observations or am I over-generalizing or not seeing this potential trend accurately.


Doesn't the low calcium based formula dictate the use of another form of testing process because the new versions underlying add-pack is more complex then the older formula and gives a low TBN reading? New oils need ASTM D2896 vs old ASTM D4739 that give new oils a low TBN. What say you?
 
Originally Posted by spiderbypass
...I think the older formula resulted in maintaining a higher tbn throughout extended drain intervals. In several used gasoline oil analysis reports-it seems Amsoil's tbn does not hold up as well as previous formula.


What do you mean by "hold up" and from what VOA/UOA analysis supports your definition?

Originally Posted by spiderbypass
... Virgin oil analysis also has shown a starting tbn of 9 as opposed to 12.5 on data page. Wondered if others have noted similar general observations or am I over-generalizing or not seeing this potential trend accurately.


You are assuming that calcium, magnesium and sodium chemistries are the only chemistries available that can control TBN.
 
Originally Posted by spiderbypass
I think the Low Speed Pre-ignition problems have negatively or at least hindered AMSOIL Signature Series oils. Comparatively speaking they do use more detectable additives compared with other synthetic oils that have lowered calcium levels and also use combination of calcium/magnesium wear package. However-Amsoil's previous formula was absolutely loaded with Calcium like 3500 or more and still included moly and boron. I think the older formula resulted in maintaining a higher tbn throughout extended drain intervals. In several used gasoline oil analysis reports-it seems Amsoil's tbn does not hold up as well as previous formula. Virgin oil analysis also has shown a starting tbn of 9 as opposed to 12.5 on data page. Wondered if others have noted similar general observations or am I over-generalizing or not seeing this potential trend accurately.

It still has moly and boron. Just check out a new formula voa.
 
What determines or help TBN retention?

In general and not focusing on Amsoil, let's say your start with oil #1 with tbn of 12 and oil #2 with tbn of 9 ... If after 7000 miles and in the same engine, oil #1 has a tbn of 1 vs. oil #2 having a tbn of 3 ...then which oil is better? I would think oil #2.

Isn't retention more important than the starting number?
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
What determines or help TBN retention?


Any alkaline component, whether seen or not seen in a low cost analysis, sets the original starting point.

To answer the second part, anti-oxidants, metal inhibitors, and stable DTC compounds can reduce oxidation, metal catalysis and acid formation, respectively..

Recall that any of the "Dithio" compound contains sulfur and phosphorus atoms as do ZDDP and MoDTC. Anytime we have sulfur and phosphorus atoms breaking away from those compounds, those molecules can contribute to acid formation. The more stable the ZDDP and MoDTC compounds, the less chance there is that the sulfur and phosphorus atoms in those compounds can break away to cause acid formation.

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Isn't retention more important than the starting number?


Yes, TBN retention is very important.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by "hold up" and from what VOA/UOA analysis supports your definition
Saw this post and at glance seemed like oil did not hold up as an exemplary product like Amsoil usually does-now when looking at it again-did seem like gentleman's engine had fuel dilution going on as well.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...ra-amsoil-ss-5w30-5300-miles#Post5354529

You are assuming that calcium, magnesium and sodium chemistries are the only chemistries available that can control TBN
I appreciate your response MolaKuke and you are correct-I was totally assuming that-often look at additive package that can be seen on an oil analysis and do not consider unseen additives that constitute many qualities of the oil including tbn retention.
 
Originally Posted by metroplex
BITOG has told me Amsoil SS 5W-30 doesn't even meet Dexos 1 Gen 2 contrary to their claims.

Amsoil just claims to pass the d1G2 LSPI tests with their SS line.
They come right out and say their sulphated ash levels are too high for the d1G2 standard...and I think this is something of an advertising point for them as they seem to like to claim they have a lot of "good stuff" in their oils (some here would call them "stout" as a result). Some would argue from the other end that high SA might lead to extra deposits in DI engines. I wouldn't have a problem running 5W30 SS in my FXT, just too expensive for my tastes.
 
Dexos is a certification. Amsoil doesn't have it. They don't claim to have it. They very sneakily imply they have it by saying they exceed the requirements. Simple as that.
 
Originally Posted by JoelB
Dexos is a certification. Amsoil doesn't have it. They don't claim to have it. They very sneakily imply they have it by saying they exceed the requirements. Simple as that.



BS. There is nothing sneaky about it. They don't have the cert. They don't claim to have it. They don't imply anything. They just state the fact that their oil exceeds the requirements of the cert. Simple as that. Anyone who states that means they are implying that they have the cert is not very bright.
 
Originally Posted by Tundra73
BS. There is nothing sneaky about it. They don't have the cert. They don't claim to have it. They don't imply anything. They just state the fact that their oil exceeds the requirements of the cert. Simple as that. Anyone who states that means they are implying that they have the cert is not very bright.

No, you are the one that doesn't understand. They say to use the oil in applications that require any of the following specifications, then they include dexos 1 Gen 2 in the list. Contrary to your statement this most certainly does imply it meets the spec requirements. But then they later say it does not meet the specification because it exceeds the sulfated ash requirement for the license. The thing is that this part of the specification is integral to the dexos 1 Gen 2 licensing. They try to make it sound like it is a good thing but in fact the upper limit for sulfated ash in dexos 1 Gen 2 is there for a reason.

One might counter that those who carefully read what they say and comprehend it are the ones that are brighter than the ones who don't. Why are apologists for some brands often the ones who come on with snarky remarks like this?
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Tundra73
BS. There is nothing sneaky about it. They don't have the cert. They don't claim to have it. They don't imply anything. They just state the fact that their oil exceeds the requirements of the cert. Simple as that. Anyone who states that means they are implying that they have the cert is not very bright.

No, you are the one that doesn't understand. They say to use the oil in applications that require any of the following specifications, then they include dexos 1 Gen 2 in the list. Contrary to your statement this most certainly does imply it meets the spec requirements. But then they later say it does not meet the specification because it exceeds the sulfated ash requirement for the license. The thing is that this part of the specification is integral to the dexos 1 Gen 2 licensing. They try to make it sound like it is a good thing but in fact the upper limit for sulfated ash in dexos 1 Gen 2 is there for a reason.

One might counter that those who carefully read what they say and comprehend it are the ones that are brighter than the ones who don't. Why are apologists for some brands often the ones who come on with snarky remarks like this?


Excellent point. My apologies to JoelB. However, I am not an apologist for Amsoil. This is my first time using it with my vehicles now that my free oil changes are finished. I was giving my opinion based on what I read without throughly researching the specifics. Not a wise decision on my part.

Maybe you should use some of your intellect to consider that people often make decisions without truly thinking it through, a fault yes, but not an indication that people are brand loyal.
 
Ironically if Amsoil kept their old formula that I miss so much because I drive a 2000 Lexus-then their statement about compliance with the new Dexos1 gen 2 would be outlandish. The older Signature Series oils had a sulphated ash content of 1.4 according to oil analysis on the Oil Club Ru. Amsoil's current formula has an ash content of 1.02 according to a virgin analysis done in the Russian Oil Club.

Amsoil and Redline are "boutique" oils that provide exemplary choices for the consumer who may want a little more performance or a longer drain interval in their vehicles. I have and would use their products without hesitation-both oil companies have been around for forty years or more and are used worldwide-How else would I have data from a Russian Oil Club that has done awesome virgin oil analysis on multiple Redline and Amsoil products. Google AMSOIL oil club ru or Redline Oil club ru and it will have multiple virgin oil analysis of multiple products from both companies. Use google translator for English .
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mainia
Most Amsoil contains 2.2 Ash. They told me so.


Who at Amsoil told you that and what was the specific oil being discussed?
 
Last edited:
I was away from this forum for a very long time and I came back and one of the first threads is another argument over Amsoil meeting or exceeding licensing requirements. It might be the week of a full moon, daylight savings time, Friday the 13th, and a national emergency, but BITOG never changes. ...‚ðŸ»
 
Originally Posted by Strjock81
I was away from this forum for a very long time and I came back and one of the first threads is another argument over Amsoil meeting or exceeding licensing requirements. It might be the week of a full moon, daylight savings time, Friday the 13th, and a national emergency, but BITOG never changes. ...‚ðŸ»

Some things just don't change...........
wink.gif
 
Sure … and a side debate is always how that relates to warranty claims etc. Perhaps one could consider Amsoil after the warranty expires if they are willing to run it long as intended.

I think DI fuel dilution has caused an intersection of technology issues we need to get past soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top