Recent Topics
New generations of oils begin to take hold
by wemay
15 minutes 37 seconds ago
I'm Reloading Less Than I Had Planned
by billt460
26 minutes 6 seconds ago
White Marking Pen
by artbuc
Today at 04:03 AM
Thoughts on portable air tank 5 gallon for tires
by 901Memphis
Today at 03:16 AM
NEW AMAZON HD 10 FIRE TABLET BLACK FRIDAY SALE
by bmwjohn
Today at 12:57 AM
First oil change on '16 Camry.
by andyd
Yesterday at 11:42 PM
It's that time of year...
by gregk24
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Cut open: Mobil 1 M212-A used 14,237 miles
by gonefishing
Yesterday at 09:59 PM
greasing leaf springs to prevent rust?
by motor_oil_madman
Yesterday at 09:17 PM
Red Line 15W50, 6k mi OCI, 75k mi, Cadillac CTS-V
by Emperors6
Yesterday at 09:06 PM
Discount Tire Direct started Thanksgiving sales.
by dan_erickson
Yesterday at 09:00 PM
Cleaning my 50's drill press
by JHZR2
Yesterday at 08:46 PM
2011 Fusion 2.5, 17.1k mi UOA, PUP 0W20, Napa Plat
by SubieRubyRoo
Yesterday at 08:30 PM
ATF-HP, can not fnd local
by Davej98092
Yesterday at 08:29 PM
Control arm bushing washers
by PhuongFU
Yesterday at 08:27 PM
Wrong oil in engine
by WmJ
Yesterday at 08:18 PM
Anyone using RLI Bio Syn oil?
by Pajero
Yesterday at 07:49 PM
Delo and Klondike CK-4 15W40 VOA
by PiperOne
Yesterday at 07:19 PM
Digital Torque wrenches
by Ndx
Yesterday at 07:07 PM
400,000 miles of Duramax Oil samples
by PiperOne
Yesterday at 07:00 PM
Newest Members
WmJ, MJ90, Davej98092, pabloabarth, shore48
63462 Registered Users
Who's Online
43 registered (ChrisD46, bullwinkle, billt460, b1amgm47, Bandito440, 87sammy, 3 invisible), 1066 Guests and 14 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
63462 Members
66 Forums
274105 Topics
4555765 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#2467303 - 12/19/11 01:49 PM Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4813
Loc: Florida
I figured this is the appropriate forum section to post this in, if i'm wrong, mods please move to the correct section.

Posting pics of the Magazine articles and will state my opinion below.







_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.0L & 6spd - Castrol Edge 5w26 Custom Frankenblend. LOL.

(Four quarts 5w20 + One quart 5w50)

Top
#2467319 - 12/19/11 02:06 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4813
Loc: Florida
Having read the whole study, i've come to the conclusion that the test is severally flawed with many reasons...


  • two different trucks
  • two different drivers
  • too many variables in driver error to accurately calculate fuel consumption
  • test truck received a SECOND FLUSH
  • A dyno with controlled weather conditions was NOT USED


Looking at the baseline and test results, the before / after numbers of the test truck using Amsoil are so small that i'm shocked how any actual and TRUE numbers were pulled from this.

The fact that the test truck received a SECOND flush of all the fluids alone could account for the 6% difference. I feel that it could have gotten the same results with a SECOND flush of conventional lube, since the second flush would help to further remove / clean the internals, helping everything run more efficiently, resulting in improvements.

I feel that a dyno and lab controlled testing is the only way to truly spot the difference. Old engines with 750,000 miles of wear should not be used as the testing equipment. A new block that is fully broken in should be used.

It's the same with Royal Purple and their silly oil tests.
They take a car with old synthetic oil of another brand and run it on a dyno, taking HP readings. They then change the oil to RP and run another dyno which results in more power, claiming that it's their oil which is the cause.

^The same can be had by simply changing the used oil with new oil OF THE SAME BRAND!! duh

Top
#2467332 - 12/19/11 02:24 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 28456
Loc: NY
Anytime an increase in fuel economy is mentioned here be it from changing oil to adding something to the gas tank it is quickly challenged here. This is no different, Amsoil paid for the testing, then stuffed it into their own publication. I'll believe some of the members claiming fuel economy increases before I believe some article from an oil company pushing product.

BTW I agree their testing is flawed! Any oil company could have done the exact same testing then pushed their results.
_________________________
God Bless Our Troops


Top
#2467338 - 12/19/11 02:30 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: demarpaint]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4813
Loc: Florida
Agreed. I mean, we know synthetic performs better then conventional. Nothing new here.

Now if they got a 6% difference with their synthetic vs another synthetic, THAT would be interesting but in reality, the difference between the two would be 1% +/- since both are high quality lubes and would perform almost identical.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.0L & 6spd - Castrol Edge 5w26 Custom Frankenblend. LOL.

(Four quarts 5w20 + One quart 5w50)

Top
#2467350 - 12/19/11 02:40 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 30315
Loc: NJ
Amsoil .... smirk

Thank you for sharing Artem.
_________________________


Top
#2467352 - 12/19/11 02:45 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 30315
Loc: NJ
Amsoil also let some noob claim in their magazine that moly is a solid and bad for engines. Amsoil has very tacky and sketchy marketing sometimes.

_________________________


Top
#2467357 - 12/19/11 02:53 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
tommygunn Offline


Registered: 01/27/11
Posts: 3061
Loc: usa
Being a former trucker driving in a fleet of thousands of trucks, the company I used to work for would be using this stuff if it was true. Everybody would be using it and they wouldn't have to advertise it because a 6% increase in fuel is about $25 a day in savings.
_________________________
i am a [censored] who hides behind bugmenot.
i also like applying negative pressure to a certain male appendage.

Top
#2467364 - 12/19/11 02:56 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: buster]
SuperDave456 Offline


Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 2468
Loc: Dallas, Texas
It just makes me want more data points.

BTW, Everyone's marketing has questionable ethics.
Marketers over sell their wares, engineers over engineer their wares.

Unfortunately It's the world we live in.

Top
#2467367 - 12/19/11 02:59 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 6601
Loc: Michigan
Originally Posted By: Artem
Having read the whole study, i've come to the conclusion that the test is severally flawed with many reasons...


  • two different trucks
  • two different drivers
  • too many variables in driver error to accurately calculate fuel consumption
  • test truck received a SECOND FLUSH
  • A dyno with controlled weather conditions was NOT USED


Looking at the baseline and test results, the before / after numbers of the test truck using Amsoil are so small that i'm shocked how any actual and TRUE numbers were pulled from this.

The fact that the test truck received a SECOND flush of all the fluids alone could account for the 6% difference. I feel that it could have gotten the same results with a SECOND flush of conventional lube, since the second flush would help to further remove / clean the internals, helping everything run more efficiently, resulting in improvements.

I feel that a dyno and lab controlled testing is the only way to truly spot the difference. Old engines with 750,000 miles of wear should not be used as the testing equipment. A new block that is fully broken in should be used.

It's the same with Royal Purple and their silly oil tests.
They take a car with old synthetic oil of another brand and run it on a dyno, taking HP readings. They then change the oil to RP and run another dyno which results in more power, claiming that it's their oil which is the cause.

^The same can be had by simply changing the used oil with new oil OF THE SAME BRAND!! duh


How can you conclude that the test was severely flawed when they followed the standard SAE J1321 test procedure? This is the procedure defined by the SAE to test fuel economy of in-service vehicles.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#2467374 - 12/19/11 03:08 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: A_Harman]
Artem Offline


Registered: 10/30/10
Posts: 4813
Loc: Florida
Well then the testing procedure is bogus. I can achieve a 6% difference in my fuel consumption average by simply letting off the gas 200 feet sooner then test run #1 and bam! 6% difference and i didn't change a thing with the car! shrug

A vehicle should be strapped to a dyno AFTER receiving 2 or 3 oil changes of conventional lube having the engine idle for x amount of time between changes to circulate the oil and leave a good film on every part. THEN begin testing.

Same with lube #2. Do a few oil changes, running the engine x amount of time to insure the oil has plenty of time to do it's thing and leave a good film on all the internals. THEN strap the car to the dyno and begin testing.

That way it's 100% accurate and the oil inside is 100% concentration of oil #1 and it's formulation vs 100% concentration of oil #2 and it's formula.

It makes sense to me.
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.0L & 6spd - Castrol Edge 5w26 Custom Frankenblend. LOL.

(Four quarts 5w20 + One quart 5w50)

Top
#2467379 - 12/19/11 03:14 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 6601
Loc: Michigan
Then fire off a note to the SAE telling them that their procedure is flawed.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#2467384 - 12/19/11 03:17 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 28456
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Artem
Well then the testing procedure is bogus. I can achieve a 6% difference in my fuel consumption average by simply letting off the gas 200 feet sooner then test run #1 and bam! 6% difference and i didn't change a thing with the car! shrug

A vehicle should be strapped to a dyno AFTER receiving 2 or 3 oil changes of conventional lube having the engine idle for x amount of time between changes to circulate the oil and leave a good film on every part. THEN begin testing.

Same with lube #2. Do a few oil changes, running the engine x amount of time to insure the oil has plenty of time to do it's thing and leave a good film on all the internals. THEN strap the car to the dyno and begin testing.

That way it's 100% accurate and the oil inside is 100% concentration of oil #1 and it's formulation vs 100% concentration of oil #2 and it's formula.

It makes sense to me.


+1 Anyone can easily skew mpg test results just by warming up an engine longer, coasting, or changing shift points. Unless I was there to actually see the test for myself I'll never be a believer.
_________________________
God Bless Our Troops


Top
#2467391 - 12/19/11 03:28 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: A_Harman]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 28456
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Then fire off a note to the SAE telling them that their procedure is flawed.


Amsoil ran the test the SAE didn't. If the SAE published those results it would carry more weight, odds are that isn't going to happen. So we have to A$$UME Amsoil followed procedure. What are the odds of the SAE calling them out? Does anyone know? It would help me to learn more that's for sure.
_________________________
God Bless Our Troops


Top
#2467410 - 12/19/11 03:52 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: buster]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 9783
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: buster
Amsoil also let some noob claim in their magazine that moly is a solid and bad for engines. Amsoil has very tacky and sketchy marketing sometimes.


Didn't amsoil claim for years that moly wasn't good for engines but now put it in their oil. Don't get me wrong. I like the product for the price. If I had to pay retail I'm not sure if I would like it as much.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#2467433 - 12/19/11 04:18 PM Re: Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study [Re: Artem]
Pablo Offline


Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 47175
Loc: Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
Why wouldn't MPG be improved if a lower viscosity lube is used in the engine, tranny and differential?

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >