Interesting link I found while doing more oil research [Archive] (2024)

Billcat

7th June 2009, 22:11

http://www.ultimatesyntheticoil.com/pdf_files/g2457_Gear_Lube_White_Paper.pdf

There are some gear oils there that I thought were good but have one or two bad issues. Some are down right bad and I've noted that some used these so I thought I'd put this up.

hproberts

7th June 2009, 22:48

B Brown

8th June 2009, 07:15

cheetahdriver

8th June 2009, 07:54

not even very good propaganda at that.

lots of numbers, lots of claims and no sourcing.

Billcat

9th June 2009, 21:33

There is one thing about propaganda, is it true or false? I didn't do it to promote Amsoil. I used it because I saw some scores that were something to keep in mind and think about and look into if your really thinking. If I was using some of those real bad oils I'd be a bit happy to know about it. Why bother with people who rarely think very much I guess. You might look around for conflicting data and put that up if you did put much thought into it. Not much, only surface noise. I love to see useful data.
If your not interested post something elsewhere, you didn't have to read this one. If you use bad oil and are happy with it all the power to you. It also didn't have every gear oil there and there might be some better ones out there. It's just there for what's there so look around for more data, sheesh. Too tough to do? It was more about learning about oils than as much about scores for the most part anyway but it's good to know when a oil isn't doing that good of a job. If you keep your car a real long time it is very important to know.
Amsoil has been doing synthetics longer than any other non military company and has a wider range of synthetics for different applications. They know their stuff or they wouldn't be as large or last as long as they have.
Oh yeah, another thing. Amsoil has done this kind of advertising for many years but you didn't really think so much about how they are doing it but more to the point HOW they are doing it without being sued. Propaganda falls apart on this aspect. If the figures were in any way false they would be in court, sued and forced to remove and retract their claims.. Arco graphite is a good example of this. There are laws about this. They sure won't be around today that's for sure. One thing I also note is with a lot of oils the only thing they put out is their oil is better than competing oils but leave it at that. Lots of room there. No names because if they did they might have to say why and back it up. If they couldn't and put out data that said they did they would be sued as well. This is so obvious I wouldn't think it would have to be said but oh well. , I'll be glad to read another link that has another oil company putting out data with names and types of oils on it.

Thanks anyway HPRoberts, at least someone got something out of it or at least gave it some thought anyway. The web is full of data and all one needs is to look around.

cheetahdriver

9th June 2009, 23:41

lets do a little experiment.

on page 4 there is a table of gear oils listing oils that are compatible with various specs, and also batch numbers (more on that in a minute). i found this table particularly interesting as it shows only 4 oils meeting MT1, a milspec standard relating to yellow metal degradation.

it specifically shows Mobil 1® Synthetic 75W-90 not to meet MT1

however, Mobil says it does
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_Synthetic_Gear_Lubricant_LS_75W-90.asp

it specifically shows RP Maxgear not to meet MIL-L-2105D

however RP says it does

http://www.royalpurple.com/prod-pdfs/max-gear-ps.pdf

it specifically shows Pennzoil not to meet MT1

pennzoil says it does

http://www.pennzoil.com/documents/LongLifeExtendedWarrantyGearOils.pdf

i could go on, but it is late....

oh, the batch numbers? some of these are probably from many years ago, perhaps before MT1 existed?

Erinyes

9th June 2009, 23:41

I read the article and gave it thought. I noticed a number of problems. I'll point to one, and let it go at that.

On page 10, the article notes that filtering the lubricants for solids precipitation is not a requisite test for any manufacturer's requirements. However, it then states that Amsoil tested the lubricants by pouring a set amount through a filter and photographing the result, and that this test "simulate[d] the severe conditions inside a differential."

The article then devotes an entire page to color representations of filter patches. The patches are ordered from light yellow to dark brown colors, the clear implication being that darker-colored patches indicated that the lubricant had high levels of solids suspended in it, and had somehow "failed".

However, Redline routinely adds a red dye to its lubricants, and Valvoline adds a golden dye, and therefore Amsoil's filter patch test placed those brands in the middle of the pack. Amsoil did not mention this fact. Furthermore, all filter patch graphics show, under close examination, artifacts that indicate relatively crude software-based manipulation - both severe JPEG compression and lifting and splicing artifacts.

In other words, that test was not only completely useless, it was presented in a misleading way.

Amsoil is known for this kind of crap. So is Castrol.

B Brown

10th June 2009, 07:21

AutoEngineer

14th June 2009, 02:36

I read the article and gave it thought. I noticed a number of problems. I'll point to one, and let it go at that.

On page 10, the article notes that filtering the lubricants for solids precipitation is not a requisite test for any manufacturer's requirements. However, it then states that Amsoil tested the lubricants by pouring a set amount through a filter and photographing the result, and that this test "simulate[d] the severe conditions inside a differential."

The article then devotes an entire page to color representations of filter patches. The patches are ordered from light yellow to dark brown colors, the clear implication being that darker-colored patches indicated that the lubricant had high levels of solids suspended in it, and had somehow "failed".

However, Redline routinely adds a red dye to its lubricants, and Valvoline adds a golden dye, and therefore Amsoil's filter patch test placed those brands in the middle of the pack. Amsoil did not mention this fact. Furthermore, all filter patch graphics show, under close examination, artifacts that indicate relatively crude software-based manipulation - both severe JPEG compression and lifting and splicing artifacts.

In other words, that test was not only completely useless, it was presented in a misleading way.

Amsoil is known for this kind of crap. So is Castrol.

Oooh. Can't speak for Castrol, but the ending statements I bolded are incorrect. Forums are known for false one to three paragraph conclusions. As an engineer, I don't read it that way at all.

First of all, understand that it's a research white paper - in fact, the only one I've ever seen published on gear lube performance. These are THE most applicable standardized industry tests for gear lube performance. Please note the page 21 Appendix 1 Affidavit to ASTM, SAE and Federal Test Method Standards. Pixelation is not regarded as an issue in a pdf generated as a helpful and free online substitute for a report that anyone can purchase in full-color hardcopy.

So Billcat's points are exactly right: here you have the world's leading-performance synthetic oil manufacturer, and THE historical pioneer and innovator in synthetic lubrication, publishing actual certified test results of their performance and competitor's performance. They've advertised 25,000 mile oils since 1973, and oil sampling analysis has proven that number to be conservative. They've published certified test data like this for more than 30 years, naming actual products, and while Penzoil sued them over their original name of Amzoil in an attempt to bankrupt them, Amsoil has never once been accused by their competitors of incorrect test data, much less been sued for false advertising. Which means that the test failures of products that are claimed to pass may be indications of quality control issues rather than inaccurate test data. It also means that driveby insinuations of inaccurate Amsoil data are false and irresponsible.

To your specific example, page 10 states and graphs the results of ASTM D-2893 Method B. In context, the full paragraph you quote from says this:
"ASTM D-2893 Method B test methodology measures the oxidation-resistance characteristics of extreme-pressure lubricants. The test utilizes 41 mm x 600 mm test tubes filled with 300 ml of gear lube, heated to 121°C (250°F) and aerated at 10 liters per hour. The test is run for 312 hours (13 days). The gear lubes are then evaluated for viscosity increase and precipitation of solids. Large increases in viscosity and deposit formation indicate greater gear lube deterioration. In addition, 50 ml of each tested gear lube was filtered through an 8 micron filter patch to show discoloration. Filtering the lubricant for visual inspection is not a test requirement. The test parameters simulate the severe conditions inside a differential."

"The test parameters" refers back to the ASTM D-2893, not to the pictures. The data is the numbers, not the pictures. Amsoil clearly stated that the filtering and visual inspection is not part of the test. And that is the only place in the report where they deviate to include something other than actual standardized test results (unless you count price comparison). I consider the filtering and pictures to be a courtesy of providing a visual window to have some understanding of the starkly contrasted results which the lab actually saw, and which could have some value for people who see the oil that comes out of their diff or tranny and don't have a handy toolbox test kit for ml of Solids Precipitation with a booklet to interpret it.

What does this mean in real life? Read Appendix 3 on page 21 where it explains the L-37 Axle Rig Test. Overloaded 20%, and there are the results. What other lube mfr dares to publish their test results, and what do they look like? Contrast Amsoil's approach with Valvoline on MaxLife (http://autoengineer.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/petroleum-oil-marketing-to-gullible-consumers/).

cheetahdriver

14th June 2009, 07:17

Oooh. Can't speak for Castrol, but the ending statements I bolded are incorrect. Forums are known for false one to three paragraph conclusions. As an engineer, I don't read it that way at all.

First of all, understand that it's a research white paper - in fact, the only one I've ever seen published on gear lube performance. These are THE most applicable standardized industry tests for gear lube performance. Please note the page 21 Appendix 1 Affidavit to ASTM, SAE and Federal Test Method Standards. Pixelation is not regarded as an issue in a pdf generated as a helpful and free online substitute for a report that anyone can purchase in full-color hardcopy.

So Billcat's points are exactly right: here you have the world's leading-performance synthetic oil manufacturer, and THE historical pioneer and innovator in synthetic lubrication, publishing actual certified test results of their performance and competitor's performance. blah, blah blah[/URL].

so how long have you sold amsoil? a "research white paper" by the worlds number 25 blender, written by a BSMET, isn't worth the "paper" it is written on. if this is the only paper on gear oil performance you have ever seen, you don't get out much, do you?

Amsoil doesn't manufacture ANYTHING. they are a blender, buying most of their PAO stocks from EOM. the rest of your post also has more inaccuracies than i care to list. try peddling this somewhere else.

Tommie

14th June 2009, 09:18

And I find it amazing that a study done by Amsoil found Amsoil to be the best. I wonder how that happened. :D:D:D

Amsoil propaganda.

Erinyes

15th June 2009, 02:59

Stuff.

Spin it any way you like. The filter patch test is an old scam dating back to advert campaigns from the 1920s. For all your posturing, you don't address basic issues like how the dyes used in Redline, Valvoline, and other products affect the visual results Amsoil used, nor the graphical artifacts in the images. Simply denying that such factors are issues, or arguing that Amsoil was actually trying to "be nice" to customers isn't enough. That's an Amsoil sales job, not an answer.

Your first post, eh? :rolleyes:

Midnite

15th June 2009, 18:17

... here you have the world's leading-performance synthetic oil manufacturer, and THE historical pioneer and innovator in synthetic lubrication, ...

You might want to check your facts related to that statement.

Propoganda doesn't last very long in these forums.

AutoEngineer

15th June 2009, 19:10

Cheetahdriver, my apologies for my misstatement. I should have said “…only one I've ever seen published publically on extensive comparative gear lube performance”. Other than that, I stand by the accuracy of my comments. Perhaps you or another member who “gets out” more often could supply me with a link to another extensive gear-lube test comparison paper. I would love to read it!

Are you aways so full of disrespect and mythical statements when new members join? Hypercheetah's aside, that's a good way to “cheat a driver” out of superior protection and performance with much longer healthy vehicle life and lower repair costs. Sorry, but I’m a great engineer who hates to peddle (and is bad at it), and who much prefers to educate and help people. You’ve got a LONG history on this forum and a strong industry background that I share. Anyone who does good motion control and some aviation work is a sharp cookie, every engineer has their specialties, and I’d like to respect you as an engineer. Maybe you were having a bad day, or just need to school yourself more deeply on lubrication realities before you try to instruct other people. Why lock horns if we can be friends?

I do real discussions, not glib sales talk. Isn’t the topic the authority of ASTM test data and what that data means for Miata owners? The "blender" label is a shallow deflection (originally from the bowels of petroleum?) from the topic of tested performance (the research paper). It ignores the facts that Amsoil specifies and contracts their seed base stock and builds from there, is one of the largest producers of synthetic oils and lubricants in the world, that their founder was inducted into the Lubricants Hall of Fame by the industry, and they have been the undisputed leader in developing and introducing the first synthetic lubricants in most categories. (If you need a link let me know, but their history of firsts is not difficult to find.) If they “don’t manufacture anything”, then how do you explain why no-one else offers 25,000 mile or 35,000 mile engine oils? Who engineers and manufactures that performance? I have visited their labs and facilities, and they do manufacture and package their oils. Even the world’s top additive developers, like Lubrizol, acknowledge Amsoil’s legendary driving intensity to investigate, test & purchase the latest & highest-performance additive technologies.

It's been amazing to me how false accusations seem to fly online when Amsoil comes up (just Google "scamsoil" to get an idea), but that’s the breadth of what 25 years of anti-synthetic big-oil “marketing” can do. People with unknown agendas and thin qualifications repeat myths and diss certified ASTM/SAE data without offering any themselves, because, again, no-one else seems to publish their data - do they?

Since Exxon-Mobil is a major producer of PAO basestocks, surely they could make a better product than Amsoil, who you call a mere blender. So why does Amsoil perform so much better than Mobil 1 (http://www.ultimatesyntheticoil.com/articles/amsoil_vs_mobil1.htm) in standard ASTM/API testing? Apparently because their goals are completely different: one formulates for profits and marketing, and one for performance and value. Mobil 1 put a dedicated page on their website with the point blank question from a Mobil 1 user who wanted to see Mobil's actual ASTM data comparing Mobil 1 to Amsoil. Since Amsoil has repeatedly published direct-comparison Mobil 1 data by independent certified labs for years, Mobil 1 deserves the chance to air their own data, right? Mobil's official response was (get ready!) to spread a marketing smokescreen, not give any data, and talk about how great Mobil 1 is in comparison to petroleum oils. Now, since Mobil 1 was created in response to Amsoil's first 25,000 mile API Licensed oil, and since all those ASTM/SAE tests get run anyway, the data isn't hard to come by, is it? Yet Mobil 1 gives their loyal customer’s question... nothing but a change of topic. That, gentlemen, is consumer manipulation as crass as the 3,000 mile oil change myth, and Jiffy Lube’s additional $19M in profit for every 100 miles they can shorten their average customer drain interval. Can you feel the burn?

People can smear and label Amsoil as they wish, but that doesn’t alter performance does it? Why is Amsoil a closed secret in major OTR fleets and construction companies? Why has the entire Texas State Patrol been on a 20,000 mile Amsoil oil-change regimen for several years, loving the results, and spreading the transformation into many municipal police and emergency fleets across their state? It’s not because of a gullible Amsoil peddler, but because of proven performance and highly respected results in fleet testing and management. If you aren’t inoculated against looking, it’s not hard to find such info.

According to the owner, the Million Mile Van ran 400k miles on the same initial change of Amsoil gear lube in the differential before it failed, because he forgot to put the gear lube on his 150k maintenance schedule with the tranny fluid. Its’ replacement is going strong with over 500k miles on it. A GM engineer friend of mine was amazed that Amsoil’s gear lube held the OEM diff together for 400k miles without touching it. And if Amsoil is merely a “blender”, then how is it that the untouched OEM tranny is still going strong with nothing but Amsoil 150k synthetic fluid/filter change intervals, now well over a million miles?

Although most major oil companies are represented in the gear lube testing, they have ALL once again FAILED to grasp this glorious opportunity for a false-advertising lawsuit. Why can’t the engineers in these big oil companies figure out that Amsoil’s data is skewed? Do they need more lawyers? Maybe you should enlighten them about abberations and artifacts in the pixelation.

Isn’t data the entire point, moving past marketing claims to reality based on measured data on the bench and in fleets? Unfortunately, forums are a much better venue for manipulation than for honest discussion of complex subjects.

Isn’t your earlier statement “Lots of numbers, lots of claims, no sourcing” unreasonably ambiguous and dismissive? Six Sigma is built on measurable, accurate data. I see primarily ASTM test data in that paper, blended with clear explanation of test basics, with precious little in the way of product claims beyond stating obvious conclusions in line with the intent of the test’s design. So what are you implying? Be specific. Are you saying that the ASTM tests which the entire lubrication industry relies on can be dismissed with your 8 words, or with your later statement that the report “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”? If you honestly think that the validity of ASTM test data depends on whether the person writing the report has a BSMET or six PhDs, then either all API Licensing of lubricants is invalid and untrustworthy because it also requires and reviews ASTM test results, or your professional qualifications to be making judgmental or authoritative statements are limited to something outside ASTM lubrication test procedures and protocols. Anyone can research the worldwide authority of ASTM tests and lab and equipment certifications in greater depth if they want to better understand the quality, methodology and validity of the data.

Sorry if I’m dense, but is your statement an attempt to dissuade people from reading the research paper to see and judge the test data for themselves? Or a way to avoid questions and cut off discussion? Billcat contributes and makes thoughtful points, while you’re grasping at straws in checkboxes on a page 4 reference chart that could reflect the oil company claims at the time the report was being written, and making unsupported insinuations about fraud in the batch numbers. Erinyes magically equates old filter patch test scams with proof that these non-test-data photos trump the ASTM test data and render the whole report to be useless propaganda? Can you explain how that erases the L-37 Axle Rig test results which confirm very exemplary performance in real life, which correlates well to the bench test results? There’s no valid logic there. What is so bad about owners wanting to learn something and discuss how certified test data might affect their maintenance choices on their cars?

Isn’t this issue important to your forum members? If Amsoil is for real, then what a huge asset to your car maintenance! But there are a lot of diehard Amsoil users who think their personal research and experience and data trumps emotional mud-smearing. So if it’s a scam and propaganda, why not know for sure instead of just acting like an expert but remaining in the dark and dismissing test data for any and every reason? You can search “Amsoil scam (http://www.ultimatesyntheticoil.com/Scamsoil_Skeptics.htm)” for a primer on this, and I linked the top ranking page which I happened to piece together. In fact, you could take those past oil sample analysis reports on your car as baselines, change to one of the 25k Amsoil fluids with the 25k nanofiber filter, and then talk about the results at your normal change interval, at double your change interval, at one year… change the filter, run another 6 months and test again. If you refuse to believe the best available data, then isn’t the onus on you to produce your own data before you waft the armpit of your opinion? If it’s your car and your chosen oil lab, then who can falsify that data without your knowledge? Who is going to sneak into your garage and add extra gas to your tank to fake a fuel economy improvement?

As a longstanding member, CheetahDriver, apparently an engineer trained to some level (hopefully a Bachelors or higher), don’t you owe these forum members better? Yes, supporting widely believed myths is easy and lazy, while breaking disinformation paradigms with data takes a lot more work. But don’t you think trained engineers have some responsibility to do that? If we don’t do it, who will?

99.999% of car owners miss the fact that the API is the American Petroleum Institute whose openly stated mission is to support the interests of the petroleum companies. To say they have a huge conflict of interest when it comes to true synthetic lubricants is an understatement. American consumers have suffered through more than 25 years of self-serving petroleum-company anti-synthetic propaganda (lies stated by trusted authorities and repeated by others) and fear-mongering manipulations like “ooh, you don’t want to lose your warranty.” :eek: These planned tactics/campaigns did a stellar job of obscuring many things, including the simple fact that petroleum oil can never achieve the overall performance levels and low cost-of-use that is possible with Group IV & V synthetics with high-performance additive packages and extended drain intervals. Amsoil has survived and grown for two main reasons (my opinion): squeaky clean ethics, and a passionate pursuit of the highest possible performance which has been proven countless times.

Ever worked for an OEM, a big oil company or a petroleum oil distributor? Been to their training? Ever seen how some vendors/mfrs excel at manipulating students in their captive educational training audience to believe what they want, even showing them “inside” information that’s so fraudulent they’d never dare publish it, then lock in their student’s opinions by making them think they are now intelligent experts? People are too quick to slam Amsoil or Amsoil dealers and too slow to ask questions about other’s conflicts of interest, qualifications and training.

As an engineer in industry for over 20 yrs, and about 12 yrs in automotive including engineering management, I’ve learned to separate vendor claims from actual performance, to measure product performance in use (where it really counts), and to repeatedly set new benchmark standards in performance and quality. After hundreds of hours of personal research, about 4 years ago, I became an Amsoil dealer to help people get real information, save money, and double their remaining vehicle life. Once again I exceeded my targets and found I could triple or quadruple the remaining life of my vehicle drivetrain. I don't work for Amsoil, and never have, and have no relatives who did. I do have professional friends who are OEM engineers, and other friends who were formerly OEM engineers, and relatives who worked for OEMs. I chose to become an Amsoil dealer because there wasn't anyone here locally to help people with Amsoil literature and product information and wholesale pricing, and because I feel that people deserve to know the facts (data) and be guided to the best possible maintenance approach for their vehicle application and their goals.

Our dealer group has more OEM engineers than the rest of the Amsoil groups combined, and we grow faster than all of them. More people should wonder why do these OEM engineers research, then use Amsoil in their own vehicles and track them with oil analysis samples, and instead of switching to other brands they tend to become passionate to tell other people about Amsoil’s superiority and sometimes become Amsoil dealers. Why is that? Are OEM engineers so easy to scam by remote control while doing their own research and measuring the changes in their own vehicles?

How is it that the API can base their certification for trademark licensing on ASTM tests done by independent labs, but when Amsoil publishes the results of those tests, they are invalid? Are ASTM tests really just propaganda? Isn’t that the real question since graphical artifacts (and I have not looked at them), which could have many reasons and are clearly not data or part of the test, are just a sideline issue? Sounds like you’d rather that they didn’t publish the pictures. Big deal. Other people would want them. ASTM tests, performed to Federal Test Standards – by design, the results are the same no matter which lab does them, or who signs the report. So why all the heartburn over published ASTM test data, really?

I'm not here hawking products, I gave only one helpful in-context link to my blog, I have limited this to two links on my website even though there is far more on-topic information than that, and I spent way too much time on this. Why? To help. I just joined the forum because I stumbled across the research paper link, have always loved the little M’s, and thought there might be opportunity to help. My agenda is to help people and companies get dramatically better results for less money, because I feel a professional obligation. That's what I would want someone to do for me. :wave: Is that against the rules? If so, my apologies and I’ll leave your members to continue fending for themselves in the sea of petro marketing magic.

cheetahdriver

15th June 2009, 20:28

Cheetahdriver, my apologies for my misstatement. I should have said “…only one I've ever seen published publically on extensive comparative gear lube performance”. Other than that, I stand by the accuracy of my comments. Perhaps you or another member who “gets out” more often could supply me with a link to another extensive gear-lube test comparison paper. I would love to read it!

Are you aways so full of disrespect and mythical statements when new members join? Hypercheetah's aside, that's a good way to “cheat a driver” out of superior protection and performance with much longer healthy vehicle life and lower repair costs. Sorry, but I’m a great engineer who hates to peddle (and is bad at it), and who much prefers to educate and help people. You’ve got a LONG history on this forum and a strong industry background that I share. Anyone who does good motion control and some aviation work is a sharp cookie, every engineer has their specialties, and I’d like to respect you as an engineer. Maybe you were having a bad day, or just need to school yourself more deeply on lubrication realities before you try to instruct other people. Why lock horns if we can be friends?

oh, don't worry, we can't be friends. odd, the "Great Engineers" i have known, and there have been a few, have all had quite the sense of humility about what the world can throw at them. the best of them, a man whom i consider it both a privilege and honor to have worked with, would only only call himself competent. you flunk that test before we even get to the meat of the matter.

I do real discussions, not glib sales talk. Isn’t the topic the authority of ASTM test data and what that data means for Miata owners? The "blender" label is a shallow deflection (originally from the bowels of petroleum?) from the topic of tested performance (the research paper). It ignores the facts that Amsoil specifies and contracts their seed base stock and builds from there, is one of the largest producers of synthetic oils and lubricants in the world, that their founder was inducted into the Lubricants Hall of Fame by the industry, and they have been the undisputed leader in developing and introducing the first synthetic lubricants in most categories. (If you need a link let me know, but their history of firsts is not difficult to find.) If they “don’t manufacture anything”, then how do you explain why no-one else offers 25,000 mile or 35,000 mile engine oils? Who engineers and manufactures that performance? I have visited their labs and facilities, and they do manufacture and package their oils. Even the world’s top additive developers, like Lubrizol, acknowledge Amsoil’s legendary driving intensity to investigate, test & purchase the latest & highest-performance additive technologies.

ASTM doesn't do test data. that is a primary mistake of amsoil propaganda. they do write the protocols for testing, how well a lab follows these protocols determines if the data is any good, which is one of the reasons that GM certifies the labs for their testing. Blender is the proper term for what amsoil does. they take products produced by other companies and blend it into their particular snake oil.

It's been amazing to me how false accusations seem to fly online when Amsoil comes up (just Google "scamsoil" to get an idea), but that’s the breadth of what 25 years of anti-synthetic big-oil “marketing” can do. People with unknown agendas and thin qualifications repeat myths and diss certified ASTM/SAE data without offering any themselves, because, again, no-one else seems to publish their data - do they?

FOUR BALL WEAR TEST, nuf said.

i could go on, but i have better things to do tonight. have a nice day "great engineer". hey, at least you spelled it right, but then again, spell checkers are on everything.

Erinyes

15th June 2009, 21:04

Chas H

15th June 2009, 21:27

jimbonnie

15th June 2009, 23:22

Sorry, but I’m a great engineer...

....apparently an engineer trained to some level (hopefully a Bachelors or higher)...

But don’t you think trained engineers have some responsibility to do that? If we don’t do it, who will?

As an engineer in industry for over 20 yrs, and about 12 yrs in automotive including engineering management....

who were formerly OEM engineers

Our dealer group has more OEM engineers...

I do have professional friends who are OEM engineers, and other friends
Many years of close observation of human behavior have shown me that there's frequently an inverse relationship between the stated strength of one's education and the strenght of one's argument. Put another way, I've no recollection of any truly accomplished engineer/scientist/physist, etc. ever attempting to use their qualifications to bolster an argument or position. For one, it's unnecessary; for another, it's a dead give away that you're position is tenuous at best.

I became an Amsoil dealer....The plot thickens...

I'm not here hawking products...Of course not...

If so, my apologies and I’ll leave your members to continue fending for themselves in the sea of petro marketing magic.Oh, please great engineer, don't leave us to the mercy of those shucksters. On second thought, that's fine.

Midnite

16th June 2009, 02:59

B Brown

16th June 2009, 07:09

AutoEngineer,
I am on a Ski-Doo snowmobile forum so the Amsoil debate comes up often there as well. I've asked over there 100 times and no one ever answers, so I'll ask you as well;

I see you are an Amsoil dealer, so maybe you can answer this question - I've asked many times before and no one ever seems to tackle it - this is a serious question too and NOT a knock on ANY aftermarket oil;

Why not just use the oil Ski-Doo recommends for the sled? They design, engineer, and warranty the sled. They spec the oil for it, and sure, they profit from the sale of oil, but they also pay $$$ if their spec'ed oil fails them. While an aftermarket oil may be/probably is just as good or even better, why open up the can of worms of potential finger pointing by not using Ski-Doo brand oil?

In the past you could make the arguement of costing less, and that may hold true today as well, but the E-Tec is supposed to use so little oil (although mine isn't there yet) how much can someone really save?

Again - this is not a knock on Amsoil or any aftermarket oil, just asking a question.

So...do you care to answer?

Gord96BRG

18th June 2009, 01:05

Cheetahdriver... Are you aways so full of disrespect and mythical statements when new members join?
No, actually, he isn't. He's opinionated, but has backed up those opinions with sound logic, engineering, and facts over the years. He's open to new arguments and data, and has an open mind. He's been extremely helpful to the forum members here. He's also good at detecting a canned sales pitch... ;)

I became an Amsoil dealer
Honestly - this disclaimer should have come at the start of your very first post, and at the start of every post thereafter. It was readily apparent within the first few sentences, but someone racing to the defense of Amsoil and attacking long-standing members who are critical of Amsoil needs to be very up-front about their relationship and vested interest - you weren't, which doesn't exactly help your credibility.

How about that 4 ball test, anyway? ;)

B Brown

18th June 2009, 09:19

AutoEngineer

18th June 2009, 22:43

Many years of close observation of human behavior have shown me that there's frequently an inverse relationship between the stated strength of one's education and the strenght of one's argument. Put another way, I've no recollection of any truly accomplished engineer/scientist/physist, etc. ever attempting to use their qualifications to bolster an argument or position. For one, it's unnecessary; for another, it's a dead give away that you're position is tenuous at best.

The plot thickens...

Of course not...

Oh, please great engineer, don't leave us to the mercy of those shucksters. On second thought, that's fine.

Good point. Frequent yes, but not always. I could have waited for someone to imply I had no credentials, but since ASTM test data didn't seem to hold much weight, I thought I'd get it out of the way. Haven't you noticed too many forums that contain and accept authoritative statements which are treated with respect, yet are simply wrong and are evidently being stated by people who are not adequately qualifed - for example a great mechanic wrench-turner who has never had the training required to correctly interpret what he is seeing or do effective root-cause analysis? I have also met degreed engineers who I (and others) regard an embarrassment to the profession, and Quality Managers who were the company's biggest obstacle to long-term quality improvements.

I could have said I'm a just a "lowly engineer" instead - some cultures expect great confidence of great engineers in order to lead effectively, while others expect extreme humility, so it's really a matter of audience preference. Most often, others have suffered for my humility by accepting instead a less qualified perspective that was confidently wrong. Those are the errors that haunt me most, where true expertise was overridden at a cost of millions.

After 20 yrs, I concluded that others are correct in calling me a great engineer in my arena of specific expertise because experience has teamed me up with or put me up against industry leaders, mf'rs or international consulting experts enough times where I've accomplished and proven what they could not envision or said could not be done, that I've been forced to accept that their assessment is unfortunately somewhat accurate. I have focussed on delivered results in industry for the benefits of my employers, rather than on publishing papers for sake of professional visibility or stature. I think more engineers in my field should have the clarity, vision, expertise and accuracy that I expect and took for granted, but it is what it is.

Am I a great engineer in every specialty area or in every respect? Absolutely not. No-one is. Do I know everything in my areas of expertise? No, I'm always learning. I come back to expertise, and to data. I look at data, and when proven expertise correlates well to credible data, I've learned that's a combination that should be trusted until other facts come along.

Let's think for a moment. 35 yrs since 25,000 mile PAO-based synthetics were introduced, Mobil 1 can only squeak to 15,000 miles, you can't pump PAO's out of the ground, the ground-pumpers preached synthetic scare tactics and flat-out lies for decades (by any objective perspective), the API is the bastion and protector of petroleum financial interests and doctrines, a strong Group IV/V market shift would have substantial repercussions in crude oil refinement business metrics, Jiffy Lube still pushes the 3,000 mile oil-change fraud, and yet your implication is that consumers are getting a fair shake by considering only petro marketing. Isn’t that a rather shaky assertion?
Solomon said “everyone seems right until another comes forward to question him.” As long as no questioning of petro is permitted, their perspective is always correct and they can do no wrong. For people who can’t see the glaring problem of being steeped in decades of 100% petro assertions, I can’t offer them much help because their conclusions are established prior to discussion.

B Brown

18th June 2009, 22:52

AutoEngineer

18th June 2009, 23:40

AutoEngineer,
I am on a Ski-Doo snowmobile forum so the Amsoil debate comes up often there as well. I've asked over there 100 times and no one ever answers, so I'll ask you as well;

I see you are an Amsoil dealer, so maybe you can answer this question - I've asked many times before and no one ever seems to tackle it - this is a serious question too and NOT a knock on ANY aftermarket oil;

Why not just use the oil Ski-Doo recommends for the sled? They design, engineer, and warranty the sled. They spec the oil for it, and sure, they profit from the sale of oil, but they also pay $$$ if their spec'ed oil fails them. While an aftermarket oil may be/probably is just as good or even better, why open up the can of worms of potential finger pointing by not using Ski-Doo brand oil?

In the past you could make the arguement of costing less, and that may hold true today as well, but the E-Tec is supposed to use so little oil (although mine isn't there yet) how much can someone really save?

Again - this is not a knock on Amsoil or any aftermarket oil, just asking a question.

So...do you care to answer?

I don't think that's exactly on topic here, but some of the answer is, so sure, no problem. There are a number of reasons people hesitate to answer that, boiling down to: it isn’t easy and it takes time. A key point in your question is “if their spec’d oil fails them.” It probably won’t fail them, but what if it fails YOU?

What you’re asking goes back to understanding common OEM business assumptions and financial metrics, and the business purposes behind specifications and branded lubricants. Every OEM selects the appropriate API oil Service Grade to specify for their piece of equipment (or they determine that existing standards are not adequate, and they work with the API and SAE and ASTM to develop a new Service Grade. That Service Grade is the only warranty criteria, and any oil performing in that grade cannot possibly be a basis for warranty denial, regardless.) However, their selection of that Service Grade is not based on what will give their customers the longest service life. No, their selection is based on what will get the equipment through the warranty period and into the low end of the customer’s range of expectation (which they’re conditioned to by a number of factors), for most users under most conditions.

Secret #1 that shouldn’t be: that same thinking is a central foundational support of API Licensing: it allows petro companies to easily formulate to the lowest acceptable levels of performance for the Service Grades they are targeting. This minimizes performance, and maximizes profits.

Now, with that background let’s move to OEM branded oils. Consumers are too trusting in these formulations, which are typically formulated and sourced and marketed for profitability for both the OEM and the retailer/servicer. Multiple companies have observed that the tendency is for OEM-branded lubricants to be among the worst performing lubricants in their Service Grade. This means two things in business metrics: one, they are getting maximum profits from the lubricant, and two, they are maximizing their sale of parts and of new equipment (as the old wears out and breaks down).

Secret #2 on warranties: if the oil meets the API Service Grade that the OEM specs, then their warranty policy is identical. Dealers can claim otherwise, but they’re wrong, and there is no such thing as verbal warranty denial. If you press for the denial in writing, now the law comes into play and they must honor the warranty unless they specifically demonstrate that the failure was due to the oil selection (and of course, it NEVER is). That’s the law, and when you don’t know it as a customer, they get to play you for as much money as they can get out of you.

Why select anything different than their oil? When you research and select a product that dramatically exceeds the minimum requirements of the Service Grade, you have made a dramatically superior choice that can capture two primary benefits: extending, even multiplying the remaining life of your equipment, and lowering your overall maintenance costs. In addition, you can often pick up a number of other benefits such as engine and exhaust valve cleanliness, engine temperature, easier starting, and superior off-season rust protection.

Secret #3 on rust: internal rust is the #1 cause of wear in powersports applications, and most oil formulations offer little rust protection during off-season storage. (Contrary to common assumption, oils have no inherent rust protection, and ALMOST all oil formulations provide a ratio of surface wear protection to surface rust protection, but cannot deliver both.) Odds are that OEM oils will be very bad in that arena, which dramatically increases your engine wear when you start it up the next season. One company I know also makes a proven performing “fogging oil” which you can spray into the air intake prior to final shutdown, and into the spark-plug holes, which brings most rust formation to a halt.

So, what do you want as a consumer? If longest equipment life, best performance, and lowest repair costs are high on your priority list, then you should consider something other than the OEM oil. Ski-Doo doesn’t make their oil any more than Harley-Davidson makes theirs, but both want you to think that you really need to use their mediocre oils. Don’t base your oil decision on mere opinions or salesmanship, or on their success in conjuring your warranty fears out of the black kettle of marketing potions. Base it on test data and performance reputation – as much on data as you can get.

AutoEngineer

19th June 2009, 02:37

oh, don't worry, we can't be friends. odd, the "Great Engineers" i have known, and there have been a few, have all had quite the sense of humility about what the world can throw at them. the best of them, a man whom i consider it both a privilege and honor to have worked with, would only only call himself competent. you flunk that test before we even get to the meat of the matter.
.
JimBonnie brought this up as well, and I answered him above. In your line of thought, I limit my greatness to one specific area of expertise, and perhaps call it “noteworthy”. Sorry for not knowing your preferred method of testing credentials, but is it polite to force everyone who reads the thread to do lots of digging before they can figure out how much weight to assign my perspectives?

ASTM doesn't do test data. that is a primary mistake of amsoil propaganda. they do write the protocols for testing, how well a lab follows these protocols determines if the data is any good, which is one of the reasons that GM certifies the labs for their testing. Blender is the proper term for what amsoil does. they take products produced by other companies and blend it into their particular snake oil.
.
Seems you’re having your cake and eating it too. I don’t see where I said that ASTM conducted the testing. Which is it – are the ASTM test protocols bogus, or does the lab have to be certified to a standard other than general certification for following Federal Test Standards? It appears that you are trying to obscure and derail the discussion rather than support it.

Anti-Amsoil propaganda doesn’t put up any data, but pretends that Amsoil’s ASTM tests aren’t valid even though they’ve put many of them in big graphs right on the outside of their oil cases for years, naming specific competitive oils – without one single petro-company assertion of false advertising. I asked you before for another research paper with a series of pertinent ASTM test results on gear oils. Got one?

“Blender”. You seem to consider that a label of disqualification? You stated earlier that “Amsoil doesn't manufacture ANYTHING. they are a blender” and then mention my “inaccuracies” which you still don’t care to point out. The bared logic of your assertion seems to be that only a fully vertically integrated stand-alone petroleum company is allowed to be called a “manufacturer” of oil, and a “manufacturer” must therefore be more qualified than a lesser peon?
By most definitions, Amsoil manufactures and packages their oils, and they deliver unique performance which they have specifically designed. By your definition, apparently Ford/GM/Chrysler are not manufacturers, but mere lowly assemblers. Care to take a poll on which definition of “manufacture” is more reasonable?

Hate to point out the obvious, but every oil brand out there is “blended”. If you’re implying that it’s nothing more than a cook’s mixing bowl, that’s a huge oversimplification. Are you saying that because the cook doesn’t grow and harvest all the ingredients he can't be a world-class cook? Is drilling more noble, or perhaps refining of crude or further distilling and separating of various sub-fractions?

In complex engineered systems, I fail to see how denigrating an integrator of discrete components is a valid dismissal of expertise that produced superb results, merely on the basis that they only engineer the integration and combined performance. My successes in integration have come from selecting the best-engineered subcomponents, combining them with great knowledge of the performance criteria and component capabilities, and integrating them in a custom manner where each key strength was delivered well, and identified weaknesses were minimized and controlled, to produce maximum end effect.

That’s oversimplified, of course. But a very successful, highly optimized integration of multiple complex components and functionality is a mark of excellence when it sets new standards of benchmark performance and purchased value, is it not?

In more layman’s terms, I would definitely involve the best expertise of available suppliers in efforts to produce a high-quality finished product. However, just because I buy the best quality materials to build a house doesn't mean I will build the best quality house in town. The performance of the very best windows, A/C and plumbing is all dependent on quality of installation, and small invisible tricks of craftsmanship can make the difference between 2-year failure and 80 years of reliable performance. It takes an experienced builder and craftsman team that knows all the ins and outs of how to work with the raw materials and sub-components and assemble them into a quality house with superior craftsmanship. (For this reason, AMSOIL's formulations are very closely guarded information.)

Why is gear lube design any different? What gear lube does Lubrizol make? Is mere additive development a disqualification of expertise, or a nullification of performance? Are they incompetent propaganda scam artists merely because they don’t manufacture gear lubes or manufacture PAO’s? Does their status of business niche determine their stature, or is it their history of performance and expertise in their field?

FOUR BALL WEAR TEST, nuf said.

i could go on, but i have better things to do tonight. have a nice day "great engineer". hey, at least you spelled it right, but then again, spell checkers are on everything.
The link in the earlier post to Mobil 1 comparisons also has links to other comparative oil sampling, and some Amsoil 4-ball tests are included. I believe Amsoil publishes 4-ball wear test result specifics for every single engine oil and every single gear lube, publically accessible on their website, but there’s a lot of them. If there’s a specific one that you can’t find, I’d be happy to help. If you asked for a specific 4-ball wear test, I missed seeing it.

I have far better things to do as well, but rather than supplying valid logic and pertinent data, you’re chasing rabbits and taking unsupported pot-shots at what is – dare I say it again – the most complete and most extensive research test data I’ve seen compiled on gear lube performance. Compounding the report’s content is the fact that none of the multiple oil companies has contested or protested any of the data. Nor have they ever, though Amsoil is the king of published data. The raw fact here, should inquiring minds wish to consider it, is that in order to avoid being decimated by lawsuits, Amsoil has had to make sure that everything was accurate, and for over 3 decades not one oil company has contested the accuracy of Amsoil’s embarrassing published test data. I logically attribute this to two specific reasons:
1. The data is either accurate or understated. Everyone runs these tests, and there is much public pretense in the lubrication industry, but when the gatherings get small and "inside", there is far less question who dominates synthetic lubrication performance in publicallly sold products. (Certainly petro is capable of devising superior oils, but they don't seem willing to manufacture and sell them to the public.)
2. Petro knows that drawing any public attention to the data would not only be unsupportable legally, but would also be a huge embarrassment that could easily cost hundreds of millions in lost sales and would certainly cost some people their jobs.

The petro-company solution has been four-pronged: pretend Amsoil’s data doesn’t exist, pretend it’s fake, and don’t publish any of their own product test data so that there’s nothing self-incriminating to validate Amsoil’s numbers. The fourth prong is a can of worms that I’m not going to get into here.

I realize that most people are just regurgitating the big-petro logic they’ve been marketed into, without fully comprehending the hooks hidden in the reasonably disguised assertions that they’ve swallowed. But that’s the point. I was there, too. I bought it all. It’s not that we’re stupid, but that we, as the public, have been deceptively manipulated with a long series of exclusively one-sided marketing rationales, without any expert rebuttal available to us.

An OEM lubrication engineer has warned me that I’m probably wasting time on this forum because it has a reputation for opinions with an inability to consider and objectively discuss data. I’m beginning to see what he’s saying, but I’m also hoping he’ll be proved wrong.

If it’s available, please enlighten us with superior, published, more credentialed research test data that we can discuss in comparison. So far, we’ve been provided… oops, what did I miss after the first post?

Erinyes

19th June 2009, 03:56

Say, can we have some real data here, instead of a series of argumentative fallacies? After all, you've taken the initiative, and this is now your case to make.

What is most impressive about your posts, AutoEngineer, are the quantities and types of fallacies you employ. Here's a partial list of what you've employed in this thread:

appeals to ridicule, appeals to spite, appeals to novelty, appeals to consequences of belief, appeals to popularity, misuse of authority, begging the question, circ*mstantial ad hominem arguments, burden of proof, biased sample, red herring, questionable cause, hasty generalization, confusing cause and effect, description of false dilemma, poisoning the well, misleading vividness, and ignoring a common cause.

I'm sure there are others, but I decided to quit at that point.

Here's a list of demonstrable, responsible, repeatable data you've presented - untainted or embellished upon by an obscuring argument or fallacy:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Is there something you could give us, ArgumentativeEngineer, beyond the usual tricks-of-the-sales-trade?

cheetahdriver

19th June 2009, 09:11

Seems you’re having your cake and eating it too. I don’t see where I said that ASTM conducted the testing. Which is it – are the ASTM test protocols bogus, or does the lab have to be certified to a standard other than general certification for following Federal Test Standards? It appears that you are trying to obscure and derail the discussion rather than support it.

nope, you are the one who said

So why does Amsoil perform so much better than Mobil 1 in standard ASTM/API testing?

Erinyes magically equates old filter patch test scams with proof that these non-test-data photos trump the ASTM test data and render the whole report to be useless propaganda?

which implies the testing is done by ASTM/API. API doesn't set test protocols, they set levels of performance required for API grade certifications. but, in your world, the API is part of the conspiracy.

99.999% of car owners miss the fact that the API is the American Petroleum Institute whose openly stated mission is to support the interests of the petroleum companies. To say they have a huge conflict of interest when it comes to true synthetic lubricants is an understatement. American consumers have suffered through more than 25 years of self-serving petroleum-company anti-synthetic propaganda (lies stated by trusted authorities and repeated by others) and fear-mongering manipulations like “ooh, you don’t want to lose your warranty.” These planned tactics/campaigns did a stellar job of obscuring many things, including the simple fact that petroleum oil can never achieve the overall performance levels and low cost-of-use that is possible with Group IV & V synthetics with high-performance additive packages and extended drain intervals. Amsoil has survived and grown for two main reasons (my opinion): squeaky clean ethics, and a passionate pursuit of the highest possible performance which has been proven countless times.

however if you want to go this route, lets talk about some of the standard tests than amsoil doesn't do so well in.

ok, here we go again. from my previous post to the last amsoil shill who was haunting this forum

one of my favorite sayings is "it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness". while i suspect that you have already made up your mind, one of the reasons i do this is to try to shed some light on an highly obfuscated (quite a bit of the obfuscation by amsoil) subject for those who want to learn.

ok, tests

ASTM-D4742 (i suspect this was misspelled due to a misspelling in amsoil propganda, many websites have the same mistake)
ASTM D4742 - 02a Standard Test Method for Oxidation Stability of Gasoline Automotive Engine Oils by Thin-Film Oxygen Uptake (TFOUT)
from ASTM
This test method is used to evaluate oxidation stability of lubricating base oils with additives in the presence of chemistries similar to those found in gasoline engine service. Test results on some ASTM reference oils have been found to correlate with sequence IIID engine test results in hours for a 375 % viscosity increase.8 The test does not constitute a substitute for engine testing, which measures wear, oxidation stability, volatility, and deposit control characteristics of lubricants. Properly interpreted, the test may provide input on the oxidation stability of lubricants under simulated engine chemistry.

This test method is intended to be used as a bench screening test and quality control tool for lubricating base oil manufacturing, especially for re-refined lubricating base oils. This test method is useful for quality control of oxidation stability of re-refined oils from batch to batch.

This test method is useful for screening formulated oils prior to engine tests. Within similar additive chemistry and base oil types, the ranking of oils in this test appears to be predictive of ranking in engine tests. When oils having completely different additive chemistry or base oil type are compared, oxidation stability results may not reflect the actual engine test result.

ASTM D4683 High Temp High Shear
Basically the way the oil performs at very high temps (150C) and high shear rates (journal bearings). for a more complete explanation,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...ag=artBody;col1
Pennzoil Platinum 10-30 is 3.0 (ASTM 4683)
Shaeffers Series 7000 10-30 is 3.16 (ASTM 4683)
Shell Rotella 5-40 HT/HS isn't published but to meet CJ-4 they had to meet minimum required HT/HS for the CJ-4 rating-(ASTM D4683) High Temp High Shear All Grades, min 3.5 cP at 150 C
RedLine 10-30 is 3.8 (ASTM 4741)
Mobil1 10-30 is 3.14 (ASTM 4683)
Amsoil 10-30 ATM is 3.2 (ASTM 4683)

the whole thing about HTHS here is that the minimum for a 10w-30 is 2.9 (set by the API). so amsoil is 10% over the min, mobil is 8% over the min, RL is 31% over the min. higher is better, to a point. the shell rotella is a different class of oil, and has to be at least a 3.5. does that make shell a better oil? in this respect yes, but it is a thicker oil. a 20-50 will score even higher here..

for a different look, here are some numbers from an independent organization.
Source Savant,Institute of Materials. This testing lab compiles a book of all lubes they collect world wide for $10,000 a year. Any takers ?

Oxidation resistance D 4742
All 4 exceeded the >300 min level.

Shear stability D5275 %
ATM 7.91
GC 0.32 not a typo
M1 1.19
RL 1.3

Pump vis D4684 cP note: 0w @ -40C, 10w @ -30C
ATM 7040
GC 20900
M1 10800
RL 10063

Start vis D5293 cP
ATM3443
GC 6200
M1 4609
RL 3049

Gelation Index D5133
All 4 <6.0

Operating vis D4683
ATM3.31
GC 3.45
M1 3.12
RL 3.48

Volatility D5800/SAVLAB VOL %
ATM12.06
GC 11.28
M1 9.77
RL 6.85

TBN D 2896 mg/g
ATM 13.18
GC 10.36
M1 12.00
RL 11.56

so using the independent test lab, amsoil comes in first on cold pumping (but the mobil numbers were 10C colder because it was a 0w-40), first in start vis (although if you want lower, go to a different wt) and last in shear stability (LOOK AT CG!!) and volatility.

wear number wise, amsoil DOES NOT reflect a superior oil in actual Oil Analysis results. for the price delta, RLI BioSyn at ~10 bucks a qt is a MUCH better value, but i tend to think for most folks Mobil1, Rotella Syn, or GC are adequate for 250-300k usage. it is also interesting that amsoil didn't do so well in tests it didn't run...

also, the legendary Molakule ran some numbers on amsoil's gear oil products that indicated that the actual oil in the bottle he sampled had numbers completely different from what was published. but, lets talk about the real world for a minute. both oils are 5w30, both ran for approx 3500 miles in an 02 Miata

M1 Amsoil
Aluminum 2 3
Chromium 1 0
Iron 8 6
Copper 6 6
Lead 19 22
Tin 0 2
Moly 94 69
Nickel 0 0
Manganese 0 1
Silver 0 0
Titanium 0 0
Potassium 2 1
Boron 50 79
Silicon 13/12
Sodium 4/1
Calcium 2133/2391
Magnesium 10/11
Phosphorus 629/705
Zinc 744/881
Barium 0/0

Visc@210f 59.8/54.9
Visc@100c 10.17/8.74
Flashpoint 405/390
Fuel% <.5/<.5
Antifreeze 0/0
Water% 0/0
Insolubles .4/.3

forgive me for not formating it better, i wanted to get my hour in on the elliptical this morning. so where is the much vaunted Amsoil Advantage? Amsoil did worse on Al and Pb, slightly better on Fe. for the price premium on Amsoil, and your propaganda, i would expect it to blow M1 out of the water.

why doesn't amsoil appear on MB229.5?
why doesn't amsoil appear on the Porsche Approval list?
why doesn' amsoil appear on GM4718, or even the lesser GM6094M?
i could go on, but why bother?

i like M1 products, but i am not married to them. i use exclusively AeroShell products in my aircraft. M1 is an easy to buy and cost effective synthetic oil. so is Penzoil Platinum. GC is cost effective but not that easy to find. RotellaT is a Very good oil, and cheaper than M1. as far as 20k mile oil changes, they were the Mfg recommendation on my Cayenne, and if you look at my last OA on M1 0w20, i could have gone 30k easily with a filter change and top offs. the 3MP test showed Amsoil going out of grade on an extended use test, which M1 did NOT.

B Brown

19th June 2009, 09:53

AutoEngineer, thanks for the reply, however you should go into politics, as you've used a lot of words and basically said nothing. Much of what you say is aftermarketing advertising speak, some is accurate, some is pure BS - and none of it directly answers the question.

1. There is no mileage limit on a snowmobile warranty, only time. If better oil offered better protection, why wouldn't the OEM spec it? You did say "most users under most conditions" so I'll let that one pass.

2. You also say: "they must honor the warranty unless they specifically demonstrate that the failure was due to the oil selection (and of course, it NEVER is). You offer a 1/2 truth. Yes, it must be specifically shown to be the cause, but by saying it never is demonstrates to me you've never seen different oils react with each other. I have, and I've seen the damage it does. Oil with the consistency of jello simply will not pump, and 2 strokes oils can be very in-compatible with each other sometimes.

3. Taking the first part of that sentence; "now the law comes into play and they must honor the warranty unless they specifically demonstrate that the failure was due to the oil selection" is true, however why would anyone intentionally subject themselves to the hassle of getting lawyers involved?

And for the record, I am not an Amsoil hater. In fact I have some in my garage as we speak. I'm just asking questions no one seems to be able to answer - no matter how long of a post they reply with. Although I will give you credit, at least you tried. :D

cheetahdriver

19th June 2009, 10:25

Secret #2 on warranties: if the oil meets the API Service Grade that the OEM specs, then their warranty policy is identical. Dealers can claim otherwise, but they’re wrong, and there is no such thing as verbal warranty denial. If you press for the denial in writing, now the law comes into play and they must honor the warranty unless they specifically demonstrate that the failure was due to the oil selection (and of course, it NEVER is). That’s the law, and when you don’t know it as a customer, they get to play you for as much money as they can get out of you.

actually, that's not the way it has worked in my case. there very much is such a thing as a verbal warranty denial, i have had no other experience. it is called "there is nothing wrong with it" and then they give you your keys back. i have had 3 lemon law cases in the last 20 years. while i am not a lawyer, nor to i presume to give legal advice, i can tell you that the lemon law procedure is designed to work without lawyers (although they may be present). the upshot of it is that the auto company says there is nothing wrong with the car, or that your actions have caused the problem. the burden of proof is then on YOU, to prove that there is something wrong with it that the auto company has failed to fix past the lemon trip point. i won 2 cases (against Audi and Porsche (Porsche brought their lawyer)) and lost one (against mazda over the clutch shudder issue (i thought it was a slam dunk and didn't prep enough)). in all three cases i was required to prove that the contention against the car company was valid. while i am both a PE and a practicing Tribologist (i actually get paid for this occasionally, although it is not my primary business), i would think it impossible to prove that an oil DIDN'T cause an issue.

since most Amsoil meets no specifications (there is an API flavor for those who want to stay in warranty), you are reduced to "this oil is good because i say so".

not a very strong position, no matter how verbose you are (and i have worried my posts were too long!).

Mal

19th June 2009, 11:23

Very interesting discussion; consuming huge quantities of my time trying to follow it but seems worthwhile. Have never cared for Amsoil though, admittedly, due to things that really shouldn't be a factor. I'll post them here for what it's worth but believe me it isn't worth much.
1 My phobia of pyramid marketing.
2 The only bearing failure I have ever had was a '79 Ford Fiesta trannie in which I used Amsoil gear oil. There was a semi solid residue on internals that indicated some sort of separation.
3 The long term synthetic oil test where Amsoil's TBN plummeted early and it went so far out of viscosity that drivability was affected. http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html

The love/hate nature of Amsoil never ceases to amaze me. I am really impressed that they stick to their guns in maintaining a PAO base stock while all the major brands abandoned it in order to cut costs. If, however, it was really worth the extra money, I would think the majors, namely Exxon Mobil, V, C, P, etc would offer it as an option to compete with the RP, RL, Amzoil, etc. M1 says it's in there so they must make or purchase it. The Amsoil/others controversy reminds me a lot of the synthetic/dino controversy; heated and often illogical.

I really appreciate this thread; a little hard for me to follow at times but lots of good info/links. I must admit, however that I am probably unfairly swayed by the fact that my Grumman Driving friend has no dog in the hunt..... None the less, thanks guys.

cheetahdriver

19th June 2009, 11:56

I must admit, however that I am probably unfairly swayed by the fact that my Grumman Driving friend has no dog in the hunt..... None the less, thanks guys.

mal, i hate to disappoint you, but that is not true. i bought some additional BP stock the other day...

everyone here KNOWS how much i push Castrol, gotta keep that dividend coming.

Mal

19th June 2009, 12:10

Midnite

19th June 2009, 17:18

...An OEM lubrication engineer has warned me that I’m probably wasting time on this forum because it has a reputation for opinions with an inability to consider and objectively discuss data. I’m beginning to see what he’s saying, but I’m also hoping he’ll be proved wrong.

...

Unbelievable!

AutoEngineer, you are definitely the most verbose, self aggrandizing, person that has ever posted to these forums. The more you write the more it appears that you may even be an imposter. What would make you think that by waving around engineer credentials that would be impressive here where these forums are populated by many engineers and other professionals?

With all the verbosity, you have presented nothing, and certainly have not added to the knowledge base that already exists here.

Your attempt to argue with a tribologist on these matters is ludicrous.

You are a shill, nothing more. Try doing this on a forum dedicated to matters of lubrication and populated with more trobologists and see how far you get. You aren't achieving your agenda here.

jimbonnie

19th June 2009, 18:47

What is most impressive about your posts, AutoEngineer, are the quantities and types of fallacies you employ. Here's a partial list of what you've employed in this thread:

appeals to ridicule, appeals to spite, appeals to novelty, appeals to consequences of belief, appeals to popularity, misuse of authority, begging the question, circ*mstantial ad hominem arguments, burden of proof, biased sample, red herring, questionable cause, hasty generalization, confusing cause and effect, description of false dilemma, poisoning the well, misleading vividness, and ignoring a common cause.

I'm sure there are others, but I decided to quit at that point. Dang-it. I don't check in for a day, find Great Engineer has answered my post, and then find Erinyes has given my answer to him for me.

Well, I can at least ask this question: Given you seem unable to recognize even the most fundamental and painfully obvious flaws in the logic of your argument, and assuming we will temporarily overlook the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, which you erroneously believe carries so much weight but which indeed carries absolutely none, what possible reason could anyone have to put any credence whatsoever in your ability as an engineer or any other task that requires logical thinking?

But no hard feelings, Great Engineer. I would only suggest you become a member of the Miata Turbo Forum. Because those folks are dealing with the kind of precision high-powered machinery that requires that only the very best high tech oils be used, I'm sure they'll quickly recognize the value of your experience, credentials and candor. They are an appreciative bunch and will no doubt welcome you with open arms.

Here's where you can find them: http://www.miataturbo.net/forum/

Billcat

19th June 2009, 21:10

BillCat,
Don't take it personally. As with everything, we all need to look at information presented, filter through it, and take it for what it's worth. No one is shooting the messenger, just taking a look at the message, which is the responsible thing to do.

I don't at all take it personally unless I'm attacked without valid data showing I did something wrong so don't worry about your post bugging me, I just am glad it's getting people going. I just posted it for people to read and THINK. Get people to do what ever research on the web they feel up to and find their own data. I sure wasn't trying to sell amsoil. But I did have to defend when I got answers that weren't based on any valid research which I really really hate to start being flamed as a spreader of propaganda. I'm glad this one simple post got a lot of people to really think. I'm now glad I started it. Though I do kind of hate the Amsoil camp verses everyone else kind of stuff. I use it and recommend to friends but not so much on forums unless they ask why and then I'd give what ever numbers or how well it's served my cars over the years. I'd give other worthwhile oils a thumbs up too.
What I really hate is the oils that are really, really bad even being synthetics and I care more about the bad stuff being used than the good. I know people who got burned by the Arco Graphite oil that came out a long time back. I don't know how many know about that fiasco.
I hate to see people take that chance of getting burned. I am aware of other good oils and recommend them as well. I just want people to know more about their oils and what is done to test oils (the good old 4ball, VI index, novack test that was done in europe long before it was adopted here and is a very important baseline test for how long the oil will protect and keep it's viscosity, and others that do tell a lot) and how much can you trust your oil just off of what is written on the bottle. Good posts here by lots, great to see.
One thing I like about Amsoil and here again this is personal, they will be happy to have any customer get a oil test kit to send in and have their oil tested and find out what metals are being worn and by how much PPM of metal and contamination in the oil. This is telling a lot about the condition of your engine. They spend how ever much time on the phone or via email trying to answer any questions and don't blow it away with addvertising drivel. They really try to be good by their customers which I've never found in any other oil. BUT, I've never tried calling Redline or others but I know most don't offer oil testing and are not a real one on one company. But maybe Redline would also go to the wall for their customers. I recommend Redline as much as Amsoil. It's a pretty safe bet.
I know how mobil treats their customers and it's one reason why I don't use it but I'd recommend it as a good oil to use. I've used it, noticed areas that weren't as good at least for the car I tried it in but it was a aged car so it may not really be one to base any real data on. I just got better use out of Amsoil with it.. Mobil have good scores in many critical areas posted by the Amsoil folks. Really kind of nice of them for that. From what they post at least I'd feel secure using it. I know I know it's still being done by Amsoil and they want to show why theirs are better but they still show good oils to use. Argh, I'm defending them, sorry but there is a lot to be read between the lines here folks. I just really like to get everyone to really learn and think about all the different areas of oil's good and bad spots. The internet is pretty good for this but you really have to do a LOT of searching. I'm glad I got this much going on over a simple test score. I was trying hard to show how bad oils can really be and wanted everyone to focus more on that than buying Amsoil.

cheetahdriver

20th June 2009, 09:27

I don't at all take it personally unless I'm attacked without valid data showing I did something wrong so don't worry about your post bugging me, I just am glad it's getting people going. I just posted it for people to read and THINK. Get people to do what ever research on the web they feel up to and find their own data. I sure wasn't trying to sell amsoil. But I did have to defend when I got answers that weren't based on any valid research which I really really hate to start being flamed as a spreader of propaganda. blah, blah, blah

ok, this is just as vacuous as the crap from AE. you posted a link to a load of amsoil propaganda so we would start to THINK?????

did you think that we weren't thinking HERE

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=185349

or not thinking HERE

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=295045

or HERE

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=293866

did you even look at the "white paper" you posted??? the folks on this forum found multiple errors in the first couple of pages. were you the one that inflicted AE on us when you started getting static about amsoil propaganda?

i am very proud of the people on this forum. people here have oil discussions that, for the most part, are more rigorous than most on BITOG. the folks here have shared their factual experiences and have a common interest in both miatas and lubrication. i don't think any newbie showing up to this forum with an open mind has ever been belittled for wanting to learn about lubrication (although bringing in canned preconceptions isn't advised). there are few places where you will have multiple members looking up PDS's and OAs to show points. i have learned multiple things from the people on here, we have engineers, scientists, and gifted amateurs (amateurs often find gold professionals are too busy to). those are the kind of discussions that make people THINK.

this garbage just makes me tired.

golfmiata

20th June 2009, 09:46

[QUOTE=Erinyes;3916705]Say, can we have some real data here, instead of a series of argumentative fallacies? After all, you've taken the initiative, and this is now your case to make.

What is most impressive about your posts, AutoEngineer, are the quantities and types of fallacies you employ. Here's a partial list of what you've employed in this thread:

appeals to ridicule, appeals to spite, appeals to novelty, appeals to consequences of belief, appeals to popularity, misuse of authority, begging the question, circ*mstantial ad hominem arguments, burden of proof, biased sample, red herring, questionable cause, hasty generalization, confusing cause and effect, description of false dilemma, poisoning the well, misleading vividness, and ignoring a common cause."

Very well said- I do find it interesting that people do not usually look at all things in their life with such a critical eye. How much of the above could be applied to the 19 or so major religions in the world?

Gord96BRG

20th June 2009, 17:15

I believe Amsoil publishes 4-ball wear test result specifics for every single engine oil and every single gear lube, publically accessible on their website, but there’s a lot of them. If there’s a specific one that you can’t find, I’d be happy to help. If you asked for a specific 4-ball wear test, I missed seeing it.
AE, you needed to read between the lines of cheetahdriver's (and my) 4-ball wear test comments - the point is that the 4 ball wear test, pushed by Amsoil in much of their marketing material, is COMPLETELY irrelevant to any automotive powerplant application of motor oil. It's a completely useless test that tells NOTHING about how good a motor oil functions at lubricating and protecting an automotive engine. ANY company that pushes a 4 ball wear test for an engine oil is pushing marketing BS, not engineering excellence.

Would you care to explain how the 4 ball wear test bears ANY relation to ANY operating condition in an internal combustion engine where engine oil is used for lubrication?

Mal

20th June 2009, 17:27

Erinyes

20th June 2009, 21:29

Would you care to explain how the 4 ball wear test bears ANY relation to ANY operating condition in an internal combustion engine where engine oil is used for lubrication?

Why, in engines that use ball bearings and bearing cages for main and rod bearings, of course. Like the crankcase-exposed twin cylinder Otto engine in an 1897 Henriod Duc automobile.

Amsoil, perhaps, has the market cornered for lubricating nineteenth century four-stroke engines.

Midnite

22nd June 2009, 01:50

Tabby

22nd June 2009, 07:23

AutoEngineer

25th June 2009, 21:11

Summary to date:
1) The post began with a link to pdf of a research white paper published by Amsoil in 2007, which includes the following introduction:
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to inform consumers about the increasingly severe conditions under which differentials operate
and to provide data reflecting the quality and cost differences of popular synthetic and petroleum gear lubes. With this
information, consumers are better prepared to make informed decisions when purchasing gear lubricants.
Method
The testing by which the gear lubes were evaluated was done in accordance with American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) procedures, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J306 requirements and Federal Test Method
Standards. Other than the oxidation filter patch procedure, performance testing was conducted by an independent laboratory.
Physical-property testing (viscosity, viscosity index, pour point and foaming after oxidation) was conducted in-house.
A notarized affidavit certifying that the results are accurately reported is included in Appendix 1. Gear lube pricing was
obtained from the manufacturers or distributors, and a notarized affidavit certifying that those prices are reported as
obtained is included in Appendix 2.
Scope
The focus of this paper is on American Petroleum Institute (API) GL-5, SAE 75W-90 synthetic gear lubes. Samples of API
GL-5, SAE 80W-90 petroleum gear lubes were also included for comparative purposes. The tests were selected to measure
the properties consistent with extreme-pressure gear lubricant requirements and are intended to reveal the lubricants’
overall performance. The performance characteristics evaluated include each gear lube’s ability to:
1. Meet the required viscosity grade of an application
2. Maintain viscosity when subjected to temperature changes
3. Retain viscosity during use
4. Function in cold temperatures
5. Resist high temperatures and oxidation
6. Protect under extreme pressures
7. Protect against wear
8. Resist foaming
9. Prevent copper corrosion.
The report includes explanatory lay summaries of each standard ASTM test protocol and concludes with a signed affadavit (Appendix 1) stating that the tests "followed procedures approved by the (ASTM), (SAE) and Federal Test Method Standards... Written documention of test results are on file at AMSOIL INC."

2. "Numerous problems" are alleged with the report by forum members, but nothing is specified other than: the name "Amsoil" invalidates the report; published by a BSMET invalidates the report (the name and "ZO#" are source identifiers added to the pdf file, which have nothing to do with the original Amsoil document); not liking the pictures (which are at least twice stated in the actual report to not be part of the test protocols, and are for visual reference and are not data, and graphical pixelation artifacts could be produced in a number of different ways); the tests may not have been done legitimately (wholly unsupported, but repeatedly implied); the batch numbers must be ancient, prior to the advent of modern technology (wholly unsupported).

3. Thus armed with the above "numerous problems", all who think the content of the report should be intelligently considered have been repeatedly trampled/trashed/ridiculed.

4. Implication that there is plenty of other published test data out there, but repeated requests to produce anything related to Gear Lube testing has been met with a combination of silence and with distractions in engine oil (unrelated to the subject, changing topics).

5. No one has found any published product test data from any of the major companies whose products are specifically named in the testing, including GM, Castrol, Lucas, Mopar, Pennzoil, Red Line, Royal Purple, Torco, and Valvoline. (Primary reason: if you visit any of their product pages, you find they don't publish any significant test results.)

6. For 21 months and counting, none of the above companies has been able to figure out that Amsoil published (allegedly) false data, and their engineers and lawyers have been unable to mount even a complaint, much less a lawsuit. Historically, though Amsoil has been the king of published test results in the lubrication industry, their competitors have never challenged the validity of standardized test data which all of them perform. Disregarding this historical obstacle, some forum members nevertheless think that empty accusation is a logical invalidation of the data. Are members/readers supposed to think this is good engineering or good logic? Not very impressive.

7. Premise: it's impossible for an engineer to think Amsoil isn't a scam touted with propaganda. Conclusion: I'm not an engineer. (Also not very impressive logic.)

8. ASTM D-2783, D-3233 and D-4172 are all highly relevant gear wear tests, but forum members instead want discussion/ridicule of how a 4-ball wear test relates to engine oil. If they cannot acknowledge the value of such testing in gear lube, why wade into engine oil?

All:
The original subject was gear lube, not engine oil. We could have an engine oil discussion, but please explain how the 4-ball Weld Point, 4-ball Load Wear Index and Falex pin/V-block EP test protocols have no relevance to gears? Perhaps this request will be met with other irrelevance or accusations, such as my unanswered question about the L-37 test in Appendix 3.

Looking at the test results, it's clear that the Amsoil gear lube is not the best performing in every test protocol. In the pg 19 summary the Amsoil ranks from 1st to 4th in each of the tests, but in half of those tests it is tied with the performance of several or even most of the other gear oils. Amsoil's premise, clearly stated, is to enable consumers to make more informed decisions about gear lubes.

One of the original poster's points was that several of the gear lubes failed one or more of the tests (pg 19 summary shows test failures in red). Are members and readers really supposed to believe that's irrelevant information, based merely on the premise that you don't like AMSOIL or Amsoil dealers? Isn't a key point that if you feel a particular test is very important to your application, you might want to choose one of the better oils and avoid ones that failed that test?

danny2747

25th June 2009, 21:19

Lance Schall

25th June 2009, 23:12

cheetahdriver

26th June 2009, 07:39

while one of my problems with Amsoil is the same as lance's (and according to Consumer Reports, Amway makes good detergent, too. i don't use it either), one of my other problems is all the crap they try to put in their reports.

however, AE does bring up a valid point amongst all the drivel. we did move off of gearbox oil into engine oil. so lets take a look at gear oil for a minute. the following was the only two close to apples to apples comparison i could find on BITOG. the first is a tundra rear diff, the second is a GS430 lexus. i would figure the lexus had less harsh use. the projected number is the ppm/k of the amsoil multiplied by 24 (assumes a straight line relationship on the Fe)

M1 24kSVG 14.5k projected SVG 24

Iron554371
Chromium10
Nickel10
Aluminum11
Lead10
Copper10
Tin11
Silver 10
Titanium 10

neither oil did bad here (diffs are rough), but where is the amsoil advantage? what are you paying the additional money for, and having to listen to all the propaganda for? they both beat the averages for these applications, but the difference between them is minimal, and the M1 actually did better.

i'm pretty much done with this thread. AE can declare victory and move on, i have a limited amount of time on this earth and i have wasted more than enough of it on this even if i live to be 1000.

davel583

16th July 2009, 22:38

AutoEngineer,

I think the public has grown tired of your long speeches clouded with excessive word use.

Just tell us, john q public, where we can see a bunch of engines that failed before they ran out of oil? Any oil.