Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Like most people, I'm saying what cat converter problem? No one I know has had a converter replaced. It was a couple of years back, I read an article in Wall Street about the cost of cat converters to Detroit. Platinum was expensive and the manufacturers had gone to palladium that they were getting cheaper from the Russians. Having the market on this, The Russians started raising the price and it was costing them an extra $400 per SUV now. The new GL-4 is probably an attempt to reduce the amount of precious metal in the cat and still meet federal life expectancy. I think I read on obdiicsu.com that cat efficiency can drop 40% and still pass emissions tests.
there is no such thing on the market as Mobil ONe 5w20. Not sure why. maybe one is coming. I have found only one synthetic 5w20 for my Acura automobiles that is Amsoil which I now use. Impressive technical properties even for such thin oil as 5w20. I was using Motorcraft 5w20 semi synthetic but could not find any technical data for the $1.77 per quart stuff. The amsoil 7500 series is designed to meet warranty requirements. so will change every 7500 miles. They do not make a so called 35000 5w20 at this time since no one would have a ford or Honda (or very few) out of warranty at this time. INKY
>>>>Interesting. I use Amsoil which is supposedly higher in ZDDP and phosphorus then other oils and according to Bob is part of the reason it cannot get API certified<<<<<
a non api certified very well marketed to make you think it is 5w30 motor oil.
sorry amsoil, this is another way people think this is but yet isn't. get one of the bottles chikoo and see if you can see the api donut on there. only the xl7500 series is api certified.
Currently, there is an article on the canadiandriver.com. According to this article, it is not a bad idea to change the oil in less than 2,000 miles in the really cold Canadian winters. Synthetic oil is not mentioned, though. Or maybe I read too fast.
Yea, they say it exceeds it but as Bob noted it is not API certified. Will it void the manufacturer warranty, now that is a great issue. As to the Amsoil warranty I feel it is not worth the paper it is printed on as it has one qualifying all encompassing remark " Mechanically sound engine". Had a very long arguement recently with Amsoil jobber as some of the Toyota sludge victims were Amsoil users. His statement, only an Amsoil factory error in how the oil was produced/blended can result in a warranty claim agianst Amsoil as only an ENGINE DESIGN DEFECT can cause any other form of failure including sludge. Thus, the sludge issue to them is a engine defect and their warranty will not apply. Now, we have Toyota stating point blank that this is not an engine defect, it is a failure to change oil. Love to see this one go to court. Chicken or the egg scenario.
In theory the oil must be shown to be the cause of the engine failure in order for the auto company to not honor a warranty. You know that they will say it is because you did not change the oil or you used a non API oil. Even if you did if the engine fails and had nothing to do with the oil they should cover it but doubt they will if they actually know what you used. For all intents and purposes, other then Toytoa sludge, all engine failures occur over time and are not catastrophic in nature and appear well after wararnty.
Now, I use the non certified Amsoil 10W30 and have for 10 years and in new cars from the first oil change. Have not had a problem ( my 10 yr old Camry has 143,000 miles) and my change intervals for 5 cars range from 5000 miles to 12,000 miles to one at once a year (8-10,000 miles) .Depends on driving habits. The 12,000 mile one is still under warranty and I change the filter at 6000 miles. Over 10 years I feel very comfortable with the oil and with oil analysis as some back up in the event of a warranty claim.
However, if you do not believe the non certified oil will perform the job then do not use it and do not take the risk because I guarantee the dealer will try to weasel out of a claim if they know you used it and Amsoil simply will claim it is an engine defect and not honor their warranty either!
but when we have a world full of intelligent people, what does it take for them to figure out WHY AMSOIL does not have API certification?
1. Obviously, it is not that AMSOIL cannot / does not have the capability of manufacturing(?), maybe blending is the right word, since they have had API certification before and have it currently on XL7500. So it is not beyond their reach to make API certified oils
2. Question is why does AMSOIL not go for the API certification? what is holding them back?
Today at WalMart I saw a new Mobil1 synthetic oil labeled "New SuperSyn Formula" I had to walk off and by time I got back someone had bought it. I didn't get any other info at all. Anyone have any info???? I believe that the 10W-30 was labeled for older engines or something to that effect. I didn't see any info on Mobil's website.
The maximum allowable NOACK volatility percentage for the new SL/GF-3 passenger car motor oil specification is 15%. Most of AMSOIL motor oils are in the 5% to 8% NOACK volatility range. Studies have shown there is a correlation between NOACK volatility, oil consumption and the amount of phosphorous from motor oil that will end up in the exhaust gasses. Therefore, oils with higher levels of phosphorous but with low volatility, such as AMSOIL motor oils, present no more risk to catalytic converters than low phosphorous oils with higher NOACK volatility. This has also been demonstrated for years in actual application through state mandated exhaust gas testing on our Dealers' and customers' high mileage vehicles using AMSOIL synthetic motor oils. State inspectors are continually amazed at the low emissions levels generated by vehicles using AMSOIL products. So much for poisoning catalytic converters.
AMSOIL INC. has determined that the reduced wear and extended drain intervals achievable with phosphorous levels higher than the API limit of .10% are real benefits for the consumer, and pose no risk to catalytic converters. AMSOIL motor oils, except for the API licensed XL-7500 5W-30 and 10W-30 viscosity grades, all have greater than .10% phosphorous levels, and therefore, cannot be API licensed.
I submit that Amsoil high grade is unproven in quality. The post says that it far exceeds the API standards but doesn't back it up.
AMSOIL has not objectively demonstrated that their formulas don't harm the converters. The newer Catalytic Converters are not the same as they were 5 years ago.
Remember with the 2004 model year that the converters are going to be CHEAP. They are changing the quality of the ZDDP because there are fewer rare metals in the Catalytic converters
Why couldn't they run a Fallax Pin, the sludgetest, antiwear, or any other of the Standard tests that are run on the SL standard. Most of those are mechanical tests and don't require a certain chemical composition. Prove the stability, the reduction in wear, and the overall greatness of your oil.
Amsoil, PROVE your premium line is superior. Don't just say so.
mrdetailer, you are right on. If the X3 price of this product is justified by the tests you mention, then lets see the proof, not just anecdotal evidence and testimonials from those who are here to hype the product. It could be the greatest lube product out there, but I would like to see the head to head test results against the other $ynthetic heavyweights, and not just some vague reference to 'other brands' For the huge dollar cost per quart, lets see once and for all, if its'really worth it. And please, Amsoil spare us the, 'we can't afford to do the test.'
To discuss Amsoil vs Mobil 1, vs RedLine. It comes down to what works for you but more importantly what you think works for you. As to the non API Amsoil, yep, my analysis shows it does have higher ZDDP or whatever. As to the cats, well, I am also using it on a 2000 model Buick. I have yet to replace a cat converter or had emission problems in the past 10 years on any car.
Yes, all anecdotal hearsay from a poster. Facts are, there are not independent tests by any oil company or consumer group in past 5 years. There will not be. Not worth discussing.
Now, issue is with the new API standards proposed for the future it apears that engine durability is second behind emissions and mileage. We have several non API oils now, Valvoline MAxLife for the older engines, RedLine, Amsoil. It seems to me we will need to make a decision in the future, after the warranty is up do you want durability then you will have to go with a non API oil as the ones that will get certified will not maintain your car as well. Remember who funds API, the oil and auto manufacturers, they have a vested interest in selling more product so less durability via a lesser additive package is in their best interest and the manufactureres then mandate you use an API oil for warranty.
armtdm says.... "Facts are, there are not independent tests by any oil company or consumer group in past 5 years. There will not be. Not worth discussing."
Pardon me, I think it is 'worth discussing' that's why we are all here. If none of these Synthetic Oil Marketers have independent comparison tests to back up the outrageous prices for this lube, then we are all getting lead down the garden path. And I think you are also wrong when you flatly state that "there will not be" If enough people start asking to see some hard data on these expensive lubes, or stop buying them, the Syn-Oil Marketers will soon come up with a comparison test against the other expensive brands. Or do you know something that you are not including in that statement, Like there are already Fallix Pin, Antiwear and other mechanical tests done, and the results over the competitive lubes, doesn't justify the price?
Well I saw this formula again today. The 5w-30 said it was for newer engines, the 10w-30 was for older engines and the 15w-50 was for high performance engines. It was ILSAC GF-3 and API SL rated and listed as meeting European ACEA requirements but I don't remember the numbers. There was no mention of "Tri-Synthetic" anywhere. only "synthetic fluids". The person stocking the shelves believed that this was replaceing the Trisynthetic formula. I looked throug Mobil's product data sheets but found no mention of the SuperSyn formula. I did notice that the Trisynthetic formula is now listed under the Semi-Synthetic Automotive Engine Oil group. see...
Strange that it says "The Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic Series motor oils are manufactured from 100% synthetic base stocks" but is listed under semi-synthetic. Has Mobil joined the dark side of synthetics?It also lists the Trisynthetic blend as API SL rated but only ILSAC GF-2 even though I had bought some MObil1 10-w30 SL oil that stated it was GF-3. I have been a long time satisfied user of Mobil1 but I'm becoming wary. Chevron Supreme is looking better all the time. Anyone have any insights into what's going on at Mobil?????
As I have long suspected, Mobil's Tri-Synthetic is not really a synthetic oil like the old Mobil 1. It came out after Mobil lost the law suit against Castrol in the definition of synthetic.
The following remarks are from Bob's oil page and with the proposed new standards for oil in the future I think that both auto manufacturers and oil companies are moving away from durability/protection to mileage and emissions. As such, logevity will suffer an API certified oils cannot provide the protection you need as they will not be able to contain the additives to protect the engines. . The non API oils will have the higher additive packages and (perhaps after the warranty is up) that will be the way to go.
Anyway, the remarks are: "After the base oil has sheared or squeezed out, The last line of defense is an additive that puts down a barrier film. This additive usually has higher levels of strength against shearing so it helps keep the wear down. Alright, here's the catch. In 96, the lubrication industry changed from the SH to SJ API rated oil by reducing the barrier lubricant additives to help preserve cat converters on cars. Why?, It appears that the manufactures / lubrication experts are concerned with contaminating the cat converters with the standard antiwear additives in the motor oils so they have reduced the levels of antiwear additives to preserve the cats. Hmmm, guess what, When they introduced the new SL GF-3 oils, They left it the same. Ok, not out of the woods yet... Now the new GF-4 oils are in the works in hopes to be introduced next year around April. Have a guess one of the things they are going to do?, YEP, reduce the antiwear additives again. The interesting thing to note is that more and more oil companies are coming out with higher mileage motor oils with higher levels of the antiwear additives. Catch is, they are not API certified there fore can void engine warr's. Remember all those additive companies selling their miracle oil ? For some of them, they were doing nothing more than adding a barrier additive to your existing oil. Problem there, too much of a good thing can cause it to overload the blend that the oil company started with, so a lot of times the detergents in the oil are not able to do their job and fight acids produced by the engine, there fore the oil will oxidize faster and start the process of breakdown and extended oil drains are out of the question. not to mention engine warranty issues again. Guess what a good race oil has... higher levels of antiwear and less detergents. Since they don't run race oils over the road, their not worried about oil drains. They change it constantly. "
Ideally I would love to see multiple oils tested for a 5-10 year period (thousands of cold starts etc.) using day to day drivers and see how the engine specs hold up after teardown and 100,000 miles. This will never happen though as no one can afford to take that much time to perform any type of test not to mention the cost of funding an independent lab to do it. That is why I stated that this is not worth discussing, no oil company will ever fund it, too long and costly. Consumer Reports, same thing, just not practical. Sure, the 50,000 mile test around the track or taxi cabs stuff but real life, just isn't being done.
ExxonMobil's passenger vehicle lubricants unit is launching a $10 million campaign to support its new high-tech synthetic motor oil, Mobil 1 with SuperSyn. The product ships this week.
Personally, I can live without an outdated 5 to 10 year test on a specific synthetic oil. The original specs' in the product would be obsolete by then anyway. What we are saying here is, there are several industry standard tests that could be run off in 24 hours for comparison if they really wanted to. And don't tell me that the makers of all these $lippery $ynthetic $olutions are not constantly running these tests themselves. The companies have hundreds of secret engineer reports covering all aspects of their products performance. So, if they are afraid of using these standard test results for marketing, and in the absence of any credible comparisons of the major Syn-Brands for durability, then the stuff is simply more 'hype and image marketing, than anything else. As' lubeapache' has just stated, an incredible, $10,000,000 for an ad' campaign kick off for yet another new Syn-mystery-oil! I hope they have the guts to publish the "independent Lab Tests" comparing their new lubes performance with the rest of the Syn-Oil- Marketeers. If they don't, then you know it's probably no better than anything else you could pick up at Pepboys.
Can't access the information here. I knew a change was in the works but the guy at Mobil Labs wouldn't give me the information. Now that I am not working my political capital has gone down. I recently joined the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers to develop some new contacts. Hoping that works. I still have full confidence in Mobil 1 because they regularly publish in the SAE and the results of their oil tests are available (see the SAE site) I believe they have the resources and desire to maintain their reputation for the best commercial oil available. The constant merging of companies for the time being allows the money for that effort. And don'ty forget there is competition world wide. I'm expecting an SAE article very shortly on the "New Generation" Mobil 1. If it doesn't pan out-I still think the next best alternative could be Amsoil. Really hard to tell as they are also into the "shell game" approach. Bottom line-don't bail on Mobil---- yet.
Apparently a new generation of PAO's with an unbelievably high Viscosity Index VI. I suspect that the SL has that ingredient in it already, but not really sure. I think its possible that the new Mobil may be a real improvement over the "old Mobil 1". I certainly will not buy the "old Mobil 1" until I get more information.
on my little test i have shown on my new web page http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm , mobil will shear as easily as any other oil. barrier protectant is minimal.
amsoil, will plate up and can reduce the wear more than mobil can. but... it too with a little more pressure will shear out as well and produce the same results as mobil. I suspect that's why they like the 4ball test to demonstrate this feature on the oil(although there is no balls in an engine).
redline, another story.. it will plate up, the bearing will continue to spend, and just about no amount of pressure will tear it and allow you to stop the bearing from rotating.
kendals nitro 70, reacts the same as redline.
now mind you, both redline and kendals nitro oil are both hi rev racing oils, so alot of time you'll find thier tbn won't be as good as standard motor oils.
I hope I have given you more of an in sight on how the base oil film strength and wear don't really correlate in engines but the barrier additives have more to do with engine wear protection. I see too many people thinking, synth=less wear just because of the word synth.
Having been using this method of testing has really showed me some interesting result where engine wear is concerned. You don't actually see test results on wear protection but all the tests that are available are to do with how well the oil won't break down. Its like most people are more concerned on how long can I run this oil so lets test these oils for oxidation,vi,acid resistance and so forth but you really don't see much on actual wear protection in most if any tech data sheets. I see so many of you wanting to know how much is pao and not when here we have an improved SL grade oil that has closed the mineral to synth gap to a point that is now becoming a mute point to even compare base oils.
Myself, I worry more on how my engine is going to wear instead of how my oil is going to wear. Of course you have to be aware of other aspects on oil but lets face it.. the underlying point is engine wear right? This is why I deceided to assemble this page so to help you see that what is really important is engine wear not so much oil wear. What good is haveing an oil that don't break down if it has no protection against wear? I really think I have a strong argument on quality of base oil vs quality of engine wear. Once I discovered this, It made my dicsion as to what oil I was going to use a lot easier.
Even though you don't have a machine like this, oil analysis can provide you with the same information. all you have to do is look at wear numbers to see as which oil you have chosen to evailuate provides better protection.
OH, BTW, a part I didn't inject into my page is that supposidly they are going to use other wear additives that are not the norm but are suppose to do as good of a job in protection. I'll know if there is something in there that will by doing this shear test.
Why do I like this test? If I cannot stop that bearing from spinning with just oil, then I feel 99 percent sure that it's going to do the same in my engine for reducing wear and friction.
Amsoil xl line was designed to be marketed to the quick lube stores,this may have something to with why the api rating,having used Amsoil and been a dealer for 20 yrs some of the things I've observed are,when the posters compare mobil one to amsoil,they forget that amsoil has about 10 or more different oils that could be used in any given car.Also for whatever the reasons Amsoil is still a MLM company,this is the main reason the cost is so high.I remember when Petrolon owned the rights to slick 50,the cost was 30 bucks a treatment,when they sold out it went to 10 dollars.I wish Amsoil would do this,I would save more money getting cheaper amsoil than dealer commissions
why not just use mobil instead of amsoil? the api rated amsoil will not do any better than mobil in this case. it's the non api amsoil that provides better protection so there is no real benifet over mobil when using api to api oil except you'll save with mobil. Well, I'm sorry, guess I should say that in the way of engine protection there is no real benifet. Now as far as cold weather pumping, amsoil can't be touched! awsome stuff, will pump no matter where you are. But Mobil does have better operating visc numbers than amsoil once the oil has warmed up.
Again, this is all base oil qualities , not much to do with actual wear protection numbers.
>>>And don't tell me that the makers of all these $lippery $ynthetic $olutions are not constantly running these tests themselves<<<<
I believed in this myself.... till I joined a development team of one of the two world's largest bearing manufacturer....no names for obvious reasons....
design was done based on empirical formulas established over time and chenge in design was made based upon customer feedback. Never carried out testing the bearings over extended periods of time to check life and/or wear properties.....except for designing special bearings for BIG customers...and at that time it was a joint effort...
I was shocked!! could it be the same with these big oil companies?
But the results of extended sequence testing (API) and results of wear at 200K miles with extended drain intervals of 15K miles are not published in any recognized scientific source as is Mobil (SAE). That means more to me than single isolated tests of. So if all engine parts can easily meet service specs after 200K-that, to me is the final measure of a of a successfully applied product application. As I said previously: if independently conducted tests can improve on this I will be the first in line to switch. And really, I dont have any vested interests in Mobil1, Shaeffers, Redline, Amsoil or other product. I really just want the best for my car. I think most of us on this board are in the same boat. As Bill O'Reilly of Fox News says: "Tell me where why I'm wrong??"
BTW, I am not saying any information that we see here is without merrit. The more information the better..
"I see too many people thinking, synth=less wear just because of the word synth."---My observations over lots of years in industry (maintenance supervisor/engineer) does suggest that in normal applications where "full film" lubrication exsists in reasonable environments this is a true statement. But once we stray from this model-synthetics offer protection well beyond conventional oils. I have for instance seen results of bearing wear in coal mills where 12" heavily loaded ball bearings lasted many times more than with conventional oils of the exact same additive package. That one observation convinced me more thany other piece of information I've ever seen in my working career to switch to syn for my vehicles. I really think that those of use who pay the extra money for a syn oil are really interested in this margin of protection even with extended drain intervals. If this is not your primary reason for doing so - you are wasting money with syns.
I will be investigating the new "SuperSyn" and the term "semi-synthetic" on Mobil's Product data sheets. I suspect that the fact that they use a "carrier" oil for the additives dictates that they use this term. (unlike some sleazy companies). Since they are the primary marketer of Esters and PAO's for industrial applications- they need to differentiate the true nature of their products. So this term really does not disturb me right now.
So, based upon the test you performed where the Redline was the only one not to shear out is that becasue it is the only of the three, in your opinion, to use moly in the formula?
I always found the Amsoil marketing interesting. They obviously test their product against the competition but what bothers me is that they, like all companies I guess, only publish the ones where their product exceeds the competetion( well, in the minds of their own test lab anyway) . I asked one of their chemists once, how come for a specific test (like the 4 ball) you have 4 competitors listed and then you show another test and either the weights are different or the competitors are different. How come you don't show all tests for all competitors as I am sure no oil can come in first in all categories. Answer, not enough space, true answer is they cannot come in first in all tests so they publish the ones they feel they can place first in.
The point is not about how good Mobil's new SuperSyn oil is.
The point is that Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic was NOT and is NOT a synthetic oil by traditional definitions. And Mobil has recognized that and put it under Semi-synthetic. Also the short-lived Mobil 1 Tri-Syntheitc SL oil lived only about a month. On this forum and many others, people have posted the link at Mobil's Website. Try it now. Mobil has removed it.
Let's see. The Mobil 1 before the Tr-Synthetic was 100% PAO based. Mobil came out with Tri-Synthetic (not 100% PAO based) by saying that by using other basestocks, the performance is better.
Now they came out with SuperSyn (again 100% PAO based, or is it or do we believe them as all it says is "with SuperSyn". If they put in 1% SuperSyn, is it "with SuperSyn"?) by saying it is better than Tri-Synthetic. What kind of talk is this?
what the difference was in those tests you keep talking about in the mills.
one thing you stated it they both had the same additive package.. As you and i both know, in the engine oil world, non of these minerals vs synths are going to have the same additive package, therefor you must realize that instead of just base oil you should be looking at the additive package with and eagle eye when looking for wear protection.
Ok, why did the synth's do better in your applications, heat... obviously, heat was destroying the vi's and base stock in a standard mineral oil and wouldn't hold the vi index very well thus providing better a more consistant film over the course of testing and normal operations. so if the minerals visc index was dropping off, there would be no comparision that the synth's would have provided better coverage and protection over the standard mineral oil.
but, now with the new refining processes of oils, the gap between the two are closing and there is less margin for a mineral to close in comparisions of base oils.
as for independant tests, I suspect you'll be in your grave before you will see any. Remember the old saying, if you want it done, or done right, do it yourself? well, maybe it doesn't have nothing to do with your neighbor or buddy down the street but do your own comparisions and see just how it works for you. Thats how I came to chose the one I use is evaluating different oils and wear properties. Wear issues are my main concern, oil base stock is my second. I have seen a pile of great base stock oils but would not run them in your car let alone mine due to the simple fact it would and does shear out thus relying on the barrier additives which proved to me were not enough to protect from wear when the film was sheared.
I think I make my case about film strength of oil shearing on this page, especially in light of being told that gears cannot cause sludge but pcv's can.
Had carrier oil (just like Tri-Syn). Sorry, Mobil 1 was never100% PAO. It always had an Ester to compensate for seal shrinkage. Its still called on container "Fully Synthetic". Just like before.
"pins and Vee Block testing machine were immeressed in samples of the following oils.. Pennzoil 5-30 Havoline 10-30 Quaker State 10-30 Castrol GTX 5-30 and Mobile 1 5-30 The oil baths were heated to 220 F for 3 hours after which the parts were removed and allowed to drain overnight. The next day the parts were tested for 2 min. in the Falex Machine without application of any other lubricant. The friction was calculated from the torque readings during the test. The wear reduction was calculated from the weight loss recorded after the test." This info came in a package from' LubeGard', and pictures the above mentioned oils after the worn steel pins were removed and weighed. This test measured the sliding friction and wear of a round metal cylinder on flat metal block surfaces..typical friction conditions that your crankshaft, connecting rod bearings, rings, push rods, valve guides and lifters would experience on start up. Of course, the test includes pictures and data also showing the results after the LubeGard product was added to all the oil, but for the purposes of comparing some of the current crop of Major Motor Oils and Mobile 1 Synthetic, it is a very interesting example of the dramatic results that can be seen with this simple test. Too bad, "you'll be in your grave before you see it happen" (comparing all the high priced, synthetic Lubes)
was spanked by the FTC for mis representation of product as were other "snake oils". Remember the Dura-Lube commercial where a couple of Bimbos drove down the Cali Coast with no oil-it never happened. I believe consumer reports did tests on these products. I'll try to find.
i think if you were to get your hands on one of these machines adc, and took time to work with the different oils at your place with no other influence to sway how you are controlling it or handling the tests, I'm sure you would find that even though the tests you perform is not scientific but very realistic and find out for your self just how oil is actually working when it comes to shearing film strength and barrier lubrication priciples.
I have had the opertunity to do such tests and have learned a great deal how hydro dynamic priciples hold up vs barrier lubrication. All of my tests with the falex are all done with the same type of lubricants. If I test a motor oil, then all the other tests i do use like motor oils. I don't believe in adding additives to motor oils, but I do believe this is a great way to see how the shearing effects are different from one oil to another. No it's not scientific nor will i publish a paper but I have seen it before I hit the grave(;).
I try to do all my testing in a consistant manner since i'm not trying to sell or convince anyone of what I find except for my own information. So what I'm saying is I'm not going to "fool" myself with this test.
As an electronic component level tech, I have worked with engineers on control circuits that they designed and found myself having to re engineer because they failed to see how thier circuit would work with existing systems.
So, quite frankly adc, I have seen (like these toyota engineers) how much in a cube they work in and fail to see real world applications when it comes to gas engines, there fore they produce great theories but miss some of the most simplistic things that have a tremendous effect on thier theory like the basic mechanics of "for every action there is an equal reaction" such as oil moving out when two surfaces move in. This also holds true to the barrier lubrication properties. The more the sufaces close together, the more something has to move out. That is why you cannot run an engine with out oil, when two surfaces meet, friction will shear the metal surfaces thus causing wear.
Mos2 is a chemical that bonds to the metal surfaces and has a great affinity to metal but even it can be sheared out and rest asured it has a higher "film" strength than any synth base oil. approx. 500000psi. so affinity or no affinity to metal, oil cannot overcome the pressures of a squeezing surface especially since this is an open oil system and not like a hyd system that would hold the surfaces apart.
I hope other readers of my post on the Falex Pin and V block test, don't think it was a promotion of LubeGard. It wasn't, and if you read it closely you will see that I mention it because, it shows 5 oils in the test, in 2 different stages...without the additive, right out of the bottle, and of course, the 2nd test, with the LubeGard, after all, it is their test. What I would like others to see is the results of the Falex Pin test test on the untreated oil, without the additive. Such a test could easily be done on Amsoil, Redline, Mobile 1 and the rest of $yn-Oils out there. (at least you can finally see the results on this one synthetic in the LubeGard info, without having to" wait until you are in the grave") And give us a break, don't mention Lubegard in the same sentence with the Dura Lube Bimbos, to make your point, what ever that was.
"Dura Lube will pay $2 million in consumer redress to be distributed by the FTC. The FTC has previously halted allegedly deceptive ads for Prolong Engine Treatment, Valvoline Engine Treatment, Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP Engine Treatment".
From your 'link'.. on nasty snakeoil salesmen, couldn't find any mention of 'LubeGard' If you have something please post it.
You're right. I mis-read your post. My eyes saw Dura-Lube when you wrote LubeGuard. So after I saw "DuraLube-I wrote the post off as being-a waste. I saw once on the DuraLube Info-mercial where they compared their product to other oils-and that's where I was coming from. Sorry.
On a related subject-I do use LubeGuard. I was planning to add it to my newest car in the future. Since it only has 16K miles on it-I was going to wait. I'll probably go out today and get it and check the enclosed literature that you mentioned. I don't recall seeng that in the last container I bought.
About 20 years ago I made a similar device that the DuraLube commercial showed. I really don't remember the results exactly- but I was disappointed that my results were inconsistent. I compared some snake oils to Mobil1 and conventional oils and found that the more "viscous" products yielded less friction. But again - the results were inconsistant enough that I dropped the project. Perhaps I'll revive it with better equipment.
It still, however is my belief that the friction test and the 4 ball is not really the whole story when it comes to vehicle lubrication. I have to rely on the product development engineers to balance all the variables and come up with a product that will allow my vehicle to operate reliably over a long period of time with minimal maintenance-including extended oil changes. Its again too bad that we really don't have the entire picture on which product is best at performing that task.
I applaud you for making the effort in trying to unravel that great mystery.
I use this machine to do exactly that, to compare apples to apples and find some interesting results.
The interesting point is, without additives, there is very few oils that actually has the friction / barrier lube properties already designed in the oil and requires NO additional additives to be added.
This being nothing more than a pure basic mechanical representation of a piston and crank senerio, it helps demonstrate what is happening in the engine and how the oil reacts.
I really try to "prove" my theories and felt that the pictures of the upper and lower bearings on the piston tell the story very clearly as to how the oil shears even in a basic engine.
You among a lot of others must feel that regular oil is not enough because you add an additive to your existing oil. That is why I had gone to schaeffers oil because it is one of the ones that is api certified AND has the barrier lube properties to resist metal to metal contact without adding additional additives.
As you pointed out, It only demonstrated only one aspect of the oil(wear protection) and true, there is more. But now the other aspects are all how well is the oil going to stand up to normal and severe use. To establish how an oil will stand up, oil analysis helps you see under your own driving conditions how the oil its self hold up. Now, you have a complete overlook as to how the oil lasts under use as well as how well it stands up to shearing and wear protection.
All that has been hammered on in this thread are all issues on how the oil stands up and longivity of the base oil synth vs mineral and so forth and people think that just because its synth that it protects better. Let me state that yes, synth's have some benifets, less now with the new SL, but non the less, but having used this machine to experiment with synth's and minerals, I have learned that ALL oils film will part like the red sea and that you can shear through them.
Aside from Schaeffers being able to withstand the shearing, Redline to has the ability to do that. Now between those two, I have seen through oil analysis, that redlines oxidation levels are higher since they use a higher level of antiwear additive and zddp. As you can see, I do look at all aspects not just the shear factor which is the most importaint to me since it relates to actual wear and not just oil survivablility. It obviously is the most important aspect on any oil and even if your base oil can't last longer, so what, change it more often if that was the case.
One of the things I see is many people understandable wants longer oil drains. This is a big thing with people I talk with and I find a lot of people using sub grade oil with no shear strength at all running like a top grade oil. So not only are they going past the oils servicablilty life expectancy butis running a normal oil that shears with no resistance at all, thus providing very little protection. So where is the savings in that? trade off wear for longer drains?.
The interesting thing to add to this is, when barrier lubes are properly blended in with the proper amount of antioxidants and detergents, you can get longer than normal extended oil drains due to the fact that less wear means less friction which means less heat which means less oil degregation due to heat. WOW, now we have a chain reation going all because of a barrier lube. Now to go one step further, I have a couple of on going tests being done by an oil analysis company (Dyson Analysis) that is seeing how well schaeffers blend compares to full synths, Mobil and Amsoil have been some. It is quite interesting to see some of these results. What I have seen is that the oil survivability on the blend has been every bit as good as these full synths EXCEPT... The wear numbers have been lower than those. No, this isn't a long on going test (approx 1yr) but it has been run on a toyota avalon,honda car, and a diesel p/u (which was an advid amsoil user until he put schaeffers in and switched). We have been doing extended drain tests on some of these and have found it interesting that with a good barrier lube as well as a good mineral base stock and pao blend that your cost of the oil approx 3.00 per qt can perform as well and even in a lot of case out perform the full synths. Now this is only my personal tests that I have been doing since I wanted to see for myself just how this compares.
I have also found some barrier lubes present better resisitance to shearing than others. Amsoil as some others can be sheared with some efforts. Those that use zddp as thier main ingrediant for barrier lube will exibit this. Those that use a soluble moly in conjunction with zddp is near impossible. The interesting way barrier lubes work in suspension is quite interesting and maybe if interested I'll get into that.
Really enjoy yaking with people who like to discuss oil so I find I have to limit myself otherwise I'd dominate a book on this subject and my opinions.
Hey my stimulous for discussion worked. This recent discussion has been informative. Great participation. Here's my humble take on the recent activity.
1. Lubegard. Just to emphasize, there is no lawsuit by the FTC against Lubegard. Check at www.ftc.gov, go to search at bottom. you will find suits against Zmax, Slick50, Dura Lube, Motor up, and others, but not Lubegard.
2. MobilOne -- Jury's out for me. Will wait for the newer formulation.
3. Barrier Lubrication. Bob's analysis is extremely informative. Definitely dreading the new GF-4 spec because there won't be enough time to get it well tested before it has to be used. Further reductions of barrier lubrication is not good -- especially in light of the recent discussion.
4. Testing. Some tests that are used for the SL certification would be extremely good. Amsoil advertizes exstended drains. Therefore the anti-sludging test would be very good. Can it hold up for 240 hours without significant thickening? The Falex and other anti-wear tests can also be helpful. If the oil is as strong as they indicate, then they should be able to prove it by objective tests, not just hearsay.
I appears that one may wish to use a non API certifed oil in the future (or after waranty up) to obtain better protection due to better additive packages in these oils. Valvoline Max Life, RedLine, etc. Now, does the arguement that API certification mean consistency in formulation as opposed to a non API oil which could change additives without notice mean anything , I don't know.
With auto makers and oil companies controlling API they are more interested in emissions and gas mileage then protection as this is also in their vested interest to sell more product but if the API certified oils will have fewer wear additives I will continue to go with the non certified oils.
Could be interesting if the aftermarket oil buying public were to start buying non API oil in huge quantities to show they are more interested in durability then mileage.
Comments
I have found only one synthetic 5w20 for my Acura automobiles that is Amsoil which I now use.
Impressive technical properties even for such thin oil as 5w20.
I was using Motorcraft 5w20 semi synthetic but could not find any technical data for the $1.77 per quart stuff.
The amsoil 7500 series is designed to meet warranty requirements. so will change every 7500 miles. They do not make a so called 35000 5w20 at this time since no one would have a ford or Honda (or very few) out of warranty at this time.
INKY
Then what is this?
http://www.amsoil.com/products/asl.html
AMSOIL Synthetic 5W-30 contains special rust and corrosion inhibitors to protect iron parts, as well as copper, lead and aluminum bearing materials.
API SERVICE SL, SJ, SH, CF
ILSAC GF-3, GF-2
Ford M2C153-G
GM-4718M, 9986137
DB 229.3, 229.1
VW 502.00/505.00
sorry amsoil, this is another way people think this is but yet isn't. get one of the bottles chikoo and see if you can see the api donut on there. only the xl7500 series is api certified.
regards,
bob
what is that supposed to mean.
Also if i use this non-API certifed(??)5W30 does it affect my engine warranty?
In theory the oil must be shown to be the cause of the engine failure in order for the auto company to not honor a warranty. You know that they will say it is because you did not change the oil or you used a non API oil. Even if you did if the engine fails and had nothing to do with the oil they should cover it but doubt they will if they actually know what you used. For all intents and purposes, other then Toytoa sludge, all engine failures occur over time and are not catastrophic in nature and appear well after wararnty.
Now, I use the non certified Amsoil 10W30 and have for 10 years and in new cars from the first oil change. Have not had a problem ( my 10 yr old Camry has 143,000 miles) and my change intervals for 5 cars range from 5000 miles to 12,000 miles to one at once a year (8-10,000 miles) .Depends on driving habits. The 12,000 mile one is still under warranty and I change the filter at 6000 miles. Over 10 years I feel very comfortable with the oil and with oil analysis as some back up in the event of a warranty claim.
However, if you do not believe the non certified oil will perform the job then do not use it and do not take the risk because I guarantee the dealer will try to weasel out of a claim if they know you used it and Amsoil simply will claim it is an engine defect and not honor their warranty either!
1. Obviously, it is not that AMSOIL cannot / does not have the capability of manufacturing(?), maybe blending is the right word, since they have had API certification before and have it currently on XL7500. So it is not beyond their reach to make API certified oils
2. Question is why does AMSOIL not go for the API certification? what is holding them back?
any insights?
Amsoil's Official Response to the API Certification
Posted by Ron on November 29, 2001 at 09:52:41:
Friends.....
I posted this earlier as a response to the API question. In case you
didn't catch that discussion here is the Companies position on the API
certification issue. Is API important? Yes, for sub $1 oils. For
premium synthetics that would blow away the tests, not really.
Remember cheap $.88 Wal-Mart oil passes API, they set pretty low
standards for passing the tests. Ron
AMSOIL API Licensing
Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed
A. Good question. AMSOIL staffers have recently read some message
boards with misinformation regarding this issue. Let us address API
licensing in depth, as well as the issue of warranties. Some AMSOIL
motor oils are API licensed, some are not. If you're concerned about
your warranty and feel pressures to use an API licensed oil, even
after reading this answer, then the 5W-30 (XLF) or 10W-30 (XLT)
XL-7500 or our 15W-40 (PCO) API licensed oils should be your choice.
If you are looking for an alternative to frequent oil changes or just
want the best performing oil for your car, then one of our top tier
non-API licensed synthetic oils are for you. Read on, and decide for
yourself.
API Licensing - Passenger Cars - What is it?
An API (American Petroleum Institute) license indicates that a
specific motor oil formulation has passed the minimum performance
standards as defined by a series of laboratory bench, physical,
chemical and engine tests. These tests were selected and minimum
performance standards were set by the API Lubricants Committee to
address specific areas such as engine wear, deposits, fuel economy,
emissions, etc. The committee is comprised of representatives from
automobile, oil and additive companies. The current specification is
SJ/GF-2, and in July 2001 the first use of SL/GF-3 will begin.
Costs
The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor
oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, depending on if the
formula passes the tests the first time through or requires multiple
test runs or formula modifications to achieve a passing average. (That
amount goes to $275,000 to $500,000 for a Heavy Duty Diesel licensing
program on a specific formula.) Once that testing is complete and the
formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed
for $825 per year for non-members and $625 per year for members. There
is also a small royalty fee per gallon sold for all gallons over one
million. The length of time between new specifications is now
approximately 2 to 3 years, which does not allow a great deal of time
to recover testing costs.
Who Licenses What Formulas?
Additive companies, such as Lubrizol, Ethyl,, Infinium and Oronite,
develop licensed formulas that they offer to oil companies to
re-license. It is inexpensive to re-license one of these formulas, and
the majority of oil companies choose to do this to avoid the costs
associated with testing. This, however, tends to commoditize the
market. The same chemistry is being sold under many brand names. Most
of the major oil companies do have their own proprietary formulas
developed, tested and licensed. All of AMSOIL INC.'s lubricant
formulas are unique and proprietary.
Flexibility In Manufacturing An API Licensed Formula
API licensing was originally developed for mineral based oils, and it
affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils.
Mineral oils comprised of group I and Group II petroleum basestocks
may use a simple program called basestock interchange for added
flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by
completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor engine tests
an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum basestocks from many
different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive
pricing. However, basestock interchange for Group III and V synthetic
basestocks is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with
an ester (Group V) basestock from a specific supplier, then anyone
blending that formula must buy only that supplier's ester. Complete
engine testing would need to be performed on the formula using another
supplier's ester before an oil company could buy it from that
alternative supplier. This additional testing is normally not
performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes it
very difficult for synthetic lubricant manufacturers to negotiate
prices with synthetic basestock suppliers. Click HERE for more
information about Group I through Group V basestocks.
There is also something called viscosity grade read-across.
Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic basestocks
although the better cold temperature performance of synthetics makes
it more difficult to achieve in some situations. (That's another whole
story.) What this means is that if you properly formulate the
lubricant for which you have run all of the API tests, there are
guidelines that allow you to use that same formula to make 0W-30,
5W-30, 10W-30, etc. viscosity motor oil.
Finally, there is a rule for substitutions in the CMA (Chemical
Manufacturers Association) code of practice that allows a small degree
of flexibility for all formulas. It allows a company to change the
percentages of components in the formula by varying amounts from the
original formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements. For
example, if the licensed formula used 10% of a certain V.I. improver,
you would have the ability to utilize from 9% to 11% of the same V.I.
improver for your formula.
Key Limitations For API Licensed Formulas
Phosphorous content - .10% maximum
(API SL; 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30, 5W-30, 10W-30 viscosity grades, only)
NOACK volatility - 15% maximum
Click HERE for an explanation of NOACK Volatility
The prevalent sources of phosphorous in motor oils are additives
called zinc dithiophosphates (ZDTPs). Currently, these versatile
additives act as oxidation/corrosion inhibitors and aid in the ability
of a lubricant to reduce wear. The automobile manufacturers, however,
have demanded that lubricants contain a maximum of only .10%
phosphorous. Their reason is that some manufacturers believe that
higher phosphorous content levels will poison the catalytic converters
on their cars before they reach 150,000 miles, which is the number of
miles that their vehicles will be required to pass EPA emission
standards. There has not been total agreement within the automotive
and lubrication industry about whether phosphorous levels over .10%
actually do harm catalytic converters in the long run. What they have
failed to make allowances for is the NOACK volatility of an oil.
The maximum allowable NOACK volatility percentage for
passenger car motor oil specification is 15%. Most of AMSOIL motor
oils are in the 5% to 8% NOACK volatility range. Studies have shown
there is a correlation between NOACK volatility, oil consumption and
the amount of phosphorous from motor oil that will end up in the
exhaust gasses. Therefore, oils with higher levels of phosphorous but
with low volatility, such as AMSOIL motor oils, present no more risk
to catalytic converters than low phosphorous oils with higher NOACK
volatility. This has also been demonstrated for years in actual
application through state mandated exhaust gas testing on our Dealers'
and customers' high mileage vehicles using AMSOIL synthetic motor
oils. State inspectors are continually amazed at the low emissions
levels generated by vehicles using AMSOIL products. So much for
poisoning catalytic converters.
AMSOIL INC. has determined that the reduced wear and extended drain
intervals achievable with phosphorous levels higher than the API limit
of .10% are real benefits for the consumer, and pose no risk to
catalytic converters. AMSOIL motor oils, except for the API licensed
XL-7500 5W-30 and 10W-30 viscosity grades, all have greater than .10%
phosphorous levels, and therefore, cannot be API licensed.
AMSOIL has not objectively demonstrated that their formulas don't harm the converters. The newer Catalytic Converters are not the same as they were 5 years ago.
Remember with the 2004 model year that the converters are going to be CHEAP. They are changing the quality of the ZDDP because there are fewer rare metals in the Catalytic converters
Why couldn't they run a Fallax Pin, the sludgetest, antiwear, or any other of the Standard tests that are run on the SL standard. Most of those are mechanical tests and don't require a certain chemical composition. Prove the stability, the reduction in wear, and the overall greatness of your oil.
Amsoil, PROVE your premium line is superior. Don't just say so.
then lets see the proof, not just anecdotal evidence and testimonials from those who are here to hype the product. It could be the greatest lube product out there, but I would like to see the head to head test results against the other $ynthetic heavyweights, and not just some vague reference to 'other brands' For the huge dollar cost per quart, lets see once and for all, if its'really worth it. And please, Amsoil spare us the, 'we can't afford to do the test.'
Yes, all anecdotal hearsay from a poster. Facts are, there are not independent tests by any oil company or consumer group in past 5 years. There will not be. Not worth discussing.
Now, issue is with the new API standards proposed for the future it apears that engine durability is second behind emissions and mileage. We have several non API oils now, Valvoline MAxLife for the older engines, RedLine, Amsoil. It seems to me we will need to make a decision in the future, after the warranty is up do you want durability then you will have to go with a non API oil as the ones that will get certified will not maintain your car as well. Remember who funds API, the oil and auto manufacturers, they have a vested interest in selling more product so less durability via a lesser additive package is in their best interest and the manufactureres then mandate you use an API oil for warranty.
or consumer group in past 5 years. There will not be. Not worth discussing."
Pardon me, I think it is 'worth discussing' that's why we are all here. If none of these
Synthetic Oil Marketers have independent comparison tests to back up the outrageous prices for this lube, then we are all getting lead down the garden path. And I think you are also wrong when you flatly state that "there will not be" If enough people start asking to see some hard data on these expensive lubes, or stop buying them, the Syn-Oil Marketers will soon come up with a comparison test against the other expensive brands. Or do you know something that you are not including in that statement, Like there are already Fallix Pin, Antiwear and other mechanical tests done, and the results over the competitive lubes, doesn't justify the price?
https://dallnd6.dal.mobil.com/GIS/MobilPDS.nsf/Automotive?Read Form&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=4.17
paste the 2 pieces together
Strange that it says "The Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic Series motor oils are manufactured from 100% synthetic base stocks" but is listed under semi-synthetic. Has Mobil joined the dark side of synthetics?It also lists the Trisynthetic blend as API SL rated but only ILSAC GF-2 even though I had bought some MObil1 10-w30 SL oil that stated it was GF-3. I have been a long time satisfied user of Mobil1 but I'm becoming wary. Chevron Supreme is looking better all the time. Anyone have any insights into what's going on at Mobil?????
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
I'll be switching....
Anyway, the remarks are: "After the base oil has sheared or squeezed out, The last line of defense is an additive that puts down a barrier film. This additive usually has higher levels of strength against shearing so it helps keep the wear down. Alright, here's the catch. In 96, the lubrication industry changed from the SH to SJ API rated oil by reducing the barrier lubricant additives to help preserve cat converters on cars. Why?, It appears that the manufactures / lubrication experts are concerned with contaminating the cat converters with the standard antiwear additives in the motor oils so they have reduced the levels of antiwear additives to preserve the cats. Hmmm, guess what, When they introduced the new SL GF-3 oils, They left it the same. Ok, not out of the woods yet... Now the new GF-4 oils are in the works in hopes to be introduced next year around April. Have a guess one of the things they are going to do?,
YEP, reduce the antiwear additives again. The interesting thing to note is that more and more oil companies are coming out with
higher mileage motor oils with higher levels of the antiwear additives. Catch is, they are not
API certified there fore can void engine warr's. Remember all those additive companies selling their miracle oil ? For some of them, they were doing nothing more than adding a barrier additive to your existing oil. Problem there, too much of a good thing can cause it to overload the blend that the oil company started with, so a lot of times the detergents in the oil are not able to do their job and fight acids produced by the engine, there fore the oil will oxidize faster and start the process of breakdown and extended oil drains are out of the question. not to mention engine warranty issues again. Guess what a good race oil has... higher levels of antiwear and less detergents. Since they don't run race oils over the road, their not worried about oil drains.
They change it constantly. "
From
http://www.adweek.com/adweek/members/editorial/brandweek_abstracts.jsp
http://www.exxonmobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/synthetics/basefluids/paos.html
on my little test i have shown on my new web page http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm , mobil will shear as easily as any other oil. barrier protectant is minimal.
amsoil, will plate up and can reduce the wear more than mobil can. but... it too with a little more pressure will shear out as well and produce the same results as mobil. I suspect that's why they like the 4ball test to demonstrate this feature on the oil(although there is no balls in an engine).
redline, another story.. it will plate up, the bearing will continue to spend, and just about no amount of pressure will tear it and allow you to stop the bearing from rotating.
kendals nitro 70, reacts the same as redline.
now mind you, both redline and kendals nitro oil are both hi rev racing oils, so alot of time you'll find thier tbn won't be as good as standard motor oils.
I hope I have given you more of an in sight on how the base oil film strength and wear don't really correlate in engines but the barrier additives have more to do with engine wear protection. I see too many people thinking, synth=less wear just because of the word synth.
Having been using this method of testing has really showed me some interesting result where engine wear is concerned. You don't actually see test results on wear protection but all the tests that are available are to do with how well the oil won't break down. Its like most people are more concerned on how long can I run this oil so lets test these oils for oxidation,vi,acid resistance and so forth but you really don't see much on actual wear protection in most if any tech data sheets. I see so many of you wanting to know how much is pao and not when here we have an improved SL grade oil that has closed the mineral to synth gap to a point that is now becoming a mute point to even compare base oils.
Myself, I worry more on how my engine is going to wear instead of how my oil is going to wear. Of course you have to be aware of other aspects on oil but lets face it.. the underlying point is engine wear right? This is why I deceided to assemble this page so to help you see that what is really important is engine wear not so much oil wear. What good is haveing an oil that don't break down if it has no protection against wear? I really think I have a strong argument on quality of base oil vs quality of engine wear. Once I discovered this, It made my dicsion as to what oil I was going to use a lot easier.
Even though you don't have a machine like this, oil analysis can provide you with the same information. all you have to do is look at wear numbers to see as which oil you have chosen to evailuate provides better protection.
OH, BTW, a part I didn't inject into my page is that supposidly they are going to use other wear additives that are not the norm but are suppose to do as good of a job in protection. I'll know if there is something in there that will by doing this shear test.
Why do I like this test? If I cannot stop that bearing from spinning with just oil, then I feel 99 percent sure that it's going to do the same in my engine for reducing wear and friction.
bob
the quick lube stores,this may have something to
with why the api rating,having used Amsoil and
been a dealer for 20 yrs some of the things I've
observed are,when the posters compare mobil one
to amsoil,they forget that amsoil has about 10
or more different oils that could be used in any
given car.Also for whatever the reasons Amsoil
is still a MLM company,this is the main reason
the cost is so high.I remember when Petrolon
owned the rights to slick 50,the cost was 30
bucks a treatment,when they sold out it went to
10 dollars.I wish Amsoil would do this,I would
save more money getting cheaper amsoil than dealer
commissions
Again, this is all base oil qualities , not much to do with actual wear protection numbers.
I believed in this myself.... till I joined a development team of one of the two world's largest bearing manufacturer....no names for obvious reasons....
design was done based on empirical formulas established over time and chenge in design was made based upon customer feedback. Never carried out testing the bearings over extended periods of time to check life and/or wear properties.....except for designing special bearings for BIG customers...and at that time it was a joint effort...
I was shocked!!
could it be the same with these big oil companies?
As I said previously: if independently conducted tests can improve on this I will be the first in line to switch. And really, I dont have any vested interests in Mobil1, Shaeffers, Redline, Amsoil or other product. I really just want the best for my car. I think most of us on this board are in the same boat. As Bill O'Reilly of Fox News says: "Tell me where why I'm wrong??"
BTW, I am not saying any information that we see here is without merrit. The more information the better..
"I see too many people thinking, synth=less wear just because of the word synth."---My observations over lots of years in industry (maintenance supervisor/engineer) does suggest that in normal applications where "full film" lubrication exsists in reasonable environments this is a true statement. But once we stray from this model-synthetics offer protection well beyond conventional oils. I have for instance seen results of bearing wear in coal mills where 12" heavily loaded ball bearings lasted many times more than with conventional oils of the exact same additive package. That one observation convinced me more thany other piece of information I've ever seen in my working career to switch to syn for my vehicles. I really think that those of use who pay the extra money for a syn oil are really interested in this margin of protection even with extended drain intervals. If this is not your primary reason for doing so - you are wasting money with syns.
I will be investigating the new "SuperSyn" and the term "semi-synthetic" on Mobil's Product data sheets. I suspect that the fact that they use a "carrier" oil for the additives dictates that they use this term. (unlike some sleazy companies). Since they are the primary marketer of Esters and PAO's for industrial applications- they need to differentiate the true nature of their products. So this term really does not disturb me right now.
I always found the Amsoil marketing interesting. They obviously test their product against the competition but what bothers me is that they, like all companies I guess, only publish the ones where their product exceeds the competetion( well, in the minds of their own test lab anyway) . I asked one of their chemists once, how come for a specific test (like the 4 ball) you have 4 competitors listed and then you show another test and either the weights are different or the competitors are different. How come you don't show all tests for all competitors as I am sure no oil can come in first in all categories. Answer, not enough space, true answer is they cannot come in first in all tests so they publish the ones they feel they can place first in.
The point is that Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic was NOT and is NOT a synthetic oil by traditional definitions. And Mobil has recognized that and put it under Semi-synthetic. Also the short-lived Mobil 1 Tri-Syntheitc SL oil lived only about a month. On this forum and many others, people have posted the link at Mobil's Website. Try it now. Mobil has removed it.
Let's see. The Mobil 1 before the Tr-Synthetic was 100% PAO based. Mobil came out with Tri-Synthetic (not 100% PAO based) by saying that by using other basestocks, the performance is better.
Now they came out with SuperSyn (again 100% PAO based, or is it or do we believe them as all it says is "with SuperSyn". If they put in 1% SuperSyn, is it "with SuperSyn"?) by saying it is better than Tri-Synthetic. What kind of talk is this?
Be ware!
It is 10:13 AM Eastern time, try to hit
https://www.mobil.com
LOL.
Bo
one thing you stated it they both had the same additive package.. As you and i both know, in the engine oil world, non of these minerals vs synths are going to have the same additive package, therefor you must realize that instead of just base oil you should be looking at the additive package with and eagle eye when looking for wear protection.
Ok, why did the synth's do better in your applications, heat... obviously, heat was destroying the vi's and base stock in a standard mineral oil and wouldn't hold the vi index very well thus providing better a more consistant film over the course of testing and normal operations. so if the minerals visc index was dropping off, there would be no comparision that the synth's would have provided better coverage and protection over the standard mineral oil.
but, now with the new refining processes of oils, the gap between the two are closing and there is less margin for a mineral to close in comparisions of base oils.
as for independant tests, I suspect you'll be in your grave before you will see any. Remember the old saying, if you want it done, or done right, do it yourself? well, maybe it doesn't have nothing to do with your neighbor or buddy down the street but do your own comparisions and see just how it works for you. Thats how I came to chose the one I use is evaluating different oils and wear properties. Wear issues are my main concern, oil base stock is my second. I have seen a pile of great base stock oils but would not run them in your car let alone mine due to the simple fact it would and does shear out thus relying on the barrier additives which proved to me were not enough to protect from wear when the film was sheared.
I think I make my case about film strength of oil shearing on this page, especially in light of being told that gears cannot cause sludge but pcv's can.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
look foward to any comments.
bob
From their website:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/chemical/customer/products/families/synthetics/
SuperSyn is a PAO
If it's (SuperSyn) not 100% PAO-with those properties (see website)-who cares.
Pennzoil 5-30 Havoline 10-30 Quaker State 10-30 Castrol GTX 5-30 and Mobile 1 5-30
The oil baths were heated to 220 F for 3 hours after which the parts were removed and
allowed to drain overnight. The next day the parts were tested for 2 min. in the Falex Machine without application of any other lubricant. The friction was calculated from the torque readings during the test. The wear reduction was calculated from the weight loss recorded after the test."
This info came in a package from' LubeGard', and pictures the above mentioned oils after
the worn steel pins were removed and weighed. This test measured the sliding friction
and wear of a round metal cylinder on flat metal block surfaces..typical friction conditions
that your crankshaft, connecting rod bearings, rings, push rods, valve guides and lifters would experience on start up. Of course, the test includes pictures and data also showing the results
after the LubeGard product was added to all the oil, but for the purposes of comparing some of the current crop of Major Motor Oils and Mobile 1 Synthetic, it is a very interesting example
of the dramatic results that can be seen with this simple test. Too bad, "you'll be in your grave before you see it happen" (comparing all the high priced, synthetic Lubes)
http://www.militec1.com/competitorlinks.html
I have had the opertunity to do such tests and have learned a great deal how hydro dynamic priciples hold up vs barrier lubrication. All of my tests with the falex are all done with the same type of lubricants. If I test a motor oil, then all the other tests i do use like motor oils. I don't believe in adding additives to motor oils, but I do believe this is a great way to see how the shearing effects are different from one oil to another. No it's not scientific nor will i publish a paper but I have seen it before I hit the grave(;).
I try to do all my testing in a consistant manner since i'm not trying to sell or convince anyone of what I find except for my own information. So what I'm saying is I'm not going to "fool" myself with this test.
As an electronic component level tech, I have worked with engineers on control circuits that they designed and found myself having to re engineer because they failed to see how thier circuit would work with existing systems.
So, quite frankly adc, I have seen (like these toyota engineers) how much in a cube they work in and fail to see real world applications when it comes to gas engines, there fore they produce great theories but miss some of the most simplistic things that have a tremendous effect on thier theory like the basic mechanics of "for every action there is an equal reaction" such as oil moving out when two surfaces move in. This also holds true to the barrier lubrication properties. The more the sufaces close together, the more something has to move out. That is why you cannot run an engine with out oil, when two surfaces meet, friction will shear the metal surfaces thus causing wear.
Mos2 is a chemical that bonds to the metal surfaces and has a great affinity to metal but even it can be sheared out and rest asured it has a higher "film" strength than any synth base oil. approx. 500000psi. so affinity or no affinity to metal, oil cannot overcome the pressures of a squeezing surface especially since this is an open oil system and not like a hyd system that would hold the surfaces apart.
promotion of LubeGard. It wasn't, and if you read it closely you will see that I mention
it because, it shows 5 oils in the test, in 2 different stages...without the additive, right out
of the bottle, and of course, the 2nd test, with the LubeGard, after all, it is their test. What I would like
others to see is the results of the Falex Pin test test on the untreated oil, without the additive.
Such a test could easily be done on Amsoil, Redline, Mobile 1 and the rest of $yn-Oils out there. (at least you can finally see the results on this one synthetic in the LubeGard info, without having to" wait until you are in the grave")
And give us a break, don't mention Lubegard in the same sentence with the Dura Lube Bimbos, to make your point, what ever that was.
consumer redress to be distributed by the FTC. The
FTC has previously halted allegedly deceptive ads
for Prolong Engine Treatment, Valvoline Engine
Treatment, Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP
Engine Treatment".
From your 'link'.. on nasty snakeoil salesmen, couldn't find any mention of 'LubeGard'
If you have something please post it.
On a related subject-I do use LubeGuard. I was planning to add it to my newest car in the future. Since it only has 16K miles on it-I was going to wait. I'll probably go out today and get it and check the enclosed literature that you mentioned. I don't recall seeng that in the last container I bought.
Thanks,
Al
About 20 years ago I made a similar device that the DuraLube commercial showed. I really don't remember the results exactly- but I was disappointed that my results were inconsistent. I compared some snake oils to Mobil1 and conventional oils and found that the more "viscous" products yielded less friction. But again - the results were inconsistant enough that I dropped the project. Perhaps I'll revive it with better equipment.
It still, however is my belief that the friction test and the 4 ball is not really the whole story when it comes to vehicle lubrication. I have to rely on the product development engineers to balance all the variables and come up with a product that will allow my vehicle to operate reliably over a long period of time with minimal maintenance-including extended oil changes. Its again too bad that we really don't have the entire picture on which product is best at performing that task.
I applaud you for making the effort in trying to unravel that great mystery.
Al
The interesting point is, without additives, there is very few oils that actually has the friction / barrier lube properties already designed in the oil and requires NO additional additives to be added.
This being nothing more than a pure basic mechanical representation of a piston and crank senerio, it helps demonstrate what is happening in the engine and how the oil reacts.
I really try to "prove" my theories and felt that the pictures of the upper and lower bearings on the piston tell the story very clearly as to how the oil shears even in a basic engine.
You among a lot of others must feel that regular oil is not enough because you add an additive to your existing oil. That is why I had gone to schaeffers oil because it is one of the ones that is api certified AND has the barrier lube properties to resist metal to metal contact without adding additional additives.
As you pointed out, It only demonstrated only one aspect of the oil(wear protection) and true, there is more. But now the other aspects are all how well is the oil going to stand up to normal and severe use. To establish how an oil will stand up, oil analysis helps you see under your own driving conditions how the oil its self hold up. Now, you have a complete overlook as to how the oil lasts under use as well as how well it stands up to shearing and wear protection.
All that has been hammered on in this thread are all issues on how the oil stands up and longivity of the base oil synth vs mineral and so forth and people think that just because its synth that it protects better. Let me state that yes, synth's have some benifets, less now with the new SL, but non the less, but having used this machine to experiment with synth's and minerals, I have learned that ALL oils film will part like the red sea and that you can shear through them.
Aside from Schaeffers being able to withstand the shearing, Redline to has the ability to do that. Now between those two, I have seen through oil analysis, that redlines oxidation levels are higher since they use a higher level of antiwear additive and zddp. As you can see, I do look at all aspects not just the shear factor which is the most importaint to me since it relates to actual wear and not just oil survivablility. It obviously is the most important aspect on any oil and even if your base oil can't last longer, so what, change it more often if that was the case.
One of the things I see is many people understandable wants longer oil drains. This is a big thing with people I talk with and I find a lot of people using sub grade oil with no shear strength at all running like a top grade oil. So not only are they going past the oils servicablilty life expectancy butis running a normal oil that shears with no resistance at all, thus providing very little protection. So where is the savings in that? trade off wear for longer drains?.
The interesting thing to add to this is, when barrier lubes are properly blended in with the proper amount of antioxidants and detergents, you can get longer than normal extended oil drains due to the fact that less wear means less friction which means less heat which means less oil degregation due to heat. WOW, now we have a chain reation going all because of a barrier lube. Now to go one step further, I have a couple of on going tests being done by an oil analysis company (Dyson Analysis) that is seeing how well schaeffers blend compares to full synths, Mobil and Amsoil have been some. It is quite interesting to see some of these results. What I have seen is that the oil survivability on the blend has been every bit as good as these full synths EXCEPT... The wear numbers have been lower than those. No, this isn't a long on going test (approx 1yr) but it has been run on a toyota avalon,honda car, and a diesel p/u (which was an advid amsoil user until he put schaeffers in and switched). We have been doing extended drain tests on some of these and have found it interesting that with a good barrier lube as well as a good mineral base stock and pao blend that your cost of the oil approx 3.00 per qt can perform as well and even in a lot of case out perform the full synths. Now this is only my personal tests that I have been doing since I wanted to see for myself just how this compares.
I have also found some barrier lubes present better resisitance to shearing than others. Amsoil as some others can be sheared with some efforts. Those that use zddp as thier main ingrediant for barrier lube will exibit this. Those that use a soluble moly in conjunction with zddp is near impossible. The interesting way barrier lubes work in suspension is quite interesting and maybe if interested I'll get into that.
Really enjoy yaking with people who like to discuss oil so I find I have to limit myself otherwise I'd dominate a book on this subject and my opinions.
bob
1. Lubegard. Just to emphasize, there is no lawsuit by the FTC against Lubegard. Check at www.ftc.gov, go to search at bottom. you will find suits against Zmax, Slick50, Dura Lube, Motor up, and others, but not Lubegard.
2. MobilOne -- Jury's out for me. Will wait for the newer formulation.
3. Barrier Lubrication. Bob's analysis is extremely informative. Definitely dreading the new GF-4 spec because there won't be enough time to get it well tested before it has to be used. Further reductions of barrier lubrication is not good -- especially in light of the recent discussion.
4. Testing. Some tests that are used for the SL certification would be extremely good. Amsoil advertizes exstended drains. Therefore the anti-sludging test would be very good. Can it hold up for 240 hours without significant thickening? The Falex and other anti-wear tests can also be helpful. If the oil is as strong as they indicate, then they should be able to prove it by objective tests, not just hearsay.
With auto makers and oil companies controlling API they are more interested in emissions and gas mileage then protection as this is also in their vested interest to sell more product but if the API certified oils will have fewer wear additives I will continue to go with the non certified oils.
Could be interesting if the aftermarket oil buying public were to start buying non API oil in huge quantities to show they are more interested in durability then mileage.
I use Lubegard for my Tranny and am extremely pleased with the performance.