What you need to know about Motor Oil and Filters...
12-29-2010, 02:24 PM
#41
BruceH, you are right in your statement that AMSOIL not meeting API SM specifications. They do meet SL specs...the main difference in the two ratings is the zinc content. A lot of oil companies did not agree with this move and, even though they held out some time, Red Line and Royal Purple finally met the new SM standards.
this one does
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/oef.aspx
and does their 10,000 mile oil
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/xlf.aspx
its the 25,000 mile oils that do not carry the api logo for a few reasons, I'll let someone with more time to do some typing (beast does nothing at his job he has plenty of spare time )
the GF 4/GF 5 deal is what I have been watching...
Last edited by ShadyNinja; 12-29-2010 at 02:30 PM.
12-29-2010, 02:59 PM
#42
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 1,465
"Minimum Standards", are exactly just that....minimum. AMSOIL far EXCEEDS all testing standards of the API, except for one, ZDDP. AMSOIL refuses to lower their additive contents of Zinc and Phosphorous because they know it creates more wear. They prefer to leave their top tier formulations on the API SL/SJ certification levels. It's funny how uneducated posters always want to bring up the, "They are not API certified" argument. Especially when API SM/SN standards are so easy to meet that even they cheap crap off brand oil you find in Dollar General and Family Dollar carry a API SM logo. To learn more about why AMSOIL isn't API SM certified, read more by clicking the link below.
API Certifications
If you insist on API certifications, DEXOS 1, and GF-5 at the same time, you need to buy AMSOIL 5W-30 OE line.
If you are only looking for API SM/SN and GF-5, you can buy either AMSOIL's OE or XL line up.
Not all of their grades did, only a select few.
However, when a company claims that their product is the best I automatically question them. I feel that Amsoil is one of the better products on the market but I do not believe that they are the absolute best...mainly because EVERY company claims to have the best oil and oil filters.
everything else is subpar in my book. If it's formulated with a group III hydrocracked base stock, it will never be used in my engine, period.
Not even the OE and XL oils are used by me. Those were created for a few different buyers, and not the ones that are concerned to have the highest grade possible. Those buyers are concerned with....
1. frequent change intervals
2. certification licensing
3. cheap prices
Last edited by Unleashedbeast; 12-29-2010 at 03:08 PM.
12-29-2010, 03:19 PM
#44
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 1,465
NOACK Volatilty (NV), read about it. Let me give you the cliff notes.
The lower the NOACK volatility of an engine lubricant, the lower the percentage of mass loss due to burn off. The less burn off, the lower amounts of additive that are lost that could possible contaminate the catalysts.
Let's make this simple.....
A lubricant with low NV and high ZDDP (group IV/V synthetics) will contaminate the catalysts no more than a lubricant with high NV and low ZDDP (group III lubricants).
Until the API takes NV into consideration, and changes the unfair rules for true synthetic base stocks, top tier lubricants will NEVER be API SM/SN certified.
Your honor, I give you exhibit A concerning the unfair certifications for true synthetic base stocks.
Is there any 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.
Conventional oils comprised of petroleum base stocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum base stocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, synthetic base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester base stock from a specific supplier then only that supplier’s ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is therefore not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and it increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.
There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic base stocks, although the better cold temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. The read-across guidelines ensure that if a manufacturer properly formulates the lubricant for which all of the API tests have been performed, then the manufacturer may use that same basic formula to make more grades (i.e. 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, etc.) of the same 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 make changes of certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided that the additives are at the same or higher concentration.
So why doesn’t
API licensing was originally developed for mineral-based oils, and it affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils.
Conventional oils comprised of petroleum base stocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum base stocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, synthetic base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester base stock from a specific supplier then only that supplier’s ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is therefore not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and it increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.
There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic base stocks, although the better cold temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. The read-across guidelines ensure that if a manufacturer properly formulates the lubricant for which all of the API tests have been performed, then the manufacturer may use that same basic formula to make more grades (i.e. 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, etc.) of the same 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 make changes of certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided that the additives are at the same or higher concentration.
So why doesn’t
Last edited by Unleashedbeast; 12-29-2010 at 03:23 PM.
12-29-2010, 04:29 PM
#46
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ......
Posts: 2,057
I've done alot of research on oils. The only one that lists pao basestocks on their msds is pennzoil platnium. Pennzoil is a division of Shell.
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GSAP_msds_00018746.PDF
Amsoil uses the same msds description for their oe and signature series motor oils. (Note that until mid 2010 ams listed their signature series basestock as fully synthetic, now they don't list it at all).
http://www.amsoil.com/msds/oe_series.pdf
Royal Purple lists fully synthetic basestocks
http://www.royalpurple.com/prod-pdfs/motor-oil-msds.pdf
So does Mobil1
http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/psims...mentFormat=RTF
Enough cut and past. How about a discussion? AFAIK there are only two manufacturers of pao basestocks in the US, Mobil and Shell. There are two in China and one in Russia. Where does amsoil get their basestock? Mobil, Shell, or is it imported? We know that the very first batch of amsoil was military surplus cold weather oil bought in bulk and repackaged. That source dried up long ago. Since then it has been long rumored that it came from Mobil. All of the amsoil promotional data I've seen praises Mobil1 but says the additive package could be better. This would lead me to believe their basestock comes from Mobil.
I would really like to know where Amsoil get their basestock.
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GSAP_msds_00018746.PDF
Amsoil uses the same msds description for their oe and signature series motor oils. (Note that until mid 2010 ams listed their signature series basestock as fully synthetic, now they don't list it at all).
http://www.amsoil.com/msds/oe_series.pdf
Royal Purple lists fully synthetic basestocks
http://www.royalpurple.com/prod-pdfs/motor-oil-msds.pdf
So does Mobil1
http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/psims...mentFormat=RTF
Enough cut and past. How about a discussion? AFAIK there are only two manufacturers of pao basestocks in the US, Mobil and Shell. There are two in China and one in Russia. Where does amsoil get their basestock? Mobil, Shell, or is it imported? We know that the very first batch of amsoil was military surplus cold weather oil bought in bulk and repackaged. That source dried up long ago. Since then it has been long rumored that it came from Mobil. All of the amsoil promotional data I've seen praises Mobil1 but says the additive package could be better. This would lead me to believe their basestock comes from Mobil.
I would really like to know where Amsoil get their basestock.
12-29-2010, 09:43 PM
#49
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 1,465
Bruce, thanks for the research time you invested in those links, although....there is a problem, as you have already noted.
The big three consider group III, IV, and IV base stocks all to be synthetic. This is very misleading while viewing most MSDS sheets. Here is a quote from Pennzoil. They were answering a question from a BITOG member in their set up Q&A session.
Why is Pennzoil so open about Ultra, but will not confirm that Platinum is in fact 100% PAO or Ester blends? Do they have something to hide as well?
Mobil 1 is definetly group III, and not a real synthetic like AMSOIL, Royal Purple, or Red Line. Here is a cliff note taken from a Exxon Mobil press release shortly after Hurricane Ike and Katrina destroyed their primary PAO plant in Texas.
They used the term "partially" very loosely, and then the quote below was their justification.
but left out two important facts...
1. European manufacturers demand long OCI (15,000 miles) to avoid more waste oils and help the environment. If they can get you to change your oil more, they make more money....simple math. Who do you think began the 3,000 miles or 3 months oil change intervals? Of course, the manufacturers did, even though they had synthetics that could do 5 times that interval. Their profits of group II and III base stocks are far greater than group IV and V.
2. They didn't tell you they were making the oil with cheaper base stocks, and wanted you to believe they were still group IV/V blends. All the while, the prices went up or stayed the same. What's that tell you about their bottom line profit?
Bruce, you asked the question where does AMSOIL acquire their base stocks, but they will not disclose that information. Their only comment on this is....
"We acquire our PAO and Ester base stocks from a few different suppliers. We do not limit our sources to one, as this will eliminate production halts when one supplier can not meet our demand. We do however have quality requirements and will not accept any base stocks that do not meet our requirements."
That's about the best answer they will give you, and has been given to more than one of us.
The big three consider group III, IV, and IV base stocks all to be synthetic. This is very misleading while viewing most MSDS sheets. Here is a quote from Pennzoil. They were answering a question from a BITOG member in their set up Q&A session.
11. Are the base stocks group III, IV, or V?
Pennzoil Ultra™ is blended with Group III base stocks. These give superior solvency performance to Group IV base stocks, which we believe aids our aim to provide oil that delivers as close to “Factory Clean”. Rather than focus on any single component in the formulation, we focus on the end product.
19. Will you produce a special version of Pennzoil Ultra™ made with group IV and or group V true synthetic base stocks?
At Pennzoil our goal is to make synthetic motor oils that provide performance for our consumers that is not available from conventional or synthetic blends. All Group III, IV & V base stocks are considered synthetic. They all have attributes in terms of lubricant performance. E.g. Solvency, film strength, film thickness, wear performance, etc. Our formulators use one or a combination of base stocks with the required characteristics to meet whatever the challenge we are facing.
Pennzoil Ultra™ is blended with Group III base stocks. These give superior solvency performance to Group IV base stocks, which we believe aids our aim to provide oil that delivers as close to “Factory Clean”. Rather than focus on any single component in the formulation, we focus on the end product.
19. Will you produce a special version of Pennzoil Ultra™ made with group IV and or group V true synthetic base stocks?
At Pennzoil our goal is to make synthetic motor oils that provide performance for our consumers that is not available from conventional or synthetic blends. All Group III, IV & V base stocks are considered synthetic. They all have attributes in terms of lubricant performance. E.g. Solvency, film strength, film thickness, wear performance, etc. Our formulators use one or a combination of base stocks with the required characteristics to meet whatever the challenge we are facing.
Mobil 1 is definetly group III, and not a real synthetic like AMSOIL, Royal Purple, or Red Line. Here is a cliff note taken from a Exxon Mobil press release shortly after Hurricane Ike and Katrina destroyed their primary PAO plant in Texas.
PAO is very short in the whole industry, still. Lots of suppliers are reformulating on the fly, partially substituting Grp III & boosting the AO to compensate.
"Probably 95% of the cars & light trucks on the road will see no difference in engine life between a synthetic & a good quality mineral. Lots of high-end cars are specifying synthetics, but that has more to do with their desire to present a certain cachet to the market rather than the actual lubrication requirements of the engine in question."
1. European manufacturers demand long OCI (15,000 miles) to avoid more waste oils and help the environment. If they can get you to change your oil more, they make more money....simple math. Who do you think began the 3,000 miles or 3 months oil change intervals? Of course, the manufacturers did, even though they had synthetics that could do 5 times that interval. Their profits of group II and III base stocks are far greater than group IV and V.
2. They didn't tell you they were making the oil with cheaper base stocks, and wanted you to believe they were still group IV/V blends. All the while, the prices went up or stayed the same. What's that tell you about their bottom line profit?
Bruce, you asked the question where does AMSOIL acquire their base stocks, but they will not disclose that information. Their only comment on this is....
"We acquire our PAO and Ester base stocks from a few different suppliers. We do not limit our sources to one, as this will eliminate production halts when one supplier can not meet our demand. We do however have quality requirements and will not accept any base stocks that do not meet our requirements."
That's about the best answer they will give you, and has been given to more than one of us.
Last edited by Unleashedbeast; 12-29-2010 at 09:56 PM.
01-01-2011, 07:00 PM
#50
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 1,465
Found this at a local Raceway gas station/store near my home. It's probably the same stuff you buy at Dollar General or Family Dollar.
It's API SM certified, and it's "turbo approved", so that means it's good stuff....right?
and yes....this post is full of sarcasm. Actually....it's a smart crack at the API.
It's API SM certified, and it's "turbo approved", so that means it's good stuff....right?
and yes....this post is full of sarcasm. Actually....it's a smart crack at the API.