What is the best synthetic oil? Best oil filter?

[Dallara]

~

Originally Posted by AERO1

Amsoil is 10 years ahead of everyone else in lubricant technology.

I'm not trying to start any sort of debate, or controversy, but that's a pretty broad, sweeping statement...

Just out of curiosity, what do you base that conclusion on?

Understand, I have used all sorts of Amsoil lubricants in the past, and I think they make fine products... But no offense, if Amsoil were, indeed, "10 years ahead of everyone else in lubricant technology" then they would be bigger than Exxon/Mobil and Shell combined...

Thanks,

Dallara



~

[SlvrBullIT]

I swapped my diff and motor with amsoil... so far so good. Tranny next... as soon as I figure out how to get all 14 qts out.

[Z71]

I have AMSOIL SSO 0W-30 in my 09 CTS. Been also running the 0W-30 in my 2008 GMC since about 1,000 miles. Matter of fact the GMC is all AMSOIL, engine, trans, both axles, transfer case and power steering. 2 yrs and 20,000 trouble free miles.

Been an AMSOIL user since 1975. Amsoil have been around since 1972 but they were working on synthetic oil back in the 60's so I would agree they are 10 yrs or more ahead of the competition. Their claim to fame is that their oils are the most advanced chemistry's in the world. In many cases, they are chemistry's of such high quality that other companies are unwilling to invest the money. Exxon-Mobil Chemical (not to be confused with Mobi 1) supplies AMSOIL with a lot of these advanced chemistry's.

I know a lot like RP but they got their hands slapped recently for making claims the were unsubstantiated.

Truth in Advertising

[radix]

Originally Posted by lubelizard.com

My home page has some interesting tech articles and comparisons. Personally, I used to use M1 in a Fox body Mustang, then switched to Amsoil. I ran that car with a stock engine, then supercharged stock engine, then 349 stroker engine. Then I moved on to a supercharged Miata that I open tracked. I used M1 for a little while, then tried Amsoil again. The car responded so well to the Amsoil fluids, I began using only Amsoil in my Miata and other vehicles. I tried Redline fluids, they were okay, but pricey. Didn't notice a different to justify the price. Between my track buddies and I going through Amsoil fluids, I became a dealer for a side gig.

I've since swapped the supercharger for a turbo, but I'm tired of tinkering with cars to the point that they no longer resemble anything original, so I want to find a nice CTS-V for street and open track day use.

OH GEE, another set of breathless Amsoil lovers... who happen to sell the stuff...

LOL

[Looney100]

Originally Posted by Z71

Been an AMSOIL user since 1975. Amsoil have been around since 1972 but they were working on synthetic oil back in the 60's so I would agree they are 10 yrs or more ahead of the competition. Their claim to fame is that their oils are the most advanced chemistry's in the world. In many cases, they are chemistry's of such high quality that other companies are unwilling to invest the money. Exxon-Mobil Chemical (not to be confused with Mobi 1) supplies AMSOIL with a lot of these advanced chemistry's.

How can Amsoil's chemistry be more advanced than Mobil's? Exxon-Mobil Chemical is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil (who manufactures Mobil 1). How would that give Amsoil acces to components that Mobil didn't have?

[Z71]

How can Amsoil's chemistry be more advanced than Mobil's? Exxon-Mobil Chemical is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil (who manufactures Mobil 1). How would that give Amsoil acces to components that Mobil didn't have?

Do you really thing Mobil 1's goal to to make the best or just sell the most? If Mobil 1 is the best, why do they make Mobil 1 Extended Performance? Why a regular 3000 mile Mobil 1 and a 15,000 mile Extended Performance? That would suggest the regular Mobil does not use the best.

Mobil 1 competition is not AMSOIL, its the other big oil company players like Castrol who they been warring with for years. They are not going to use expensive additives to price them selves above those oils. You don't ever see Mobil taking on AMSOIL.

[wfo]

Mobil 1

[Looney100]

Originally Posted by lubelizard.com

The base stock and additive package is better than M1. M1 used to be a Group IV oil, but I believe it is now a Group III. They can still claim it is synthetic, though.

It seems with Mobil1 the base stock depends on the grade. I was on the Canadian M1 site today and the 0W40 information states that its produced from Synthetic base stocks, while the 5W20 states that its made from petroleum base stocks.

[Z71]

But how much is from Group IV (PAO) or Group V (Esters) synthetic base stocks? 1%, 25%, 100%? They are not going to give that info out as its proprietary.

Look on a bottle of AMSOIL. Its say 100% synthetic.

Mobil 1 and other big name oil companies are constrained into using base stocks and additives of their own invention. There are many independent base stock and additive suppliers that are as good of or if a lot better than what Exxon-Mobil produces. You just have to look at the pages of Lubricants World to realize there are many players in the synthetic market and many of them do not produce motor oils. They supply companies like AMSOIL who do.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Mobil 1 is a bad oil. I am saying there are better oils out there. You have a choice. Just like you do not need to replace your tires with Michelin because GM put them on there, you do not have to use Mobil because GM does.

[Looney100]

Originally Posted by Z71

But how much is from Group IV (PAO) or Group V (Esters) synthetic base stocks? 1%, 25%, 100%? They are not going to give that info out as its proprietary.

Look on a bottle of AMSOIL. Its say 100% synthetic.

Mobil 1 and other big name oil companies are constrained into using base stocks and additives of their own invention. There are many independent base stock and additive suppliers that are as good of or if a lot better than what Exxon-Mobil produces. You just have to look at the pages of Lubricants World to realize there are many players in the synthetic market and many of them do not produce motor oils. They supply companies like AMSOIL who do.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Mobil 1 is a bad oil. I am saying there are better oils out there. You have a choice. Just like you do not need to replace your tires with Michelin because GM put them on there, you do not have to use Mobil because GM does.

As I've said before, I work in the oil industry, and am therefore aware of many things that the general public is not. I won't argue whether AMSOIL or Mobil 1 is better, the truth is that either will provide more protection than 99% of us will ever need (so will many high quality conventional oils).

I have no interest in propping up any particular brand, I see no personal gain from doing so, but your statement is somewhat incorrect.

You claim that many oil companies are constrained into using basestocks and additives of their own. Any intergrated oil company operates its own refinery, and as a result is most likely using its own basestock for its conventional oils. However, there are very few additive manufacturers in North America, and virtually any engine oil manufacturer gets its additives from these producers. Also, manufacturers of PAO are quite limited. During 2008 hurricanes flooded Exxon-Mobil's PAO plant, and an idustry-wide shortage of synthetic oils resulted.

The oil industry is quite co-dependent, there are actually very few proprietary components. Virtually anyone in the industry can get hold of whatever base stock or additive they wish. What is proprietary is the amounts that each 'blender' uses of each component.

Generally speaking, 80% of a bottle of oil is basestock, 20% additives. Both synthetic oil and conventional oils generally use the same additives. Here's where things get interesting. The costs, by volume of the components goes like this: cheapest is conventional basestock, then comes additive, then sythetic basestock. So, when looking at trying to make oil at minimal cost, manufacturers of conventional oils have an incentive to minimize the amount of additive used as its much more expensive than the basestock. For synthetics, the opposite is true, so that blenders can get much more creative and use more additives, and minimize the cost of the end product. And ultimately, the way that the blender puts that ~20% additive in the bottle to use means much more than what sort of basestock they're using.

The one exception is likely cold whether performance, as there is no beating a synthetic in cold temperatures. That's why any 0W grade must contain a fair bit of synthetic basestock as they are the only ones that perform well enough in the cold to meet 0W specs.

[Looney100]

Originally Posted by lubelizard.com

M1 changed their base stock some time ago to what would be considered lesser quality, yet still good enough to call it synthetic. Probably for the sake of profits, but that's just an opinion.

A pretty accurate assessment. Mobil took Castrol to court years ago as Castrol was claiming Syntec was 'full synthetic' when it was made from petroleum basestocks. Mobil lost the case.

That left them using much more expensive materials without having the ability to advertise the end product as being of any higher quality than Syntec - its major competition. Eventually, it seems they subscribed to 'if you can't beat them, join them' and began using less expensive basestocks in their own blends.

[Prof]

When Mobil 1 changed their components, I switched to Royal Purple in my SRT 10. Still use Mobil 1 in several other vehicles.

Just changed all of the lubricants in the CTS V to Amsoil because of some of the comments here. Giving it a try.

But I think that the bottom line is to use a good synthetic and change it often. I change it every 3K in the SRT 10, plan on changing the CTS V every 5k...I have qualms about trying to extend the life of a lubricant...it is just not my approach to engine maintenance.

[Looney100]

Originally Posted by lubelizard.com

Thanks for the info.

What do you think about the trend towards reduced ZDDP and other additives and the effect on engines? I've read some Porsche articles stating that shops are not recommending current oils with the energy symbols on them since they just don't possess the necessary additives to protect their engines.

The problem is that people like us that love their vehicles and are willing to pay the price to put the best lubes & fuels in them are a tiny fraction of the market.
This has resulted in the oil & automative industries moving towards trading off high-end performance for other factors - fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. The move to 5W20 is a perfect example of this - vehicle manufacturers have accepted that 5W20 provides less protection, but the risk of this is small compared to the gains from fuel efficiency and CAFE savings.

When it comes to reduced viscosities or additives, I still believe that for just about anyone except for those with highly modified engines or those who are driving under high loads/RPMs for sustained periods - i.e. track use, even a decent quality conventional oil will suit them absolutely well. Its incredibly rare to hear of someone whose engine has been damaged due to oil failure (not due to contamination).

The problem with current API standards, especially with regards to ZDDP is that your choice is to get an oil that meets warranty and has reduced ZDDP, or go with something like Red Line, that has increased levels of ZDDP, but doesn't meet warranty standards.

Personally, I use synthetic lubes in my vehicles because I don't drive much, and the additional expense is negligable. Given the cold temperatures here in Alberta, I want the cold-weather protection that a synthetic provides.

[Z71]

Originally Posted by Looney100

A pretty accurate assessment. Mobil took Castrol to court years ago as Castrol was claiming Syntec was 'full synthetic' when it was made from petroleum basestocks. Mobil lost the case.

Just a small correction to this part.

I know its widely circulated around that net that is was in court but that part it not true. It was National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. I now because I am in the lubricant business and followed this as it appeared in publications I get.

The Ruling
In a ruling released April 1999, the NAD addressed complaints filed by Mobil Oil Corp. regarding the truthfulness of Castrol North America Inc.'s claim that its Syntec® provides "superior engine protection" to all other motor oils, both synthetic and conventional, and that Syntec's esters provide "unique molecular bonding." Mobil charged that the advertisements inaccurately represented that the current formulation of Syntec is synthetic. The challenge was filed based on statements Castrol made in a series of television commercials, Web site publications, package labels, and brochures.
The NAD divided its decision to address three issues raised in the complaint. Is the reformulated Syntec synthetic motor oil? Has Castrol substantiated its superiority claims? Has Syntec been degraded?
Synthetic?
The NAD determined that the evidence presented by the advertiser constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil. NAD noted that Mobil markets hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere. NAD noted that the action taken by the SAE to delete any reference to "synthetic" in its description of basestocks in section J354 and API's consequent removal of any mention of "synthetic" in API1509 were decisions by the industry not to restrict use of the term "synthetic" to the definition now proffered by Mobil. Further, the SAE Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, an extensively peer-reviewed publication, states base oils made through the processes used to create Shell's hydroisomerized basestock, severe cracking, and reforming processes may be marketed as "synthetic."

[Z71]

Originally Posted by Prof

When Mobil 1 changed their components, I switched to Royal Purple in my SRT 10. Still use Mobil 1 in several other vehicles.

Just changed all of the lubricants in the CTS V to Amsoil because of some of the comments here. Giving it a try.

But I think that the bottom line is to use a good synthetic and change it often. I change it every 3K in the SRT 10, plan on changing the CTS V every 5k...I have qualms about trying to extend the life of a lubricant...it is just not my approach to engine maintenance.

You might be interested in this story about RP Truth in Advertising, BP vs Royal Purple