: What is the best synthetic oil? Best oil filter?



Vdrenaline
03-08-09, 01:20 PM
I know that many here love Amsoil. I have used Royal Purple and it lasted longer and gave better mileage compared to other synthetics I've tried. Now Castrol has introduced their new Edge synthetic oil which they claim is the best. Does anyone know what oil is best according to independent lab tests?
Also what oil filter is best? I've heard that Amsoil, Mobil One and others have good ones that really extend the useable life of the oil.
Thanks in advance for any info.

thebigjimsho
03-08-09, 01:25 PM
See my avatar and think with your dipstick, Jimmy!

CSX
03-08-09, 04:00 PM
"Best" is always subjective.

Personally, I run Redline in my Trans-Am, Mobil 1 in my motorcycle (motorcycle-specific, not standard 10w-40), and K&N filters in everything.

Everyone among the LSx crowd has their favorites. Castrol German 0w-40, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, and Amsoil are among the popular choices. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them personally.

thebigjimsho
03-08-09, 04:17 PM
agreed. once you get good enuff, there isn't any one that will be your savior...

CadV
03-08-09, 06:01 PM
Amsoil has produced the best results for me. 20,000 miles between changes and 2-5 mpg improvements to boot.

thebigjimsho
03-08-09, 07:01 PM
nah, I don't see it...

Vdrenaline
03-08-09, 08:56 PM
"Best" is always subjective.

Personally, I run Redline in my Trans-Am, Mobil 1 in my motorcycle (motorcycle-specific, not standard 10w-40), and K&N filters in everything.

Everyone among the LSx crowd has their favorites. Castrol German 0w-40, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, and Amsoil are among the popular choices. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them personally.


Thanks for your reply CSX. I was hoping to eliminate the subjective by trying to find independent lab tests demonstrating which one is best. Castrol Edge claims that independent lab tests put it 8 times better tham Mobil One but I'm not certain how "Independent" their tests are.

I also heard that 1-2 years ago, Mobil One changed their formula to use cheaper base materials including cracked carbon which is not as good as their original formula.

My own personal experience has been that Royal Purple is great but I've never tried Amsoil. I am about to try Castrol Edge for the first time.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can point us to good, independent data to help us make good choices on oil.

CSX
03-09-09, 03:03 AM
Thanks for your reply CSX. I was hoping to eliminate the subjective by trying to find independent lab tests demonstrating which one is best. Castrol Edge claims that independent lab tests put it 8 times better tham Mobil One but I'm not certain how "Independent" their tests are.

I also heard that 1-2 years ago, Mobil One changed their formula to use cheaper base materials including cracked carbon which is not as good as their original formula.

My own personal experience has been that Royal Purple is great but I've never tried Amsoil. I am about to try Castrol Edge for the first time.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can point us to good, independent data to help us make good choices on oil.

Are you on LS1tech by any chance? Patman, who frequents there, is a hardcore oil nut, and has more knowledge on this subject than probably anyone on that site. He has access to a number of independent tests, if I recall correctly.

GM-4-LIFE
03-09-09, 11:30 AM
I am going to run strictly Amsoil 0w30 Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil and the Amsoil EA oil filter. Which other oil guarantees protection for up to 35,000 miles in normal driving conditions? Amsoil seems to be the only one.

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

I have used Red-Line, Royal Purple and probably most of the synthetics on the market and based on the research and testing results I have seen, Amsoil always comes out on top.

SG

WillySTS
03-09-09, 12:11 PM
I am going to run strictly Amsoil 0w30 Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil and the Amsoil EA oil filter. Which other oil guarantees protection for up to 35,000 miles in normal driving conditions? Amsoil seems to be the only one.

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

I have used Red-Line, Royal Purple and probably most of the synthetics on the market and based on the research and testing results I have seen, Amsoil always comes out on top.

SG

I couldn't aggree with you more.:highfive:

thebigjimsho
03-09-09, 06:04 PM
:yawn:

SlvrBullIT
06-28-09, 06:29 AM
What is so special about its filter?

Titaniumseeker
06-28-09, 06:41 AM
I am going to run strictly Amsoil 0w30 Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil and the Amsoil EA oil filter. Which other oil guarantees protection for up to 35,000 miles in normal driving conditions? Amsoil seems to be the only one.

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

I have used Red-Line, Royal Purple and probably most of the synthetics on the market and based on the research and testing results I have seen, Amsoil always comes out on top.

SG

+1 on Amsoil. I just replaced my oil yesterday at 1509 miles.

thebigjimsho
06-28-09, 04:17 PM
:icecream:

RWFJR
06-28-09, 05:41 PM
Mobil 1...Been using it in all my cars since it came out in 1979...:D

Gary Wells
06-28-09, 08:31 PM
Might want to check out the forum:
"Bob Is The Oil Guy", or BITOG

Your first oil change will probably somewhat darker in color, especially on GM high performance vehicles, due, at least, in part to assembly lube mixing with the oil and / or GM EOS (engine oil supplement) being in the first oil change. I believe that C6ZO6 first oil changes are considered by many to be somewhat darker than normal.

I have heard rumors that it may not be 100% independent though.
I don't know what all brands make oil filters for these cars, but as related to turbo buicks, something that I am somewhat familiar with, everybody seems to agree that
1)Fram filters are positively the worst for anything.
2) AC Delco oil filters may not be what they used to be quality wise.
3) There are what appear to be un-doctored pictures on the inter-net of AC-Delco filters being fraudulently copied in China or other countries.
4) If you buy a AC Delco filter from a authorized GM dealer and study it closely, it may not be the same as the counter-part sold at some of the Parts houses, thereby making what appear to be genuine AC Delco filters sold at some parts houses of questionable integrity.
5) Those in the know on turbo Buicks generally agree that oil filters made by Mobil1, K & N, Wix, & Baldwin the best available.
6) Some of the better oil filters originate from Champion Labs, regardless of what brand name they are wearing.

SlvrBullIT
06-28-09, 10:40 PM
Any word on the AMSoil filters, they are larger, higher capacity etc etc. but are they "better" than lets say a mobil 1, wix etc? I have yet to find an independant lab verified document etc on AMSoil versus "what have you" oil other than what AMSoil puts out and is linked on other "dealer" sites.

I'll probably end up with AMSoil and a filtermag due to lack of bad results versus "I run AMSoil....it's the best, trust me!!! I got 457 million miles on my 2010 ZR1 that I only do 1/4 miles in!!!! and it gave me +927HP" I know this is an exaggeration, but everything I look under in google for reviews ends up with either the canned AMSoil blackstone test stuff from their site or "personal" experience. Same with oil filter reviews.

RapidRob
06-28-09, 10:50 PM
^^^ Maybe the following link will help:

https://www.amsoil.com/performancetests/g1971/index.aspx

Rob

SlvrBullIT
06-28-09, 11:13 PM
Still the same canned test from AMSoil site.

CIWS
06-29-09, 07:30 AM
As long as the lubricant is still in good condition it isn't going to make a big difference which one is in the engine for "normal" driving. So it's a question for some of finding the brand they can go the longest between oil changes. For others they change their oil on a regular basis, like every 3-5K miles whether it needs it or not. They can use just about anything because they're changing it before most oils are going to have to time to be broken down.

It also depends upon how / how often the car is driven, be it a daily driver or a garage queen that sits more than it's driven.

My car is a D.D., it came with Mobil 1 and it gets changed before the oil life service monitor says it needs it.



http://www.trustmymechanic.com/motor-oil-bible.pdf


http://www.nordicgroup.us/oil.htm

SlvrBullIT
06-29-09, 08:23 AM
I saw the nordicgroup article before, have to look at the motor oil bible when I get home.
Thanks for the links :)

Car is D.D. and my track car after I break it in some more. Hence the concern on my part on not getting snake oil, pardon the pun.

Independant confirmation is what I'm looking for, I really don't like stuff from the company's site because I also saw another oil company show theirs better than AMSoil etc etc with "independant" looking graphs, and charts..... so who is BSing who.

nc09v2
06-29-09, 08:33 PM
I did my second oil change about three weeks ago, at just over 2K miles, and went with Castrol Edge 5W-30 and the Delco PF-48 Duraguard oil filter.

I used the Mobil 1 5W-30 the first time, but the new Castrol stuff meets GM standard 4718 and is supposedly good for a year or 15K miles. Mobil 1 does not make either claim.

I switched over to Castrol 5W-20 Syntec in the wife's Odyssey last January when the Mobil1 shortage was going on, and have found it to stay cleaner much longer that the Mobil1 5W-20 I had been using. I have stayed with the Castrol in her van since with excellent results.

My V ran great before, and still runs great, but I think the new Castrol will last a little longer.......until the next time Mobil comes up with an oil upgrade anyway.

Amsoil is great stuff, IMHO their diff lubes are the best bar none, I changed my diff over to their fluid about a month ago with excellent results.

I do however think the Mobil/Castrol synthetic motor oils are almost as good if not as good as Amsoil these days. Just my opinion of course.

C66 Racing
06-29-09, 11:59 PM
Catching this one a little late...

Not sure this qualifies as the total independent test some are looking for, but I've been running AMSOIL 0w30 in my 06 CTS-V for a few oil changes now and my wear results are well below the univeral averages for this motor family for the lab I use (Blackstone):
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – AMSOIL 0w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/CTS-V%20AMSOIL%20UOA.htm)

As for the AMSOIL Ea Oil Filter (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/EAOPB.htm), I really do feel that it is better than other filters on the market because of its new nano-fiber technology that improves filtration without sacrificing flow. They did a better job of explaining this technology on the above link than I can.

:cheers:

SlvrBullIT
06-30-09, 12:55 AM
Very nice, thanks.

CadV
06-30-09, 08:32 AM
Catching this one a little late...

Not sure this qualifies as the total independent test some are looking for, but I've been running AMSOIL 0w30 in my 06 CTS-V for a few oil changes now and my wear results are well below the univeral averages for this motor family for the lab I use (Blackstone):
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – AMSOIL 0w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/CTS-V%20AMSOIL%20UOA.htm)

As for the AMSOIL Ea Oil Filter (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/EAOPB.htm), I really do feel that it is better than other filters on the market because of its new nano-fiber technology that improves filtration without sacrificing flow. They did a better job of explaining this technology on the above link than I can.

:cheers:

Good post.

I am serious guys once you switch to Amsoil you will never use anything else.

AuPanda
06-30-09, 11:29 AM
Amsoil EA filter but Redline Oil. I became a Redline fan when I would drag a GN running 23psi at Sacramento Raceway (RIP). That oil held up to incredible abuse.

wfo
06-30-09, 07:32 PM
Why do we think we know better than the engineers at GM?

Mobil 1 is what GM engineers spec'd this car to use. It's also what they spec'd the Corvettes..the coupes, convertibles, Z06 and ZR-1 too. It's also what the C6R Corvettes at the 24 HR LeMans use as well.

So again, why do we insist on recreating the preverbial wheel? Experiment, In my humble opinion..don't do it with high priced equipment. Even if someone you trust says it's OK.

Peter Gregg
06-30-09, 08:54 PM
Why do we think we know better than the engineers at GM?

So again, why do we insist on recreating the preverbial wheel? Experiment, In my humble opinion..don't do it with high priced equipment. Even if someone you trust says it's OK.

Then we would never move ahead, I feel we are the deciding factor of what we do or add to our cars. Same for doctors, they aren't the last word over your body - you are.

I have read here that Mobil 1 has changed it formula. On the other hand I have read over here: http://www.lincolnsonline.com/tech/00105.html that Amsoil is good but adds more stuff to keep the viscosity up and it is the additives that really break down and not the oil - but he likes Mobil 1. But which Mobil 1, the old or the new??.

Personally I like and trusted the names Mobil 1 and Amsoil but now they both have "reasonable doubt" so it makes it hard to choose and causing me to look at Royal Purple. Ironically Royal Purple is a synthetic oil I would have not considered before. What is the world coming too :)

Peter

C66 Racing
06-30-09, 11:04 PM
Personally I like and trusted the names Mobil 1 and Amsoil but now they both have "reasonable doubt" so it makes it hard to choose and causing me to look at Royal Purple. Ironically Royal Purple is a synthetic oil I would have not considered before. What is the world coming too :)

Peter

Peter,
My advice, clearly biased, is to stay away from RP. I went through the same decision process in 2003-4 after I lost a motor in my Corvette (running Mobil 1 15w50). I wondered if another motor oil would have prevented the failure. I initially looked at RP and Red Line, discovered AMSOIL and obviously chose that. Of the many things that influenced me was that many oil companies clearly disclose what basestock they use. AMSOIL is up front in saying their Signature Series and SAE synthetics are a PAO (Group IV) basestock. Red Line is clear about saying theirs is a polyol ester (Group V) basestock. Mobil 1 used to be clear and said they had a PAO basestock, but about a year and half ago it got vague and they now say "includes" PAO. Many suspect that they are now blending in Group III, highly processed mineral oil, into their basestock. Search RP's website and try to see what they use. I couldn't, so I asked them. They wouldn't say. I'm skeptical.

AMSOIL has included RP in their motorcycle and gear lube tests. In general, RP shears down fairly quickly. To me, this indicates that they are using an inferior basestock, likely largely Group III. But, I really don't know.
AMSOIL Motorcycle Oil “White Paper” (http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf) (1 MB pdf file)
AMSOIL Gear Lube “White Paper” (http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2457.pdf) (2 MB pdf file)

I was also not impressed with RPs wear results on numerous used oil analysis test on the oil forums.

And, clariflying a little the info on the link posted above (which is very dated), it isn't all the additives that break down, it is the viscosity improvers. And, it can be the basestock, particularly if the basestock contains mineral oils. Because of AMSOIL's PAO basestock, which has excellent multi-viscosity improvers, their fluids don't need a lot of viscosity modifiers and are very shear stable. In fact, their Torque Drive ATD (fluid for the Tremec manuals such as that in my 06 CTS-V) has zero viscosity modifiers and is totally shear stable. And based on my used oil analysis reports, their 0w30 is very shear stable as well. As a final example, the factory fill Dexron III (mineral basestock) in my CTS-V sheared down from a viscosity of about 7.3 cSt (at 212F) to 5.0 cSt in 10k miles and my AMSOIL ATF lost no viscosity in about 7k miles (when I switched it out with the Torque Drive mentioned above):
2006 Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis Dexron III vs AMSOIL ATF Transmission Fluid (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/CTS-V%20Transmission%20UOA.htm)
:cheers:

21rouge
07-01-09, 08:32 AM
Peter,
I was also not impressed with RPs wear results on numerous used oil analysis test on the oil forums.



Scanning through BITOG I see only one Used Oil Analysis of this direct injection engine in a Cadillac for any oil...let alone RP :hmm:. The question posed by the OP cannot be answered with any degree of expertise until there is a body of analyses.

gtg732w
07-01-09, 10:28 AM
Any word on the AMSoil filters, they are larger, higher capacity etc etc. but are they "better" than lets say a mobil 1, wix etc?

I read an article a while ago (if I can find it again I will post a link) that explained a lot about the dynamics within the oil filtering process.

What the article claimed was that under hard acceleration the difference in pressure between one side of the filter (unfiltered oil) and the other (the filtered oil) would be too large, and to keep oil flowing through the engine at a normal rate some oil would have to be pulled through the filter container but around the actual filter rather than through it.

The idea for the larger filter is that it can filter a greater volume of oil so that under full throttle the engine is still receiving 100% filtered oil, rather than some filtered oil with some unfiltered oil.

I do think though (and some others have mentioned this) that the biggest thing you need to be concerned with is how well the oil holds up to chemical changes within the engine (viscosity changes, breakdown of the oil and additives, etc.).

Just some food for thought.

SlvrBullIT
07-01-09, 04:14 PM
True, but with a larger filter, less should get bypassed for a given same filtering capacity of the filtering medium. That's not to say what happens when the filter starts to get clogged.

wfo
07-01-09, 04:23 PM
Then we would never move ahead, I feel we are the deciding factor of what we do or add to our cars. Same for doctors, they aren't the last word over your body - you are.

I have read here that Mobil 1 has changed it formula. On the other hand I have read over here: http://www.lincolnsonline.com/tech/00105.html that Amsoil is good but adds more stuff to keep the viscosity up and it is the additives that really break down and not the oil - but he likes Mobil 1. But which Mobil 1, the old or the new??.

Personally I like and trusted the names Mobil 1 and Amsoil but now they both have "reasonable doubt" so it makes it hard to choose and causing me to look at Royal Purple. Ironically Royal Purple is a synthetic oil I would have not considered before. What is the world coming too :)

Peter

With all due respect Peter unless you hear that Mobil 1 changed it's formula from Mobil, GM or other known solid industry source, you can't be proof positive.

Bottom-line: If you want to spend your money on different oil for your car that's your perogative. To assume Mobil 1 doesn't meet or exceed high performance requirements because you heard it on a "Forum" is erroneous at best.

I've looked at Amsoil and consider it to be prohibitively expensive due to it's ridiculous need to market it thru multi level. I've heard conflicting thoughts, philosophies or feelings from several competent Corvette Tuners in Nort Texas about Royal Purple.


Simply put.

If there was a special golden formula tested and compared by a reputable entity, proving to enable these cars to run cooler, smoother and faster, I'd be running for it. At this point I'm sticking with what the MFG of this great car and their other high performance cars (Corvette) within model heirarchy have decided. Because they had the opportunity to do differently if they saw a benefit.

If it's good enough for Corvtte to use in their 24 Hr LeMans Rolex series cars, my cammed 08 Z06...I think my future daily driver CTS-V will be happy too.

SlvrBullIT
07-01-09, 07:05 PM
I think it would be naive to think GM would use "the best available" oil to put in their cars, they don't use the "best materials" either, it's a balancing match of cost vs. benefit. Mobil 1 may have come with it but I bet.... it is not the best. Just like Nitrogen fill is better than standard air fill....but our V's didn't come with nitrogen filled tires from the factory...... compressed air is cheaper than nitrogen fill. I'm not a Mobil 1 hater by any means, they make a great product, but some of us want "better", not just standard, or what it came with. Moreover, if we thought that way, no one would "mod" their car...would they??

1BlinkGone
07-01-09, 07:08 PM
Why do we think we know better than the engineers at GM?

Mobil 1 is what GM engineers spec'd this car to use. It's also what they spec'd the Corvettes..the coupes, convertibles, Z06 and ZR-1 too. It's also what the C6R Corvettes at the 24 HR LeMans use as well.

So again, why do we insist on recreating the preverbial wheel? Experiment, In my humble opinion..don't do it with high priced equipment. Even if someone you trust says it's OK.

Why? Never underestimate influence of the beancounters in GM's accounting dept, that's why.

Dallara
07-02-09, 04:32 PM
~


I'll only offer up this...

When I was involved in Indy Cars I found out one rather interesting tidbit. The only oil that both Ilmor and Cosworth engine companies recommended was Mobil 1 - period.

Then when we ran with Infiniti engines the first half of 1997 in the IRL the only oil that Nissan said to run in the engines was Mobil 1.

We switched to the TWR/Oldsmobile (which were later rebadged as a Chevrolet) powerplants mid-season in 1997, and ran those into the year 2000. During that time we used two different engine builders - Speedway Engines in Indianapolis and Comptech in California - and both of them only recommended one oil, Mobil 1.

And all this regardless of if you had a competing major oil company sponsor (as we did at one point) or not. Often if you ran an oil other than Mobil 1 those engine companies were skeptical of any engine problems your team might have. On more than one occasion engine suppliers showed us the effects of running other oils in comparison to Mobil 1, and the differences in wear marks and patterns was dramatic.

Mind you, none of these companies were affiliated with Mobil 1 in any way, nor did they receive any sort of compensation from them. Each of the engine suppliers simply stated they had never found any other oil that performed as well, nor protected components as well, as Mobil 1 did.

Just FYI...

Needless to say, Mobil 1 is what I use in my CTS-V. :duck:

Dallara


~

SlvrBullIT
07-02-09, 10:15 PM
Amazing what the power of free is, ask them how much they spent on oil.....

Dallara
07-03-09, 02:18 AM
~




Amazing what the power of free is, ask them how much they spent on oil.....





Sorry. I don't think you understand...

Cosworth, Ilmor, etc. didn't need even free oil, nor get it. The customers (like our team) paid for or otherwise supplied the oil from the team's sponsors. With Cosworth and Ilmor we leased the engines, and we could run whatever oil we chose. However, they did a lot of testing with oils, and had seen the results of what any number of teams' engines looked like inside at rebuild time.

Same with Infiniti, Speedway, and Comptech... Oil was supplied by the teams that owned the engines and contracted with them for engines, builds, rebuilds, support, etc. Again, no oil was supplied to them by Mobil - period.

But hey, take it for what you think it's worth... Like I said, I was only providing the result of my experiences as FYI. Use whatever you like.

But I can honestly say I know - for a fact - that none of those engine suppliers or build shops got any *freebie* oil from Mobil.

Just out of curiosity what are you basing your conclusion about Ilmor, Cosworth, Infiniti/Nissan, TWR, Speedway, or Comptech on?

Dallara


~

SlvrBullIT
07-03-09, 05:56 AM
Sponsorship mostly, my father and I raced a lot when he was younger. Sponsorship even, just for free stuff goes a long way, regardless of top tier or "just works well". Never said Mobil 1 was bad or is inferior or won't work. Mobil 1 may be adequate and that is what many companies tested on and approved use of their engines on, but by no means is it "the best available". I got no beef with Mobil 1, but I just don't think it's "the best available". I'll pay a little a more of top tier since my car is DD and probable track car, i.e. double duty, where Cosworth motors are strictly racing motors.

I may stick with Mobil 1 but if AMSoil is "well rounded enough" I may go with it, both will probably suit me just fine, but I always like to do my homework.

wfo
07-03-09, 06:50 PM
Thanks Dallara...the voice of reason. GM builds awesome push rod natuarally aspirated muscle-cars, namely Corvettes and CTS-V's. The Corvettes particularly have been winning the GT1 class for many years with no competition and on Mobil 1 lubricant.

People will always feel there is somewhere for their rides. In this case it's talk of a better designed lubricant. Amsoil, Royal Purple and others are, great products. Are they worth the extra money? Will they deliver the difference over the MFG's recommended Mobil 1? I say no.

If it makes you feel like your car will perform better, by all means buy it. Your Local Tuner will probably love you if it's what tey are selling. They too have to make a living.

My Tuner, Quality Motorsports, Lewisville, TX highly recommends Mobil 1. They're C6 Corvette Forum Vendors and stay very busy in a tight economy developing and delivering perfomance packages for many of the C5/C6 LS based motors throughout the country and now they've taken on the CTS-V. In fact the owner Patrick Sparks just took delivery of an 09 silver CTS V Monday 6/29.

Mobil 1 all the way!!

Dallara
07-03-09, 11:35 PM
~


Well, I don't know what level of motorsports racing or sponsorship you were involved at, SlvrBullIT, but I can honestly say none of the major engine suppliers in Indy Car based their oil recommendations on "freebies"...

Our team had lease contracts with both Ilmor-Mercedes-Benz and Cosworth-Ford at different junctures and neither were in any way compensated by Mobil. In fact, they were more than happy to try any oil your team might be getting from a sponsor and provide you not only oil analysis but also evaluations of component wear characteristics using your team's sponsor's oil.

Interesting story for you...

At one point we had one of the largest motor oil companies in the world as our primary sponsor. In fact, they literally "bought" the whole car - i.e. they got the color scheme and their logos splashed all over the car, our transporter and tractor rig, uniforms, etc., etc., etc., and we had to do tons of promotional work for them, including show cars and the like. Needless to say we got all the oil we wanted and/or could need for the race efforts at the Indy 500 and all our other events. It was a plush, multi-seven-figure sponsorship deal... The kind you always dream of.

There was only one problem...

Even the ultra-trick, super-special, produced-just-for-their-race-efforts "synthetic racing oil" showed HORRENDOUS wear and tear on the engine components when the first engines in need of scheduled rebuild went back to Cosworth. Cosworth was so alarmed they asked us for some samples of the oil right out of the container to have analyzed right along with the used oil that had come out of the mileaged engines in for rebuild. They even put two identical Cosworth XB's up on the dyno - one with our sponsor's oil and the other with their baseline Mobil 1 - and ran them to check and make sure of their previous conclusions. Between that and the independent oil analysis data they determined that we would could potentially have some really severe and major engine issues if we continued to use the sponsor's oil, whose name everyone here would recognize instantly if I were to reveal it.

We were between a real rock and a hard place. At first we informed the the oil company of the findings, and they said they would check it out with their chemical engineers. They determined that their oil was fine and to continue to use it. We did go through another entire engine cycle and had Cosworth check everything again, and again the results were frighteningly alarming wear and potential engine explosions.

So bad, in fact, that Cosworth said they would not honor their usual policy of backing up an engine that failed prior to the normal rebuild mileage schedule provided it had not been overreved, etc.

So what did we do?

Well, for the rest of the season we went out and bought Mobil 1 synthetic from an old friend that was a distributor, and who was also thankfully incredibly discrete... And we would get in cases of the sponsor's oil, carefully open the boxes, and pour it into 55-gallon drums at our race shop to be used for our shop vehicles, employee's vehicles, lawn mowers, etc., etc., etc. - you name it. Meanwhile we would refill the sponsor's oil bottles with Mobil 1, carefully recapped them, and put them back in the cases, carefully then gluing them back shut. We did this all late at night so we would have all the shelves at the shop and in the transporter stocked during times when we might have visitors or other "eyes" around, and as such it always appeared we were pouring the sponsor's oil into the oil tanks of the race cars.

Was it a deception? Certainly, but one we felt was necessary to insure thant we never had an engine failure. One, those engine rebuilds form Cosworth were not in the least bit cheap, and two, it would have looked mighty bad for the oil company sponsor if we ever had an engine grenade from an apparent lubrication-related failure.

And we never did have any engine problems, and we kept the sponsor for quite a while. Oddly enough, when we had to switch over to the normally aspirated IRL powerplant rules each of the engine suppliers/builders we used there did much the same kind of analysis and testing of the same sponsor's "racing oil" and came to the same conclusions that Cosworth did, and as such we carried on the deception and continued to use Mobil 1 oil we actually bought.

BTW, for some this story may sound incredible and might somehow amke one think we were somehow not being fair with the sponsor. I'm sorry if anyone feels that way, as I assure you things like that happen much more than most think in motorsports. Actually, I never did feel we were being unfair to the sponsor... Quite the opposite. I felt they were being unfair to us in not providing us an important component we needed to reliably and safely compete and run up front in races for them.

I did, however, often feel we were being unfair to the fans and consumers who might have bought the sponsor's oil products based on our team and performance. Little did they know the oil we were "selling" was something I really didn't even want in my lawn mower or shop truck. The only advantage for us was that we got so much oil from the sponsor that we could all afford to change it incredibly often in any shop vehicles - sometimes less than every 1,000 miles... :)

Still, it bugged me that people might have bought oil based on what we were doing, and that the oil they may have bought was less than desirable by our standards.

Anyway, there's a racing oil story for ya'...

And another illustration of why I use Mobil 1 even to this day in my vehicles for the most part (I don't use it in some of my motorcycles that have very specific needs...).

Just FYI.

Dallara




~

SlvrBullIT
07-04-09, 12:47 AM
Again.... I have no problems with mobil 1............. I repeat I have no problems with mobil 1.......... I repeat I have no problems with mobil 1...........

I've switched on and off with Mobil 1 and Castrol depending on whose paying or giving, however, like most anything the pinnacle product is rarely the most widely used or bought. So far on the V, the mobil1 is very good, slight mpg decrease, but I may send in for analysis, otherwise top notch. Just looking for what other people have in use of other products. I might even start another thread war with best reusable air filter....... neways Have to figure out when to do the next maintenance drop for all fluids and figure out how much brake fluid to buy to swap it out.

SlvrBullIT
07-04-09, 12:48 AM
Your story could have gone the other way like I've seen it, the sponsors will always "push" you to use what "they" want. SO you got crap oil, we got a sponsor and got crap tires!!!

Dallara
07-04-09, 11:07 AM
~




Your story could have gone the other way like I've seen it, the sponsors will always "push" you to use what "they" want. SO you got crap oil, we got a sponsor and got crap tires!!!





First off, I fully understand you have no problems with Mobil 1. I fully understood that previously. I just thought given your racing background that you would enjoy the story.

And the real point of the story was to show that folks like Cosworth and Ilmor had no ulterior motives, nor any incentives, from Mobil to recommend their oil. They simply based their Mobil 1 recommendation on what they had seem as far as wear and tear on internal engine components and on constantly ongoing oil analysis, both on other oils and Mobil 1.

No doubt in my mind that if the oil company sponsor in the story above had ever discovered us using the Mobil 1 that some there would have wanted us to use their inferior product... However, as we soon discovered, there were some there that might have actually wanted us to continue our ruse. After all, we were there strictly as a promotional tool to sell their product, and as I said we soon discovered they considered us no more than marketing instruments in ways we could have never imagined. Those folks there cared little for the team nor its people. As such they went to great lengths to impose their will in other ways but would have probably been fine with the use of another brand oil to sell their products...

Fortunately those people are no longer with that company, but that's another story... ;)

Certainly the oil sponsor could have forced us to use their oil, but the point is they could have forced US, not forced Cosworth, Ilmor, Infiniti, Ed Pink, TWR, Speedway, or Comptech to recommend their oil. Nor was Mobil influencing any of these engine supplier/builders to recommend their product. Only testing, experience, and analysis guided their recommendation of Mobil 1.

For the record, I used to use Amsoil for a while. I have also used Shell Rotella oils in multiple vehicles. We use Golden Spectro synthetic pre-mix in our vintage motocross race bikes. I used Castrol GTX 20w/50 for decades in motorcycles, and later when I was a Honda dealer I used their branded oils which at first were made by Kendall and later Ashland (Valvoline). We were once sponsored by an esoteric industrial oil called Petro-Moly, and used it briefly (switching again back to Mobil 1). I've used boutique brand oils like Redline, Bel-Ray, etc. I've used mainstream oils like Shell, Castrol, Valvoline, etc., too, as well as car maker branded oils like Ford/Motorcraft, Chrysler/Mopar, GM, etc. Point is I'm not an "oil snob" who only believes that there is one, true "holy grail" of oils as some do. Personally I think there are a lot of good, and even great, ones out there, and that really almost any of them will protect your engine's components just fine if you change it often enough. As it should be, it is your car and you should run what you think is best...

I am using the Mobil 1 in my CTS-V first because GM recommended it and second because of my experience with the engine suppliers/builders mentioned above.

Just for the record, I have been using both the AC Delco UltraGuard UPF48R and Mobil 1 M1-113 oil filters on my CTS-V. I changed the oil first at 500 miles, then at 1,500, and finally again at 3,500 miles. Filter that came off from the factory was an AC Delco PF48. One of the Mobil 1 M1-113's went on at the first change because I didn't have the UltraGuard UPF48R's in yet. Since then each change I have used the UPF48R filters.

Interesting note... From simple inspection looking through the oil filter openings I would be willing to bet the Mobil 1 M1-113 oil filters and the AC Delco UPF48R filters are made by the same outfit. They appear literally identical on the inside, whereas the standard PF48 looks considerably different. The standard PF48 is also substantially lighter than the M1-113 or the UPF48R, whereas both those weigh exactly the same.

Just FYI...

Dallara



~

thebigjimsho
07-04-09, 12:03 PM
Much ado about nothing.

SlvrBullIT
07-04-09, 12:20 PM
Yeah the story was good, sponsors can be a pain or a god send. I just sometimes wish they left some decisions to the people in the know. ?, Is the extended performance mobil 1 any good? The filters are top notch from mobil 1, that's for sure. Still have yet to meet a person who has used a filtermag..... Just wish cars had a lube oil purifier by now....

SlvrBullIT
07-04-09, 12:21 PM
Dallara, did you change all fluids or just oil at 500 and 1500?

SlvrBullIT
07-04-09, 12:21 PM
Thanks, by the way, good stories and good recommendations :D

Dallara
07-04-09, 12:38 PM
~


Just oil and filter so far. Plan on tranny fluid and filter, along with the diff fluid at 6,000. It has been my experience that changing those sooner than that is overkill, at least based on the analysis I have seen in the past. I already have the trans filter kit in hand.

After 6,000 miles I will be changing oil and filter every 3,000 miles, and tranny and diff fluids every other oil/filter change - i.e. every 6,000 miles. Brake fluid and coolants once per year down here in South Texas is plenty often enough, too.

Just FYI, and my personal thoughts... Nothing more.

Dallara



~

C66 Racing
07-04-09, 01:23 PM
Scanning through BITOG I see only one Used Oil Analysis of this direct injection engine in a Cadillac for any oil...let alone RP :hmm:. The question posed by the OP cannot be answered with any degree of expertise until there is a body of analyses.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply the UOA tests I reviewed were on a direct injection Cadillac. My reviews pre-dated that engine (by several years). However, I really don't think that how an oil compares in one engine family will be that much different than in another and there are enough UOA on that forum from RP or Mobil 1 to draw your own conclusions.

And my perspective on why GM uses Mobil 1, or how ExxonMobil blends Mobil 1 are on the side of those that believe that in these large corporations, the bean counters drive decisions. From that perspective, while I believe that ExxonMobil probably could make the best oil on the market, I don't see why they should when everyone believes that it is good enough and their profit margin is higher if their additive package is less robust, or they blend down their Group IV PAO synthetic basestock with some Group III highly hydroprocessed mineral oil synthetic basestock.

I recognize that most will consider me biased, but I too used Mobil 1 at one time and went through the same considerations as those expressed on this thread several years ago. I started using AMSOIL before I learned that I could sell it. :cheers:

AuPanda
07-04-09, 03:08 PM
~





... From simple inspection looking through the oil filter openings I would be willing to bet the Mobil 1 M1-113 oil filters and the AC Delco UPF48R filters are made by the same outfit. They appear literally identical on the inside, whereas the standard PF48 looks considerably different. The standard PF48 is also substantially lighter than the M1-113 or the UPF48R, whereas both those weigh exactly the same...



~

Both oil filters are made by Champion Laboratories. The best reading I have come across as to oil filters is at: http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilters/opinions.html

A couple of quotes from the site in regards to Mobil1, AC Delco, and Amsoil filters:

Mobil 1

This filter is made by Champion Labs using what I call their "performance" design instead of the "Ecore". It uses a synthetic fiber element that can filter out very small particles and has a high holding capacity. It is rated by the manufacturer at just under the Purolator Pure One as far as filtering capability, but is still very much above conventional paper filters. It also has a very strong construction to withstand high pressure spikes during start-up. Given the choice between the Purolator Pure One and the Mobil 1 filters, I would choose the Mobil 1 because of the restriction concerns of the Pure One. However, as with all Mobil 1 products, expect to pay 2 - 3 times as much for this filter. I have seen this filter sold at Auto Zone and K-mart and used them a few times, but I feel they are not worth the money in the end.

Though I have never had problems, I had received feedback from a few people back in 1999/2000 that these filters may leak at the base. It seems that the seal between the backplate and can may burst under high pressure (at startup). These were on Ford engine applications.

AC Delco Duraguard

AC Delco no longer seems to manufacture oil filters. They are now made by Champion Labs using their new "Ecore" design.

AMSOIL

The SuperDuty line of filters is no longer being sold by AMSOIL. They now have their "Absolute Efficiency" line of filters that are intended for long duration use along with their premium synthetic oils. The SuperDuty filters had to be changed out at least once between oil changes. From the pictures, they appear to be manufactured by Donaldson. Donaldson manufactures filters mainly for truck applications intended for long duration use. They also manufactured the Hard Driver filter, which I used with great success for several years.

(forgot to add the info in regards to purolator)

Purolator Premium Plus

The Purolator is a solid design. It seems to have one of the tougher paper filter elements of the low-end filters and the bypass valve is built right into the cartridge. There are no internal sealing problems with this filter at all. There is an assembly string that is wrapped around the filter element, probably to hold it in place while the glue cures in the end caps. In the ProLine (one of the Purolator clones), the string was wrapped too tightly and had damaged the filter element. All the other Purolator-made filters (8 in all) had no trouble, and even the damaged one would probably have been fine. I usually go with these in a pinch or when recommending the cheapest oil filter possible.

Purolator Pure One

This is an interesting filter design made by Purolator. Most of the construction of the Pure One is the same as the Purolator Premium Plus. The big difference is the filter element itself. It has a dense paper/fiber filter element that can filter very small particles. The result of this is cleaner oil exiting the element, but more oil restriction. Purolator addressed this by adding more filter material (more and deeper pleats). After seeing one of these filters cut open, I am apprehensive about this filter. It seems to have so many pleats that it is almost a solid chunk of filter element. It seems like it would end up restricting the flow, more than anything. Purolator has plenty of data on the filtration abilities of this filter and I don't doubt it, but they have no flow data. Even so, I don't see any major problems with this filter. It also sports a silicone anti-drainback valve and a PTFE treated nitrile rubber gasket.

SlvrBullIT
07-04-09, 03:22 PM
Does mobil 1 use Group III ?

C66 Racing
07-05-09, 11:57 AM
Does mobil 1 use Group III ?

They aren't saying. This from their FAQ page:

" Is Mobil 1 with SuperSyn Technology a fully synthetic motor oil?

Yes, it is. To meet the demanding requirements of today's specifications (and our customers' expectations), Mobil 1 with SuperSyn uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins (PAOs), along with a proprietary system of additives. Each Mobil 1 with SuperSyn viscosity grade uses a unique combination of synthetic fluids and selected additives in order to tailor the viscosity grade to its specific application."

Because they say that it includes PAO (Group IV synthetic basestock) vice some other word like predominantly, mostly, exclusively, etc. implies that they are using at least some portion of Group III, particularly since their wording was significantly different several years ago, strongly stating that they used PAOs.

Interestingly, when looking for an answer to the above, I found this on Mobil 1's FAQ page:

"Are Mobil 1 Racing oils the exact formulation used by the Formula 1, NASCAR, and Le Mans race teams?

Mobil 1 Racing oils are formulated with the same race-proven, fully synthetic technology used in racing applications around the world. However, typically, Mobil 1 tailors its racing oil technology based on the specifications required by specific teams and/or race applications."

SlvrBullIT
07-05-09, 04:10 PM
Yeah I read that to online from their site, looks like Group III and IV blend possibly (make it cheaper).

wfo
07-05-09, 04:28 PM
I love this Forum!

You guys "bring it" everytime and that's what it's all about.

Now...go out there and give that Caddy a nice wash and wax.

CADYSHAK
07-05-09, 09:24 PM
I'm a little confused here : Why do you suppose that GM does not
mention anything about changing the oil sooner on the CTS-V during normal driving on the street earlier than when the oil monitor suggests ( which usually is around 5000K plus) ? And GM does not suggest changing your fluids on the tranny and differential earlier than what they suggest- well beyond 10,000k .
Given that GM must cover the engine , tranny and differential for five years or 100,000 miles ( following their recommendation on the maintenance on these major components) , you would think they would be a little worried if these conponents especially on a high performance car such as a CTS-V , might fail prematurely if they needed attention alot sooner ?
Just curious if someone could explain the contradictions I'm reading on this board about changing oil and fluids please .

CADYSHAK

Gary Wells
07-05-09, 09:59 PM
May not look good on their sales brochure? I doubt if GM wants to be the only auto manufacture requiring that oil and or any fluids require frequent changes to maintain warranty. Won't help sell cars? Just some food for thought.

SlvrBullIT
07-05-09, 10:28 PM
It's preventative.... not that anything would break, but to reduce the premature wear if "junk" was circulating in the system as the car is breaking in. Essentially getting all that stuff out before 7000 miles so it doesn't wear on stuff inside the motor and tranny for 6500 miles, until the first "regular" maintenance interval.

marktanner
07-06-09, 01:15 AM
The oil change interval is already much shorter on the V, 5000 miles, compared to the 10,000 mile interval for the regular CTS. Interestingly, the recommended oil change for my '05 Porsche GT3 is 2 years or 30,000 miles, no matter how hard you drive it! It too was factory filled with Mobil 1.

CADYSHAK
07-06-09, 01:23 AM
Gary Wells

May not look good on their sales brochure? I doubt if GM wants to be the only auto manufacture requiring that oil and or any fluids require frequent changes to maintain warranty. Won't help sell cars? Just some food for thought.

Well Lexus has no problem stating that their cars need frequent (5000k) oil changes. In fact they don't use synthetic oil in any of their cars , including their is-f performance car.
Subaru sti cars need very frequent oil and fluid changes and their dealers tell you that, or you lose your warranty.
I can understand if you race your V frequently on a track , as the vette Z06 brochure recommends changing fluids often under very hard driving .
Is it possible the engineers at GM might know a thing or two about their car?

CADYSHAK

SlvrBullIT
07-06-09, 03:22 AM
The oil change interval is already much shorter on the V, 5000 miles, compared to the 10,000 mile interval for the regular CTS. Interestingly, the recommended oil change for my '05 Porsche GT3 is 2 years or 30,000 miles, no matter how hard you drive it! It too was factory filled with Mobil 1.

Larger oil sump, more oil. So not as shearable as the small sump or dry sump some other cars have.

SlvrBullIT
07-06-09, 03:35 AM
Is it possible the engineers at GM might know a thing or two about their car?

They better, but it doesn't mean 3rd parties can't know more than them. It's a well know fact aftermarket air intakes are more efficient than the paper filter small and heavy air inductions they have now, but GM doesn't put them on. Some people are complaining about diff temp lights....where's the diff cooler? Or jeez how about the good ole harmonic balancer piranha on the blower pulley shaft?!...... GM engineers are not the end all knowledge or the pinnacle of the V. I don't think anyone is yet on the V2. However, more proactive preventative maintenance is more than likely "better" for the vehicle than print mandates or the DIC telling you you are at 0% on the oil life. Speaking of people in the know about the V2....Who the heck knows how much brake fluid I need in order to do a complete dump and fill? Didn't see it in the literature and google /epikfails me.

CADYSHAK
07-07-09, 12:55 AM
Question:by changing into a CAI vs the standard box intake filter , do you have to change any of the parameters on the computer ? Is it just a simple exchange ?
CADYSHAK

1BlinkGone
07-07-09, 04:46 PM
Allow me to speak regarding filter media, particularly air filters- I myself for a LONG time have been a K&N user, and fan of their products in general; and fwiw, I come from a fleet maint background for a large utility company. All that said, there was a very comprehensive filter media analysis done a few years back by a neutral firm that was quite an eye-opener... I can't recall who did this, but it was legitimate.

In their published findings: Yes, K&N scored high on airflow...if not the top-dawg. That's all good and well; but the flipside was they were terrible at capturing fine particulate matter. They had nearly the WORST rating as far as fine abrasive particles not being captured by the gauze & oil media.

The filter that rated the best balance of airflow and a high degree of filtration?

The humble Delco air filter.

I went back to paper airfilter media after that & I honestly won't be using K&N anymore unless they have redesigned their media.

C66 Racing
07-07-09, 11:50 PM
I went back to paper airfilter media after that & I honestly won't be using K&N anymore unless they have redesigned their media.

I had a similar falling out with K&N a few years ago. I had been a long time user, but my track day Corvette was low on power. Took it to my shop and they put it on a dyno and ran it with my K&N. Took the K&N off and replaced with a stock AC Delco paper filter - gained 2 HP. They measured my leak down and it was much higher than other cars with similar run time that they had tested.

I switched to the AMSOIL Ea Air Filter (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/EAPB.htm). Similar flow to paper, but much better filtration. Unfortunately, there isn't one out for the V2 yet. :cheers:

SlvrBullIT
07-08-09, 03:12 AM
What no AMSoil cone filters?

C66 Racing
07-11-09, 02:03 PM
What no AMSoil cone filters?

AMSOIL does sell cone versions of this filter element.
AMSOIL EA Air Induction Filters (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/EAAUPB.htm)

Does the V2 have a cone filter?

My 02 Z06 track car must retain the stock air box per SCCA T1 class rules. AMSOIL makes an EA Air Filter that fits my Z06, but their online application guide doesn't list one for the V2... yet.

Dallara
07-11-09, 04:46 PM
~




Allow me to speak regarding filter media, particularly air filters- I myself for a LONG time have been a K&N user, and fan of their products in general; and fwiw, I come from a fleet maint background for a large utility company. All that said, there was a very comprehensive filter media analysis done a few years back by a neutral firm that was quite an eye-opener... I can't recall who did this, but it was legitimate.

In their published findings: Yes, K&N scored high on airflow...if not the top-dawg. That's all good and well; but the flipside was they were terrible at capturing fine particulate matter. They had nearly the WORST rating as far as fine abrasive particles not being captured by the gauze & oil media.

The filter that rated the best balance of airflow and a high degree of filtration?

The humble Delco air filter.

I went back to paper airfilter media after that & I honestly won't be using K&N anymore unless they have redesigned their media.





Interesting...

Do you have any sort of link to that study, or a source of where it was published or is perhaps available in print? I would sincerely like to see it.

Decades ago in a dirt bike magazine (and I honestly can't remember which mag it was) they did some comparison tests with paper filters, gauze filters, and foam filters. Best of my recollection of the gist of that testing was the following:

- paper filtered well, but was by far the most restrictive
- worst problem with paper was when it got wet. It literally swelled up and became even more restrictive, but even worse was even when it dried it remained even more restrictive and started to deteriorate
- dry gauze flowed the best but didn't filter hardly at all
- water didn't affect dry gauze's flow or filtering capabilities
- oiled gauze flowed nearly as well as dry gauze but filtered much better, and nearly equal to paper
- oiled gauze was unaffected by water
- dry foam flowed well but filtered lousy
- dry foam filters soaked up water like a sponge which hampered flow but didn't seem to hinder or help filtering
- oiled foam filtered the best of all and flowed nearly as well as the oiled gauze and better than the paper
- oiled foam was unaffected by water unless it was literally drowned in it

The magazine's conclusion was that oiled foam was best overall, as it filtered as good or better than any, was relatively unaffected by water, and was reusable-washable. They rated oiled gauze second best because it flowed well despite not filtering quite as well, was relatively impervious to water, and was reusable-washable. They rated paper third as it filtered well when dry despite having flow restrictions, plugged up and fell apart after it had been wet, and was not reusable. They basically said don't ever use dry gauze or dry foam, period.

Again, that is simply my best recollection of the article, and I can't back it up because I can't remember which publication it came from. Just throwing it out there as an FYI, for what it's worth.

I would really like to see any link, etc. you might have to that other test if at all possible. No doubt it would be quite useful.

Thanks!

Dallara




~

C66 Racing
07-12-09, 01:59 PM
Dallara,
Might not be the exact same study mentioned above, but there is one that is an interesting read on another forum, so I won't drop the link. Google "bob is the oil guy" and use the links on the left for the air filter study. There are two links worth reading, the flow test and the filtration test. Not completely scientific, but still a good read. PM if you can't find it. Of note, the AMSOIL filter used in this test has been discontinued and is not the one I mentioned above. :cheers:

Dallara
07-13-09, 04:39 PM
~


Thanks for the pointer to that test, C66. :2thumbs:

That was a fun and enlightening read, and I loved how the guy got his wife involved as an objective judge...


"She picked the Amsoil filter darkest, and she sure doesn't care about the results."

I got a real chuckle out of that, as my ex's all used to think some of the things I did in the garage and shop bordered on crazy and damn sure didn't care about any of the results I would get excited about... His comment brought back many memories! :devilheh:

From what I read there I think I'll be stickin' with AC Delco paper filters for my CTS-V, at least for a while. Ditto the AC Delco Ultraguard and/or the Mobil 1 oil filters (which I am convinced are identical filters) and the OEM recommended Mobil 1 oil. The way I figure it the combination of those elements and frequent servicing should be all the V needs for a long and entertaining life... :angel:

Certainly there may be better oils... or better filters... but based on what we've seen in this thread I doubt anyone could really go wrong, or do any more damage, to the components of the V using pretty much what GM recommends. :cool2:

Thanks again!

Dallara




~

rp161
07-14-09, 10:19 AM
Take this for what it is worth. When purchasing agents choose what products to buy sometimes based on price
and I'll leave the other up to you. Sometimes it is not the best product but the best deal. In times such as today the best deal may apply more often. When selling millions of products and the possible return of faulty
products there is always a risk. This risk is often offset by profits. The risk is often known by the seller. The law of average is expected but could exceed average. How often did a car company know of a faulty item and did nothing?
This is not aimed at anyone its just my outlook on business and will not apply to all.

1BlinkGone
07-15-09, 01:41 PM
Dallarta-

I will have to look on one of my retired PC's to see if I have that archived. I think I do, but right now is not an opportune time, if I may say so. It's buried in the garage somewhere. If I recall, the info I found was referenced from the Charger forums that somebody had posted as a link. It was a totally neutral test done by a lab. No bias, just test results. I'll see if I have it on one of my Macs...

Dallara
07-15-09, 02:02 PM
~

Cool, 1BlinkGone...

No hurries. No worries. If you can find it I would love to see it. Always like to learn something new and gather new data.

Appreciate the reply.

Dallara


~

kck
07-18-09, 11:53 PM
As an owner of a new V with only 300 miles on the odometer, I very much appreciate this thread on mileage recommendations for changing fluids during the break-in period. And I especially appreciate the very informative exchange between C66 Racing and Dallara regarding their recommendations on specific fluids and filters for the V. Despite their disagreements, they kept their exchanges “empirically oriented” and very civil -- unlike some of the name-calling that goes on occasionally in other threads where there are disagreements (especially when someone suggests “weaknesses” in the V relative to other brands).

I believe C66 Racing and Dallara (and other forum members) have made compelling cases for both sides of the debate over whether to use Mobil 1 5w30 or Amsoil Signature Series 0w30 engine oil – and I’m sure both products would provide excellent support for the long-life of the V’s very high-performance engine. I was actually leaning slightly in favor of going with Mobil 1, but then I noticed that the Amsoil 0w30 has a slightly lower “start-up” viscosity than the Mobil 1 5w-30. It’s my understanding that start-up is where one typically encounters a good portion of engine wear. And given our very cold Nebraska winters, I’m now leaning a bit towards the Amsoil 0w30, unless I subsequently hear compelling arguments discounting my current thinking.

I get the impression that there is a bit less controversy over the superiority of the Amsoil fluids for the transmission and differential. So I’m currently planning on using the the Amsoil Low Viscosity ATF for the automatic transmission and the Amsoil Severe Gear 75w90 for the differential. Furthermore, AER01 has recommended that forum members not use the Amsoil supplement product for the V’s differential slip (i.e., the AMSOIL Slip Lock Additive). Instead, I’m going with his recommendation to substitute the GM Limited Slip Additive.

The forum feedback also makes me very comfortable in choosing (arbitrarily) among at least 3 high-quality engine oil filters: AC Delco UltraGuard UPF48R, Mobil 1 M1-113, or Amsoil EA050. Although each of these 3 filters appears to be a “step-up” from the factory installed AC Delco PF48 filter, I would be surprised if even the standard Delco filter does not provide very good protection. But given the price of the V (at least for this poor professor), the relatively small extra expense of using the “higher-end” oil filters would seem a small price to pay for some potential additional “protection.”

Although I realize it is probably “over-kill,” just to be on the safe side for the “break-in period” (and based on “collating” various recommendations by forum members), I’m planning on initially changing my engine oil (and filter) at 500 miles and at 2,000 miles (and then every 3,000 miles thereafter). And I’ll initially change my differential fluid at 1,000 miles and transmission fluid (and filter) at 2,000 miles (and then every 6,000 miles or so thereafter).

Kyle

kck
07-19-09, 12:02 AM
I’m making two additional posts because I have a couple of questions for forum members that I did not want “buried” in my (lengthy) post just above. My second post here concerns a “supplementary” (break-in) “coating” that GM apparently includes on the ring & pinion of the V’s differential that I am concerned potentially may be prematurely removed, if I do an “early” differential fluid change. (My third post will discuss issues regarding the supplementary engine oil fluid that the GM factory apparently installs along with the Mobil 1 engine oil.)

As background for my questions about changing the differential fluid in V, here’s some “history” regarding potential problems with the differential in the V2: In a 04-03-09 post, Short-Throw responded to AERO1’s report of his V2’s “weird rubbing/grinding noise coming from the rear differential” as follows: “I'm curious if you were able to restrain yourself when first breaking in the car? This is a lot easier said than done, so no criticism. Aggressive initial starts before proper drive-train break in can result in a noisy differential. On the ZR-1 for example, it sounds like a high pitched noise. There's a coating on the ring and pinion and hard starts prevent proper seating.”

In addition to Short-Throw’s cautionary comments regarding the V2’s differential, I know that the first generation of CTS-Vs had extensive differential problems, as highlighted in the forum exchanges at: http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2004/87324-must-read-article-gm-high-tech.html

I realize, of course, that GM has apparently redesigned the differential for the new (2009) V, and it’s my understanding that Caddy engineers did such a great job on developing solutions to the “wheel hop” issue with the earlier (V1) models that Vette engineers “borrowed” this new technology to use on the ZR1s. Nevertheless, I would like to minimize the potential problems with the V2 differential, especially given that I want to add some Wait4me mods from Jesse that will place additional stress on the differential (and other drivetrain components).

Given that the V2’s differential may well be the “weakest” component of its powertrain, I’m adhering religiously to the GM’s recommended “gentle” break-in of the differential (and transmission) for the first 1500 miles. And as noted in my previous post above, I plan on doing my initial differential fluid change at 1,000 miles. My reasoning here is that this “early” differential fluid change should help remove the metal shavings that are produced most prominently in the initial break-in period. Additionally, I have purchased from the FilterMag company a special magnet for the V’s differential that goes on the “inside” of the differential (i.e., requiring that one change the differential fluid in order to install the magnet). So I’d like to get that magnet installed earlier rather than later in the life of the differential. (I’ll do a later post regarding information about this company and their other products for the V, e.g., they also have an “external magnet” for the V’s transmission, in addition to their external magnet for the engine oil filter that some forum members have reported using.)

However, my concern is that GM has included a special “break-in” coating for the V’s differential – what Short-Throw appears to be describing when he says “There's a coating on the ring and pinion and hard starts prevent proper seating“ [emphasis mine]. If true, then GM would seem to be assuming that this “coating” will be present until the owner does GM’s recommended differential fluid change at 50,000 miles (for “severe service”).

So my question is whether this “coating” is at least partially removed when one does an “early” differential fluid change? If it is removed, then can I purchase this GM coating to include as part of my first differential fluid change at 1,000 miles?

Kyle

kck
07-19-09, 12:07 AM
In an earlier post regarding the best synthetic oil, Gary Wells has noted that the GM adds a supplement to the factory-installed Mobil 1 engine oil; specifically, GM EOS (engine oil supplement). Furthermore, although I cannot find a clear statement in the GM 2009 Owner’s Manual for the mileage between oil changes that the company recommends for the V, some forum members appear to suggest that GM has a recommendation of 5,000 miles.

This leads me to the following question: If GM assumes that their “break-in” supplement for the engine oil will be present for at least the first 5,000 miles of engine life, would it not be wise to use this GM EOS supplement with any oil changes one does until the V reaches the 5,000 mile mark?

Kyle

Gary Wells
07-19-09, 08:28 AM
I don't believe that GM claims to use a specific or specialized "break-in engine oil" process anymore. However, you might want to do some research on this subject. Google GM EOS, Engine Oil Supplement, Richard Clark, ZDDP+, ZDDP, and so forth. I do believe that GM uses a lot of EOS, or something similar that is heavy in concentration of Zinc for their engine assembly, at least for the ZO6's. It has been reported that an independent oil analysis was done on a original 1st oil change coming out of a ZO6 and it contained somewhere in excess of 3000 PPM of Zinc, I believe. Considerably higher that found in any "legal" street oil on the market today. HTH

C66 Racing
07-19-09, 11:46 AM
Kyle,
Appreciate the kind words. I really do appreciate the dialogue with guys like Dallara and work hard to clearly separate my opinions from more factual info.

That said, here are some opinions. I've been a long time member of several Corvette Forums (bought my Z06 in Aug 01) and I do not remember seeing what I consider concrete info on any break-in additive used in LSx engines by GM. I am confident that in the Corvette and my CTS-V (V1) there is no mileage recommendation, even for the first oil change. GM strongly advises to follow the OLM. Additionally, your post is the first I remember reading about a coating on the ring/pinion.

Over the past four years or so, I've seen several articles put out by AMSOIL indicating that early diff fluid changes help prevent long term wear similar to this one:
Change Gear Lube after Break-in for Long Differential Life (http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/2007/article_changegearlube.aspx)

My general practice has been to change all the factory fluids out at about 1000 miles, which is what I did with my Z06 way back when. My CTS-V was a little different as I bought it as a used corporate car with about 7k miles on it, but I still changed out all the fluids not too long after I bought it.
:cheers:

Dallara
07-19-09, 05:14 PM
~


Threads like this are always fun, that is as long as everybody realizes that there can never really be one absolute and finite answer. There are simply too many variables, and especially complete unknowns. All any of us can really do is read a lot, think a lot, and make our own decisions based on our own interpretations of all the data involved. It's been an enjoyable dialogue with C66, along with others, and there's really no reason threads like thsi can't be cool and civil.

Regarding additives, and in particular engine oil additives...

Our illustrious federal government - specifically the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA - in it's wonderfully infinite wisdom has mandated that one of the most effective oil additives against engine wear, zinc dialkydithophosphate, or ZDDP, has to be eliminated from all automotive motor oils due to ZDDP's possible harmful effects on emissions control systems.

ZDDP has often been thought of as a "break-in" lubricant, but one has to ask the question if it indeed had only been a "break-in" speciifc component then why did literally all auto engine oils have it as an essential part of their formula for decades? ZDDP essentially puts a layer of zinc phosphate between metal components and prevents them for coming into contact with each other. Most engiine "assembly lubes" contain a ton of zinc for this very reason.

There is a huge amount of debate out there as to whether or not the removal of ZDDP is going to cause engine wear issues down the road, but I haven't seen any hard data anywhere regarding the effect of the removal of ZDDP and high-mileage modern engines. Maybe Google can be of some help here, but no doubt you will have to sift through a lot of conflicting information.

If you are interested in adding back the ZDDP to your oil that the EPA has decided to have removed for you it's really not a problem. Companies like Lucas and Redline both make ZDDP additives readily available at just about any auto parts store. Just look for "Break In Oil Additive" from either one. I am sure there are other brands of ZDDP additives out there, but I have used both those two and know how easy they are to find. They are neither one very expensive, either.

Here's an interesting info page on ZDDP...

http://www.ttalk.info/Zddp.htm

Hope this helps!

Dallara



~

kck
07-19-09, 08:04 PM
Gary, Brad, and Dallara: Thanks to you all for your very informative feedback on my three posts. I’ll definitely research the links you have kindly provided, and get back to you, if I have any questions.

I was hoping that Short-Throw might see this thread and elaborate some more on the “coating” he described for the ring and pinion in GM differentials. I would send him a private message, but I apparently do not have the necessary forum “privileges” to do so.

I was wondering if any one of you has an opinion on whether the (slightly) lower viscosity for the “start-up” value for the 0w30 Amsoil would have any “real-world” benefit compared to the 5w30 for Mobil 1? As far as I can tell, there is no car engine oil that has an upper (hot) viscosity of at least 30w that also has anything lower than 0w for start-up. Is that correct?

Also, do you have an opinion on whether using EOS (break-in) fluid might hinder piston ring sealing – or is that no longer an issue with modern car engines? Indeed, one forum member posted a link to an article (at “mototuneusa”) suggesting that modern engines should be broken in “very hard” initially to facilitate this ring sealing process. But if this were true, it would seem to require that one would have to ignore GM advice regarding the “gentle break-in” period for the differential and transmission.

Kyle

CadillacSTS42005
07-19-09, 08:29 PM
another vote for German Castrol

marktanner
07-19-09, 09:49 PM
Porsche specifies Mobil 1 0-40 for it's engines. Wouldn't that spec be beneficial for our engines, too? Are there any disadvantages to using oil with these specs?

Gary Wells
07-19-09, 10:06 PM
Kyle:
I would recommend doing a lot of research on any oil additive on new cars before you take the plunge. Most peeps running GM EOS, ZDDP, ZDDP+, & any other product designed as an anti-scuff agent are running flat tappet cams, which were common in the '80's, but have been replaced by modern camshafts & valve train components such as rollers which most peeps do not believe requires an anti-scuff agent. Research Richard Clark who designed & manufactures the product ZDDP+ as he has done quite a lot of research on oils & lubricants. GM EOS & so froth could be harmful to your cats & might shorten their lifespan. HTH & only my $.02 worth.

Dallara
07-20-09, 01:29 AM
~




I was wondering if any one of you has an opinion on whether the (slightly) lower viscosity for the “start-up” value for the 0w30 Amsoil would have any “real-world” benefit compared to the 5w30 for Mobil 1? As far as I can tell, there is no car engine oil that has an upper (hot) viscosity of at least 30w that also has anything lower than 0w for start-up. Is that correct?

Also, do you have an opinion on whether using EOS (break-in) fluid might hinder piston ring sealing...





First off, Kyle, you are more than welcome for any info I can provide you think is of some help. After all, we're all just wanderers in the desert, thirsting for information. I wish I knew where the oasis of all knowledge was, but all I can do is wander from well to watering hole and hope I don't make too many mistakes... :D

Before offering up my thoughts on your viscosity question let me first state - I think both Amsoil and Mobil 1 are fine products, and have used them both extensively. I would not hesitate to use either one with complete confidence that my engine would be well protected.

That said, IMHO there are absolutely no discernible benefits - or drawbacks - between a 0W-30 or a 5W-30 during "start-up" regardless of the temperature. Both oils, again IMHO, will flow equally well at "start-up" and both have vastly superior film strength to remained adhered to engine surfaces enough to be there when you first crank the engine over.

Try to remember that the recent trend toward lower (and zero) weight oils has more to with trying to get better efficiency and reducing pumping losses than it is for engine protection at "start-up". Zero viscosity - or "water weight oil" as we used to call it around the race teams - was used there to allow ultra-high pressure deliveries and friction reduction more than anything else. Any of the modern low-vis oils will do a fine job of protecting your engine during cranking, no problem.

Regarding break-in... Funny thing how there seems to be as many opinions and ideas about that as there are about oils!!! :bonkers:

Personally I tend to believe an approach that leans toward being fairly gentle early, yet with with occasional bursts at full throttle all the way through the gears is the best way to go. Regardless of modern materials all engines need some max cylinder pressures to achieve good ring seating, but that certainly doesn't mean the entire driveline needs to be subjected to hammer-and-tongs launches and banzai runs all the time. I tend to believe good, gentle, sufficient warm-up at all times, followed by a measured and smooth driving style for the most part, but with a once or twice daily full throttle roll-on through the gears is a good and reliable way to properly break-in a modern street car engine. Do this for 500, 1,000, 0r 2,000 miles... Whatever YOU feel most comfortable with - after all it's YOUR engine - and then drive it however you feel best after that. Modern street car engines are pretty tough hombres, and with just a modicum of care and good sense they will last an amazingly long time. With dedicated and discerning care, proper maintenance, high quality support fluids and fuel, etc. they will last literally forever without ever having to be opened up. Modifications can change that, to be sure, but if left stock they truly do border on unbreakable these days.

Wiil EOS, ZDDP, or other additives hinder ring seating?

Who really knows? Some say it can, while others say it actually helps.

Geez, I still come from the mindset that I will not run a synthetic oil in any of my motorcycle engines until they have at least 3,000 miles on them, and with some brand bikes not until they have 6,000 miles on 'em!!! Until then it is good ol' dino oil... :shhh:

But that's another subject entirely... :stirpot:

With my Chevy trucks I used dino oil in 'em for the first two oil changes, then I switched to synthetics. Yet with my last three "performance" cars - a Merc-Benz E500 followed by a Jeep SRT8 and now the CTS-V - I started with Mobil 1 synthetic from the get-go and stuck with it, primarily because that's what each manufacturer recommended.

Doesn't make much sense, I know... I guess I'm just the "Ty Webb" of the motor vehicle world. :cloud9:

My best advice... Do what feels right to you.

Hope some of this helps!

Dallara




~

SlvrBullIT
07-20-09, 06:25 AM
Good thoughts Dallara. /agree on everything you said, but alas I'm clueless on motorcycles so I trust your judgment on non-synthetic until a certain point.

C66 Racing
07-20-09, 11:42 AM
Porsche specifies Mobil 1 0-40 for it's engines. Wouldn't that spec be beneficial for our engines, too? Are there any disadvantages to using oil with these specs?

Interestingly, GM also specs the Mobil 1 0w40 for the Euro Spec Corvette Z06. I suspect that if not for CAFE (and the EPA), they'd spec it for their U.S. market LSx engines as well.

I'd argue that the 0w40 is better for your engines that any 30 grade and that is why I have used a 10w40 in my 02 Z06 on the track for many seasons. But, the disadvantage is that the owner's manual specs a 30 grade oil, so if you use a 40 grade you are really on the fringes of your warranty coverage.

Commenting a little deeper on Dallara's comments on ZDDP above, the current API SM/ILSAC GF-4 spec for phosphorus is 800 ppm. Top 30 grade oils like AMSOIL 0w30 and German Castrol used to have zinc and phosphorus on the order of 1000-1200 ppm.

As to the wear of the newer API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oils, they seem to be doing well in my V1 as compared to the labs universal averages for this engine family:
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 & AMSOIL 0w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/CTS-V%20AMSOIL%20UOA.htm)

Finally, for those willing to step outside the owner's manual requirements, there are oils that still contain high levels of ZDDP on the market and AMSOIL makes several including these two with phosphorus on the order of 1265 ppm and zinc on the order of 1378 ppm:
AMSOIL Series 3000 Synthetic 5w30 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/HDDPB.htm)
AMSOIL SAE Synthetic Premium Protection 10w40 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/AMOPB.htm)

Mobil also makes several oils with higher ZDDP than the API SM 30 grade oils. You can see how much phosphorus and zinc are in various Mobil oils here:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Files/Mobil_1_Product_Guide.pdf

:cheers:

Gary Wells
07-20-09, 12:47 PM
Only an observation, but I notice that the revision updates on one of those infos is 03/06, without a year. Please don't shoot the messenger on this.

kck
07-20-09, 09:08 PM
Wow!! I’m an “information junky” and you guys have provided abundant information so as to delight my heart. But given how big the car industry is (and the huge amount of research dollars they have available), it is staggering to realize that that there apparently have been no definitive empirical tests regarding the engine oil issues you guys discuss.

Gary: I’m sorry I am so dense on this topic, but I’m struggling to reconcile your two posts to me (which I really appreciate you taking the time to do). In the first one you seem to suggest that GM includes considerable factory-installed EOS-type additives in their Z06 engines – which would lead me to include a pint or so of GM EOS in all the engine oil changes I do for my (Vette-based) V engine, especially for the first two or so oil changes during the “break-in” period. But then in your second post to me, I get the impression that you are concerned that the EOS supplement (and its high Zinc content) might damage the CATS. However, if that is true, then why would GM use EOS in their Z06 engines? You also note that modern camshafts & valve trains do not need EOS. So, in your first post regarding the E0S that GM puts in the Z06, did you possibly mean that GM used to put EOS in the older-style Z06 engines, but now GM does not include EOS their current (more modern) Z06 engines?

Marktanner: I was not aware that Mobil 1 had a 0w40 product. And based on my admittedly not very knowledgeable background, I would certainly share your reaction that this oil would seem to provide both the best start-up and race-level performance characteristics – and now knowing that Porsche recommends it would seem another point in its favor. It’s also very interesting, as Brad reports in his post, that 0w40 Mobil 1 is the “Euro Spec” for the Z06. (And Brad’s PDF link for Mobil 1 products shows that the 0w40 formula is also the Dodge Viper spec, and that it has 1100 ppm Zinc content vs. the 900 ppm for the 5w30 Mobil 1.) Am I correct to assume that the European and U.S. versions of the Z06 engines are essentially the same?

Brad also notes, however, that the Owner’s Manual for the V would suggest that using 40 weight oil might place you on the “fringes of your warranty coverage.” Indeed, the manual recommends 5w30. So the “0” (“start-up”) weight grades of oil might also be in apparent violation. But my interpretation of the manual indicates to me that GM is OK with any oil that meets a certain “numbered” spec (the exact “numbers” of which I do not have in front of me), regardless of viscosity range. And it’s my understanding that all the various synthetic oils we have been discussing meet this “numbered” spec.

Is it possible that that GM might be concerned that the 40 weight engine oil would be “too thick” when hot? But then it would not seem to make any sense to me that 0 weight oils could be “too thin” when cold (i.e., at start-up). And, to repeat an earlier point, why would GM specify 0w40 Mobil 1 in their European Z06?

Dallara: I was following Short-Throw’s advise (which appears backed up by at least some empirical evidence) that one should adhere to GM’s recommendation to break-in the differential very carefully by not engaging in any full-throttle runs for at least the first 500 miles (and no speeds exceeding 70 mph for the first 1500 miles). Now your comments to do (at least limited) WOT even during the break-in period (in order to better seat the piston rings) has me worried that I’ve been “way to gentle” in the 350 miles that I have driven my V so far. (Until I read your post, I had dismissed an article I’d read that said you should run your engine really hard in the first 20 or so miles… or you will never get the rings to seal properly.) As I implied in my earlier comments, I’m really becoming “torn” over the lack of consensus on these “break-in” issues!! (And I really like your analogy regarding your never-ending quest for the “oasis of all knowledge.”)

Kyle

C66 Racing
07-20-09, 11:56 PM
Gary,
I think you are referring to the 5w30 Heavy Duty Diesel as being labeled as an 03/06 data sheet - mostly means I haven't updated that page of my dealer website recently... the actual phorphorus and zinc levels I posted above are from a very recent AMSOIL Tech Bulletin to its dealers on oils with high ZDDP that are suitable for flat tappet cam engines. Short story - those ZDDP levels are current.

Kyle,
Go to a Corvette forum and search for answers to your questions and you'll find that this is a frequently debated topic. I'm not sure we'll ever really know how best to break in these cars. I now break in my LS6 engines in my Z06 by putting them in the car and going racing. :D

In answer to your questions on the 0w40, it is my opinion that GM specs them for their European models because it is a better oil for the engine. I believe that they sacrifice that better oil for one that isn't as good to improve their overall CAFE rating. For the same reason Ford has gone to 20 grade oils and most auto manufacturers have dropped the viscosity in their tranny and diff fluids. Their warranties only have to last 100k miles and they are balancing a trade off between improved fuel mileage numbers for their fleet against engine failures. For me, I want the best. Unfortunately, the owner's manual specifies an oil meeting GM Standard 4718M. To meet that standard, the oil must be a 30 grade oil (note that several 0w30s are labeled to meet this standard). Thus, 40 grade oils are out. If you want to use a 40 grade oil which has the dual benefit of a higher hot viscosity (as compared to a 30 grade) and a higher ZDDP, you can't comply with the owner's manual. Bummer. Thus I use what I feel is the best API SM, GM Standard 4718M oil for my V1, the AMSOIL Signature Series 0w30. For my track Corvette, the owner's manual went out the window years ago and I use oils very high in ZDDP that don't meet GM Standard 4718M.

marktanner
07-21-09, 12:19 AM
I also think the 0-40 is a better oil, which is why I asked about it. I especially think it's hot weather capabilities could be important in the summer while running hard with these blown engines. Does anyone really think that a dealership or even GM could tell the difference between 5W30 and 0W40 without an expensive analysis, especially if the oil was used for a few thousand miles? I don't. Usually they only worry that at least minimum spec is met, and don't mind if you purchase additional protection. Another reason that GM may have spec'd the lesser grade oil is that 0W40 is not that readily available; I had to get mine at the Porsche dealer. It's interesting to note that Porsche also specs two years or 30,000 miles for an oil change for the GT3, even under severe duty (and I verified it at the factory). They must be quite confident in that oil!

Gary Wells
07-21-09, 10:40 PM
[QUOTE=kck;1945584]...................Gary: I’m sorry I am so dense on this topic, but I’m struggling to reconcile your two posts to me (which I really appreciate you taking the time to do). In the first one you seem to suggest that GM includes considerable factory-installed EOS-type additives in their Z06 engines – which would lead me to include a pint or so of GM EOS in all the engine oil changes I do for my (Vette-based) V engine, especially for the first two or so oil changes during the “break-in” period. But then in your second post to me, I get the impression that you are concerned that the EOS supplement (and its high Zinc content) might damage the CATS. However, if that is true, then why would GM use EOS in their Z06 engines? You also note that modern camshafts & valve trains do not need EOS. So, in your first post regarding the E0S that GM puts in the Z06, did you possibly mean that GM used to put EOS in the older-style Z06 engines, but now GM does not include EOS their current (more modern) Z06 engines?

KCK:
Sorry for the delayed response back. I don't feel that GM necessarily runs GM EOS as an oil additive in their ZO6 motors during break-in, I think that the assemblers use an abundant amount of it for engine assembly purposes realizing that most ZO6 owners are still changing their first "original" oil out very early in the game, and think that it can only help in the break-in process.
I find it hard to believe that GM EOS or any of it's commercial counterparts such as ZDDP+ only benefits older motors due to running flat tappet camshafts and it has no benefit as an anti-scuff agent to a modern day motor. However, modern day motors are built to more exacting tolerances, thereby having more nominal clearances of friction producing internal parts.
I do think it possible though that GM EOS or any similar type engine oil supplement can plug up your cat given enough time & mileage.
I did not intentionally mean to give mixed signals, but I am on the fence myself for my new '09 CTS-V as to what oil, what viscosity, what filter, and what , if any engine oil supplement is best for it.
I have run Mobil 1 since about '86 or so, and believe that it is one of the best readily available synthetic oils on the market. And I do believe in running a bottle or two of GM EOS in every oil change in my 26K mile '87 turbo Buick. What the more knowledgeable CTS-V owners on here decide to run in the way of oil, filter, & additive will probably give me some insight into what I will run. I might try Amsoil for a while when I run out of Mobil 1. Dunno, & sorry again for the delayed & tardy response.
I wasn't hiding, I was just taking cover for a while and thinking. But I do have faith in this forum & it's members on deciding a clear cut path for the less informed like myself to follow. HTH

kck
07-23-09, 02:43 AM
Gary: Thanks for the clarification! Although it would be nice, of course, to have definitive answers to this question regarding use of “supplementary oil additives,” I’m encouraged that even knowledgeable persons like yourself are struggling with this issue, as well as the more general one of how best to care for ones V. In other words, I’m feeling a little less “stupid.”

Kyle

kck
07-23-09, 02:50 AM
marktanner: I agree with you that it seems highly unlikely that using 0w40 Mobil 1 would result in voiding the V’s GM warranty. If you read the web pages regarding the various Mobil 1 oils (see my later posts below), it seems fairly clear that the 0w40 formula is Mobil’s “premier” engine oil for high performance street cars – designed for the most extreme cold to the most extreme hot environments. Additionally, I’m very impressed that 0w40 Mobil 1 is the recommended spec for Porsche, Dodge Viper, Mercedes-Benz AMG, Aston Martin, GT-R, and the Z06s sold in Europe.

So why is 5w30 (instead of 0w40) Mobil 1 the spec for the Z06s sold in the U.S.? Is it possible that Z06s sold in Europe do not have to meet as stringent standards regarding the longevity of their CAT systems as compared to Z06s sold in the U.S.? Brad’s web link to the Mobil 1 spec sheet (see C66 Racing’s earlier post on this thread) shows that the zinc content of the 0w40 Mobil 1 is higher than the 5w30 Mobil 1 – and it’s my understanding (based on web information that Gary and Dallara suggested I examine) that the better lubricating properties of “higher-Zinc” oils can only be realized, if the phosphorous content is proportionately increased, and it’s the phosphorous that clogs CATS.

Kyle

kck
07-23-09, 03:11 AM
Guys: Thanks again for all the information you have provided. Based on those various comments, I have now added a third oil – 0w40 Mobil 1 – to my list of 3 potential oils (also including 5w30 Mobil 1 and 0w30 Amsoil) from which to choose. I’d like to select among these 3 oils based on both “engine protection” and “horsepower” considerations. I’m going to assume that the best index of engine protection – at least under the “stress” of all-out-performance (e.g., W.O.T. in desert heat) -- would be maintenance of viscosity at high oil temperatures. I’m also going to assume that an oil’s relative “drag coefficient” (or “fluidity”) at normal operating temperatures would be the best index of its effect on both gas mileage and (more importantly in a performance car like the V) horsepower.

Do any of you know what specific “indexes” would measure an oil’s “drag coefficient” at normal operating oil temperatures and an oil’s engine protection (viscosity?) at high operating temperatures?

As backdrop for my above questions, I’m going to cite some information I ran across and my initial (“newbie”) interpretations of this data. I realize, of course, that any of the 3 oil formulas I’m evaluating is likely to provide good performance in my V. I guess what I’m really trying to do here is satisfy my intellectual curiosity, and to see where my reasoning may be flawed. Please feel free to point out my errors. As a social and behavioral scientist, I have developed the requisite “thick skin” that is a necessary part of the scientific endeavor. So fire away!

Mobil provides technical specs for their 0w40 vs. 5w30 products (see the specs listed under “Typical Properties” on the two web pages below), but I don’t have the background to interpret the numbers, nor to single out which spec (if any) is the most direct measure of the relative “drag coefficient” at normal operating temperatures or the best spec to determine engine protection at extremely high oil temperatures. So any help you guys can provide here would be much appreciated.

0w40 Mobil 1: http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.asp

5w30 Mobil 1: http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-30.asp

In the absence of knowledge regarding the best direct measure of the relative “drag coefficient” for a given oil, I would have assumed that the upper-end (“hot”) viscosity number for a given oil would be the best indication of the relative drag that it produces. However, in my next post I provide some additional background information regarding why I think the low-end (“cold”) viscosity number, surprisingly, may be more important than the upper-end number in determining relative drag and corresponding gas mileage and horsepower. Based on the information contained in my later post (and my ignorance of the specs contained in the Mobil web links above), I’m going to “speculate” that the “drag coefficients” for the two Mobil 1 oils are roughly the same – given that the 0w40 Mobil 1 oil has a lower “low-end” (“fluidity-enhancing”) viscosity than the 5w30 Mobil 1 oil, but a higher “upper-end” (“fluidity-degrading”) viscosity. If, in fact, it turns out that the two Mobil 1 formulas produce about the same “drag coefficient” under normal operating conditions, then the choice between the two oils would seem to come down to which potentially provides the best “engine protection.” In this regard, it is possible that the 0w40 formula gains the overall “upper hand” because of its greater potential to enhance engine life in more extreme hot (and cold) environmental conditions. Indeed, when evaluating this engine protection, I’m guessing that the most important index in the Mobil 1 spec sheets is “HTHS Viscosity” @ 150 degrees C (302 F). If true, then the relevant comparison is an index of 3.7 for the 0w40 versus 3.09 for the 5w30 oil. (Interestingly, with regard to “cold weather” performance, Mobil reports an “MRV” index for its 0w40 oil at minus 40 degrees C [-40 F], but no such index for its 5w30 oil.) But, again, I need our “oil experts” to provide guidance in interpreting the indices contained in the Mobil tables.

So what about comparisons of the Mobil 1 oils with the 0w30 Amsoil formula? Based on “viscosity range” only, the Amsoil product would seem to have the best potential for maximizing gas mileage and horsepower – given that it matches the 0w40 Mobil 1 oil on viscosity at the low-end, but has less viscosity on the upper-end. But, again, it would be very helpful to know if there is a specific technical specification that provides a direct measure of the relative drag coefficient for the Amsoil vs. Mobil 1 oils.

Brad: Assuming that the Mobil web pages I provide above contain the appropriate “drag coefficient” (and “extreme heat engine protection”) indices for the Mobil 1 products, would you have access to this same information for your Amsoil products?

It would also seem important to be able to “translate” the “drag coefficient” index scales for different oils into a measure of “real-world” horsepower (and gas mileage) differences. For example, on a scale of, say, “0 to 100” (with a higher number indicating more “drag”), if 0w30 Amsoil is a “50” and 0w40 Mobil 1 is a “60,” would the 10-point lower drag coefficient for Amsoil translate into “meaningful” differences in horsepower (and gas mileage), or would this 10 point difference suggest “trivial” differences in power (e.g., 1 h.p.) and gas mileage (e.g., 1/10th m.p.g.)?

Assuming that the 0w30 Amsoil does have a meaningfully better “drag coefficient” than the 0w40 Mobil 1 (or 5w30 Mobil 1) oil, than the choice would seem to be between selecting the 0w30 Amsoil oil for its potentially greater “fluidity” and correspondingly better gas mileage and horsepower enhancement versus selecting the 0w40 Mobil 1 for its potentially greater engine protection.

Bottom line: If any of you guys have insight into the actual “drag coefficient” and “engine protection” numbers (and to what extent differences in these numbers might translate into meaningful differences in engine protection, gas mileage, and horsepower) for the Amsoil vs. Mobil 1 oils, this might help me (and other forum members) to determine which engine oil to choose.

Kyle

kck
07-23-09, 03:35 AM
Below I’ve included a couple of additional web pages from the Mobil 1 web site with information that I found interesting with regard to its potential implications for oil performance. As in my previous post, I’m trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity here and to determine flaws in my interpretation of this information.

Below is a web page on Mobil 1’s “advanced fuel economy” oils. If you read through this web page, It would appear that Mobil concentrates on decreasing the lower-end (“cold start”) number (i.e., going from 5w20 to 0w20, or going from 5w-30 to 0w-30) to increase gas mileage (and, I would assume by implication, a corresponding increase in horsepower). Before seeing this comparison, I would have guessed that decreasing the upper-end (“hot”) viscosity number (e.g., going from 5w-40 to 5w-30) would be what is most important to increase gas mileage (and corresponding horsepower).

https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_FAQs.aspx#FAQs3

The importance of the low end of the viscosity scale for enhancing potential horsepower (and, by implication, gas mileage) would also seem to be implied by a careful analysis of Mobil’s discussion of their “racing oils” on the following web page:

https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Racing_Oil_FAQs.aspx#FAQs5

Interestingly, both of their racing oils -- 0w-20 and 0w30 -- are based on “0” for the lower-end number. And the intent of Mobil to create a “thinner” (“higher-horsepower”) oil by formulating both their race oils with this lower-end number is clearly seen in the title of one of the sections on the above web page: “Zero weight oils are thinner. Will using a 0W oil cause excessive engine wear while racing or qualifying?” Mobil then goes on to note that using these two racing oils will not promote excessive wear because: “Mobil 1 Racing 0W-30 and 0W-20 oils are formulated with anti-wear (Zinc/Phosphorus) chemistries at twice the level of automotive street oils to protect race engines including highly loaded flat tappet designs used in the NASCAR series.”

Also of interest, on this same web page they note that “street cars” should not use these race oils (see the section titled “You say the new Mobil 1 Racing oils are not for street use“) because the high zinc/phosphorous content is not compatible with “emission control equipment” (i.e., CATS). Instead, for a car designed for both “road and track use” (i.e., a high-performance street car such as the V), Mobil recommends using either 0w40 Mobil 1 or 15w50 Mobil 1. (See the bottom of the web page at https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Racing_Oils.aspx.)

I would interpret this latter recommendation to mean that, to compensate for the loss of the lubricating (“engine-protecting”) qualities of the higher zinc/phosphorous content in the racing oils, engine oils designed for performance street cars should continue to use (“thinness-promoting”) 0w formulas for the low-end of the viscosity range, but increase the (“engine-protecting”) upper-end of the oil’s viscosity range (e.g., move from 0w30 for pure racing applications to 0w40 oil for high-performance street applications).

Although maintaining a “0w” low-end number for street car oils will help retain some of horsepower-enhancing oil “thinness” found in racing oils, going to a thicker (engine-protecting) 40w viscosity for the high-end number in street applications will likely sacrifice some oil thinness and corresponding horsepower. The effect of the upper-end viscosity number on horsepower is most clearly seen in Mobil’s description of their two different race oils:

0w20 Mobil 1 racing oil: https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Racing_0W-20.aspx
0w30 Mobil 1 racing oil: https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Racing_0W-30.aspx

To summarize the information on these two above web pages: Mobil’s description of their two race oils indicates that the 0w20 is geared more towards (shorter) “qualifying runs,” whereas the 0w30 is intended for the (longer) race itself. I interpret this to mean that the “20w” version of the race oil will provide maximum horsepower and the corresponding speed especially needed in qualifying, but the “30w” version of the race oil will sacrifice a small amount of horsepower to provide a bit more engine protection especially needed for the longer period in which cars conduct the race itself.

In sum, one possible interpretation of Mobil’s descriptions of their various viscosity oil formulas (“race” oil, “road & track” oil, and “advanced fuel economy” oil) is as follows: (1) the lower-end viscosity number is potentially the most important determinant of how much a given oil will affect gas mileage and horsepower, but that the upper-end number also has some, potentially smaller, effect on gas mileage and horsepower; and (2) the upper-end number is a more important determinant of engine life, at least under the “hot” conditions such as generated in racing.

Assuming my above “interpretation” is even approximately true with regard to lower-end and upper-end viscosity effects on m.p.h. and h.p., then what are the implications for selecting between the 0w40 Mobil 1 vs. the 5w30 Mobil 1 formulas? One possible implication is that the lower (“fluidity-enhancing”) range of the 0w40 Mobil 1 compared to the 5w30 Mobil 1 might be roughly “counter-balanced” (offset) by the higher (“fluidity-degrading”) range of the 0w40 vs. the 5w30 oil formulas. In other words, the two formulas might generate a net “push” with regard to gas mileage and horsepower – with the 0w40 formula decreasing the lower-end (potentially more important) viscosity number by 5 points, but also increasing the higher-end (potentially less important) viscosity number by 10 points.

However, although the two Mobil 1 oil formulas might be comparable in generating horsepower-enhancing “oil thinness,” as I’ve noted earlier, the higher (“engine-protecting”) upper-end viscosity number for the 0w40 Mobil 1 formula would seem to give it the nod as the superior oil for high-performance street cars. Recall, too, that Mobil’s own web pages would seem to suggest that the best oil formula for a high-performance street car (such as the V) is the 0w40 (or 15w40) Mobil 1 oil – and not the (GM-recommended) 5w30 Mobil 1 oil.

Alternatively, one could use 0w30 Amsoil to (potentially) generate a bit more horsepower (and gas mileage) than the 0w40 (or 5w30) Mobil 1 oil. Furthermore, to overcome the loss of some “engine-protection” under “race” conditions (i.e., using the 30w spec of the Amsoil, as opposed to the 40w spec of the Mobil 1), one could add EOS (zinc/phosphorous supplements) to the Amsoil. But the downside to using this alternative strategy is that you may very well shorten the life of your CATS.

Kyle

kck
07-25-09, 12:01 AM
Kyle,
Appreciate the kind words. I really do appreciate the dialogue with guys like Dallara and work hard to clearly separate my opinions from more factual info.

That said, here are some opinions. I've been a long time member of several Corvette Forums (bought my Z06 in Aug 01) and I do not remember seeing what I consider concrete info on any break-in additive used in LSx engines by GM. I am confident that in the Corvette and my CTS-V (V1) there is no mileage recommendation, even for the first oil change. GM strongly advises to follow the OLM. Additionally, your post is the first I remember reading about a coating on the ring/pinion.

Over the past four years or so, I've seen several articles put out by AMSOIL indicating that early diff fluid changes help prevent long term wear similar to this one:
Change Gear Lube after Break-in for Long Differential Life (http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/2007/article_changegearlube.aspx)

My general practice has been to change all the factory fluids out at about 1000 miles, which is what I did with my Z06 way back when. My CTS-V was a little different as I bought it as a used corporate car with about 7k miles on it, but I still changed out all the fluids not too long after I bought it.
:cheers:

Brad: Your web link to the article recommending an early fluid change for the differential is very interesting. I did not realize that the differential has no filter. This fact would seem to support not only an early fluid change but also the use of the (internal) differential magnet from FilterMag. I’ve posted (see http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/174950-size-filtermag-you-using.html) on this company and their products. I’d be very interested in your reaction, as well as other forum members (i.e., our other oil experts) participating in the present thread, to the FilterMag product line of magnets for the oil filter, transmission, and differential.

Also, jwa999 has posted questions on a current CAI thread regarding your Amsoil air filter products (see http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/175205-best-cold-air-intake-3.html), in a response to a post I made there in which I noted that you (and 1BlinkGone) had raised concerns about the filtration capabilities of high-performance air filters such as K & N. Hopefully, you might be able to answer Jwa999’s questions.

Kyle

21rouge
07-25-09, 04:33 PM
I havent read through this entire thread but a direct injection engine makes it a bit more problematic re dilution by fuel and deposits. There has been some discussion elsewhere that Biosynethic oil made by "Renewable Lubricants" specifically RLI 0W30 or 5W30 might help combat these difficulties.

Looney100
07-25-09, 08:56 PM
I havent read through this entire thread but a direct injection engine makes it a bit more problematic re dilution by fuel and deposits. There has been some discussion elsewhere that Biosynethic oil made by "Renewable Lubricants" specifically RLI 0W30 or 5W30 might help combat these difficulties.

Fuel dilution isn't a problem with gasoline engines. Gas has a flash point of -40 degrees, so any small amount of fuel that might leak into the oil, would evaporate and wouldn't accumulate to any amount that would cause trouble.
Oils are made to handle the small amount of deposits that would come from normal use.

Coolant contamination is another issue. If any significant amount gets into the oil, the oil will be near useless.

21rouge
07-25-09, 10:43 PM
Fuel dilution isn't a problem with gasoline engines.

That isnt true...especially in DI engines. See here for example:

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-1647


Oils are made to handle the small amount of deposits that would come from normal use.



Again there is increasing evidence that DI engines are more susceptible to carbon buildup. Google for more info.

Looney100
07-26-09, 08:23 AM
I'm not saying that fuel doesn't get into the oil, but is there any evidence that it is accumulating to the point that it is affecting the performance of the oil?
With all the guys doing used oil analysis out there, I would suspect this would have been clearly visible if it was happening.

GM-4-LIFE
07-26-09, 05:37 PM
GM states in the owner's manual to NEVER USE A THICKER OIL THAN 10w30. Stick to 0w30 or 5w30. Remember GM's dreaded crankshaft failures that caused them to only run 5w30 motor oils?

SG

21rouge
07-27-09, 07:44 AM
With all the guys doing used oil analysis out there, I would suspect this would have been clearly visible if it was happening.

For whatever reason I see very few UOAs posted for this GM 3.6 Direct Injection Engine. Do you have any links?

But many UOAs are available for European DI engines and Mazda DI engines and it is very usual to find excess of fuel in the oil. Fuel in engine oil degrades the protective properties of the oil of course leads to excessive engine wear.

As well it appears that deposit buildup goes hand in hand with DI engines.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1517650&fpart=1

kck
07-27-09, 11:31 PM
GM states in the owner's manual to NEVER USE A THICKER OIL THAN 10w30. Stick to 0w30 or 5w30. Remember GM's dreaded crankshaft failures that caused them to only run 5w30 motor oils?

SG

AERO1:
Thanks for your post. Could you elaborate on your statement regarding “GM's dreaded crankshaft failures” when using engine oil that exceeds 30 weight? As a total “newbie,” I have no knowledge of this issue.

Also, if this “heavier weight” is a problem for GM engines, why would 0w40 Mobil 1 be the spec for Z06s sold in Europe (as C66 Racing has noted in an earlier post on this thread)?

Kyle

C66 Racing
08-01-09, 03:30 PM
Does anyone really think that a dealership or even GM could tell the difference between 5W30 and 0W40 without an expensive analysis, especially if the oil was used for a few thousand miles?

I do. For about $20, labs like Blackstone could easily tell the difference. The two keys are viscosity, which will be higher for the 0w40, and the dead giveaway is phosphorus and zinc. The API SM 5w30 must have phosphorus less than 800 ppm and the 0w40 is listed by Mobil 1 to have phosphorus of about 1000 ppm and zinc of about 1100 ppm. Take a look at some of the used oil analysis reports on my CTS-V I linked higher in this thread (here for convenience: Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 & AMSOIL 0w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/CTS-V%20AMSOIL%20UOA.htm) )

These tests only cost me about $20 or so and clearly indicate the zinc and phosphorus. If you lost a $$$ motor, I wouldn't put it past GM to deny coverage based on using the wrong oil.

Kyle,
Answered a few of your questions in your dyno thread, so won't repeat here totally.

For your comments on cold vs hot viscosity, I think that there are two issues here. First, if you look at the data for most fuel efficient motor oils, you'll find that their hot viscosity is very low in the applicable grade. Second, I believe that the EPA mileage test which is used to determine CAFE ratings starts from a cold engine, cold oil. Thus to improve CAFE, they must lower cold viscosity. Overall, whether hot or cold, lower viscosity equals less fluid friction, equal more net Hp and better mpg.

However, on the other end of the spectrum is protection. Whether we will ever note the lower viscosities drop in protection in daily driver's is something we can debate forever. In my opinion, the corporate answer is not the same as the individual answer. Said another way, while it might be okay for GM if 1 in a 1000 engines fail to improve their CAFE rating, I don't want to be the one.

Of the three oils you've listed Kyle, I personally would rank them on their HTHS rating, as Mobil 1 0w40 (3.7), AMSOIL 0w30 (3.2), Mobil 1 5w30 (3.09). But, as only the later two meet GM Standard 4718M, I went with the AMSOIL 0w30. Where that standard doesn't apply, e.g. my track day 02 Z06, I have been running the AMSOIL Premium Protection 10w40 which has an HTHS of 4.3 (and I don't care about the cold protection because I always warm my oil before going on the track).
:cheers:

Bandit1
08-01-09, 07:50 PM
I am going to run strictly Amsoil 0w30 Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil and the Amsoil EA oil filter. Which other oil guarantees protection for up to 35,000 miles in normal driving conditions? Amsoil seems to be the only one.

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

I have used Red-Line, Royal Purple and probably most of the synthetics on the market and based on the research and testing results I have seen, Amsoil always comes out on top.

SG

:thumbsup::yeah:

Dallara
08-02-09, 05:20 PM
~





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? :hmm:

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
09-13-09, 11:53 PM
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
09-14-09, 04:48 PM
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 (http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001398592.cfm?x=b11,0,w)

radix
09-14-09, 06:24 PM
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...:suspect:

LOL

Looney100
09-14-09, 06:53 PM
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
09-14-09, 09:37 PM
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
09-15-09, 12:14 PM
Mobil 1 :alchi:

Looney100
09-16-09, 09:40 PM
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
09-22-09, 09:26 AM
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
09-23-09, 10:56 PM
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
09-23-09, 11:03 PM
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
09-24-09, 02:26 AM
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
09-24-09, 03:26 PM
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
09-26-09, 12:35 PM
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
09-26-09, 12:40 PM
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 (http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001398592.cfm?x=b11,0,w)

Caddyscat
09-26-09, 04:14 PM
AMsoil, AMway, whatever..... I just don't think it's right waiting to change your oil for 20k miles with Amsoil. All you gotta do is change your oil every 3-5k. These engines are just LS-A's and are very durable and cheap. I saw someone mention amsoil purchasers are also sellers. I had a guy at work try and pimp his amsoil at me. He asked me what I use (Mobil-1) and instantly gave me the "oh- you don't wanna use that crap on your engine". Sounded like such a salesman. I asked him if he works the kiosk at the car shows and if he had a job to do (at work). "no thanks" I said. (GTFOH)

On a side note,

I tried the Mobil-1 site, and cant seem to find the part number for the filter on our cars. I don't wanna go to the dealer for Delco and I don't wanna use Fram either. Looking to use either Mobil-1 or K&N.

Also, those of you that have already changed your diff oil, do i need to replace the gasket? What do I torque the cover bolts to? and how much oil do I need with additive?

Thank you,

Edward

Looney100
09-26-09, 06:15 PM
NEVER do extended drains with ANY oil unless its combined with used oil analysis. True, synthetics will typically last longer than conventionals, but if any oil gets contaminated (with coolant, fuel dilution, etc.) it may fail.

SlvrBullIT
09-26-09, 11:11 PM
Also, those of you that have already changed your diff oil, do i need to replace the gasket? What do I torque the cover bolts to? and how much oil do I need with additive?

Thank you,

Edward

No gasket is needed since your aren't pulling a cover; their is a drain plug and a fill hole, the diff is very small in comparison to a live axle type diff. Be sure to clean the drain plug magnet. I got 2qts severe gear to 1 4oz LSD additive, used 1.5 qts of the gear oil. What I did was add the additive to the first quart, pumped it into the diff, then as a I was pumping a friend was pouring the second qt of fluid into the first bottle I was pumping from. Used about half when it started to rain diff lube, then I put the fill plug back in. Drive in figure 8's for alittle while...ready WOT!!!

SlvrBullIT
09-26-09, 11:29 PM
Well I did replace my motor and LSD to AMSoil, I have noticed some differences:
1) I drive my V to 2 places... Work..40+ miles 90% freeway and the track, I have tracked all my fuel usage since day 1 of taking delivery using Gas Cubby on my iphone. I'm getting better gas mileage 18.2mpg to 19.2 mpg, that's being calculated using actual fuel purchases, not DIC. Track was 8mpg vs. 9mpg after change
2) Car starts quicker, idles softer, shuts off better by not clunking

Maybe it is the AMSoil, maybe the V is just settling down. Whatever the case, it's not phantom things happening, I have taken the V in to have the clunking looked into and everyone that has been in my V makes note of the sound it had when shut off. It no longer clunks post AMSoil change out. Is AMSoil better than Mobil1...IDK, don't care either, just protect the V and make my life easier. Is Mobil1 bad...no I don't think so. I think what hurts AMSoil more than anything is the salesman fanaticism i.e. AMSoil > anything and everything in the world....