: Amsoil...



79caddy1
10-30-06, 07:58 AM
I saw the thread here on AMsoil......I called my local stores, and no one has heard of it, or carries it?
Is this something maybe just west coast?
I am always up for trying something better in my engine and tranny. I have 90k on mine, and do not know if I can do this at that mileage?

jmeyer
10-30-06, 01:32 PM
You can find an AMSOIL Dealer near you by looking on the website at www.amsoil.com. You can also order direct from AMSOIL through their website.

JM

urbanski
10-30-06, 01:37 PM
or just look at the ads to the right --->
for an Amsoil dealer here

C66 Racing
10-30-06, 10:10 PM
I saw the thread here on AMsoil......I called my local stores, and no one has heard of it, or carries it?
Is this something maybe just west coast?
I am always up for trying something better in my engine and tranny. I have 90k on mine, and do not know if I can do this at that mileage?

AMSOIL is not carried in very many stores, but is pretty easy to get online. AMSOIL has 11 distribution centers located around the country that can ship directly to your house, normally in about two business days.

Info on how to order so as to benefit my dealership and the forum is in my signature. Let me know if you have any specific questions.
:cheers:

N0DIH
10-30-06, 11:57 PM
That has always been my frustration with Amsoil. They need to work HARD at getting into Walmart, KMart, Autozone, Napa, etc. They seem to like the MLM, which is what I didn't care for. It may work, but it isn't very fair to the customers. Think how many more customers they could have at Walmart? K&N is in Walmart now.

davesdeville
10-31-06, 07:44 AM
I don't know if amsoil carries it, but if this is for your 79/425ci, you need an oil with a lot of ZDP since it's an old school flat tappet pushrod. It's a good lubricant when under high pressure (like between a lifter and a cam lobe.) I'd recommend Delo or Delvac diesel oil.

79caddy1
10-31-06, 01:53 PM
thanks very much!...I appreciate the info...

i don't know what ZDp is.

I didn't even know I could run diesel oil. I see that rotella at advance auto. Is that okay to use?.....or certain weight?

C66 Racing
10-31-06, 08:45 PM
thanks very much!...I appreciate the info...

i don't know what ZDp is.

I didn't even know I could run diesel oil. I see that rotella at advance auto. Is that okay to use?.....or certain weight?

Zinc dithiodialkylphosphate , or ZDDP, is one of the most common anti-wear agents in oils. Unfortunately, to reduce emissions and protect catalytic converters, the EPA and API have limited its use in the current API SM motor oils. To overcome this, oil manufacturers have had to turn to other additives. An alternative as mentioned above is to switch to a diesel oil which doesn't yet face the same limitations.

AMSOIL makes a really good, but fairly pricey synthetic diesel 5w30:AMSOIL Series 3000 Synthetic 5w30 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/HDDPB.htm)
:cheers:

N0DIH
10-31-06, 10:56 PM
Get some of your favorite oil and just add some GM EOS and call it done....

79caddy1
10-31-06, 10:59 PM
Now I am really lost.....What is GM EOS?....I am sorry to sound stupid, I know how to work on my car, but I am lost with the oil subject.

I just want to do the right thing. It don't leak or burn oil at 90k, and I wanna try and keep her right....

i should take some photos before the weather gets bad, this car was well kept for a 79.

davesdeville
11-01-06, 02:50 AM
GM Engine Oil Supplement - essentially ZDP (or ZDDP) in a can.

N0DIH
11-01-06, 06:36 PM
What does GM recommend for how much? What is too much?

codewize
11-04-06, 07:51 AM
I want to get back in on this. My local parts guy carries Amsoil but which one to use? Am I looking at the regular ASL SAE 10W-30 Synthetic Motor Oil. None of the racing or high performance stuff they have. There are so many choices on their web site.

I also wanted to ask about the rating or classification seals on the oils. I know someone explained this to us with a chart or something but what rated oil is best or what should we be using for maximum life.

N0DIH
11-04-06, 08:37 PM
Often racing oil isn't best for street usage, the additive package isn't ideal for street conditions. Personally, I would stick with the std 10W30 oils. Racing oils DO often have better levels of ZDDP, but they don't control acids and soot as well.

If I had to pick a best oil? Amsoil 5W30 HDD would be the choice. But the cost is steep. Cost per $, Mobil 1 Truck/SUV is rated very high for wear and has a decent level of ZDDP.

As for TBN, Amsoil oil commonly is top dog, with a TBN of at least 12 on the top oils. Mobil's Truck oils often have this high level of TBN too. This is the Total Base Number. The higher the base, the more acid the oil can manage. BUT, too high base can also have detrimental side effects.

Anyone have any idea what dino oils have for TBN like Rotella T, Delo400 and Delvac 1300?

codewize
11-04-06, 08:58 PM
So you're talking about the (HDD) Series 3000 Synthetic 5W-30 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil shown here? Why Diesel oil?

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/hdd.aspx

N0DIH
11-04-06, 09:21 PM
Diesel oils have higher levels of ZDDP which is a key antiwear additive. Cars with cam driven distributor gears and/or flat tappet cams NEED this additive. Modern SM spec oils have ZDDP dropped to dangerous levels for these type engines. Diesel oils have sufficient levels of ZDDP to ward off this wear.

Read more on M1 and Amsoil here: http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html and http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html

Search for ZDDP on the Deville and HT4100 forums.

codewize
11-04-06, 10:01 PM
Interesting reads. They seem to be all about M1 lasting longer and being more consistent in testing. Why is everyone so hyped up on Amsoil? Although the TBN in the M1 seems to be pretty low compared to Amsoil. Of course they do say that the Amsoil was better over all as far as insolubles found but what's up with the major viscosity changes. I imagine that's not cool for the N*.

Just rambling at this point, it's all pretty interesting.

N0DIH
11-04-06, 10:33 PM
Amsoil is a fairly well engineered oil, and they are forthcoming in the product. Most synthetic oil companies are not, they, in many cases, do NOT even have a synthetic oil, yet they claim they are synthetic (Syntec, Syntron, etc all those garbage names that are meaningless) and are nothing more than a Group III oil and not anything synthetic at all.

Mobil 1 is also fairly good, not quite as forthcoming as Amsoil, but they do make good product. Testing oils side by side for wear has shown that in almost every case, with direct metal to metal contact wear (again, ONLY the camshaft and distributor gear have the harshest wear here), Amsoil was best. Especially in 60kg pressure. Havoline Formula 3 SL 5W30 oil outperformed most synthetics in 40kg wear except for Mobil 1 5W30 and Amsoil 0W30.

So how does this all have meaning to an engine? Hard to make a 100% judgement of it.

Edit: After looking at some of the data, it does seem the Mobil 1 performed better in the TBN catagory. Now, what I don't see if time of year. Temps. The temperature determines how rich/lean the AFR is and that will very likely have some significance in the acid levels as there is more fuel that is needed to crank over and start the engine. As I drive 600+ miles per week, I see 33K+ miles per year, I can do a test similar and have one oil in the winter, one in the summer easily.

C66 Racing
11-05-06, 09:57 PM
Interesting reads. They seem to be all about M1 lasting longer and being more consistent in testing. Why is everyone so hyped up on Amsoil? Although the TBN in the M1 seems to be pretty low compared to Amsoil. Of course they do say that the Amsoil was better over all as far as insolubles found but what's up with the major viscosity changes. I imagine that's not cool for the N*.

Just rambling at this point, it's all pretty interesting.

The Neptune study links quoted above are pretty date. AMSOIL reformulated its oils after that study and I have not seen any reports of viscosity increases since then. I have had customer cars oil tested after than study and the oil did not show a viscosity increase:
Corvette C5 AMSOIL Series 2000 0w30 Used Oil Analysis Report (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/Used%20Oil%20Analysis%20Reports/C5%20S2000%200w30%206-24-05.htm)
Note: the 6/24 and 5/6 test were AMSOIL, the 3/11 test was German Castrol 0w30.

Many people recommend diesel oils because they haven't been subject to the new API SM standard applicable to gasoline motor oils. Of note, the API did just come out with a new diesel standard for 2007 and later diesel engines, the API CJ-4 standard which does severely limit the additives allowed. API CI-4 diesel oils such as the AMSOIL Series 3000 Synthetic 5w30 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/HDDPB.htm) do have very robust levels of anti-wear, detergent and dispersant additives.

Though the new API SM standards have higher performance standards than older standards, they actually severely restrict ZDDP additives (by limiting phosphorus to 0.08%). This was done at the behest of the automotive industry to help them meet EPA requirements, not necessarily protect the engine.
And you can read the history, including the why the auto industry and the EPA wanted the new standard here:
http://www.northamericanlubricants.com/news/gf4specs.htm

Here is a short primer on the AMSOIL line for gasoline motor oils:
Top Tier
- Group IV PAO synthetic basestock
- API SM compliant but does not carry the API Starburst certification
- Rated for 35,000 miles or 1 year of use in normal service, 17,500 miles or 1 year in severe service
AMSOIL Series 2000 0w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/TSOPB.htm)

Main Tier
- Group IV PAO synthetic basestock
- API SM compliant but does not carry the API Starburst certification
- Rated for 25,000 miles or 1 year of use in normal service, 15,000 miles or 1 year in severe service
AMSOIL SAE Synthetic 10w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/ATMPB.htm)
AMSOIL SAE Synthetic 5w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/ASLPB.htm)

Most Affordable Tier
- Group III highly hydroprocessed synthetic basestock
- API SM compliant and API Starburst certified
- Rated for 7,500 miles or six months of use. With Oil Life Monitoring Systems (such as most current GM vehicles) can be used as recommended by the manufacturer (normally change the oil at one year or per OLM whichever comes first)
AMSOIL XL Synthetic 5w20 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/XLMPB.htm)
AMSOIL XL Synthetic 5w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/XLFPB.htm)
AMSOIL XL Synthetic 10w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/XLTPB.htm)
AMSOIL XL Synthetic 10w40 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Product%20Bulletins/XLOPB.htm)

For an older car where you want improved performance over regular oils, I'd suggest the XL line which is what I use in my wife's 2003 Chevy Trailblazer which has the 5.3L V-8. For my 2006 CTS-V I'll be using the Series 2000 0w30 when I get to my first oil change.
:cheers:

codewize
11-05-06, 10:41 PM
Do you recommend a 0W-30 oil even for a high oil consumption engine such as the N* or should we stick with a 10W-30 flavor. Seems to me I saw people eliminating oil consumption by switching from 5W-30 to 10W-30 so it stands to reason, in my mind, that using a 0W-30 oil would increase oil consumption. My car is just under 40k

C66 Racing
11-08-06, 09:41 PM
Do you recommend a 0W-30 oil even for a high oil consumption engine such as the N* or should we stick with a 10W-30 flavor. Seems to me I saw people eliminating oil consumption by switching from 5W-30 to 10W-30 so it stands to reason, in my mind, that using a 0W-30 oil would increase oil consumption. My car is just under 40k

Couple of thoughts on this one.

An SAE 30 grade oil is an oil with a 100C (212F) viscosity in a band of viscosity: 9.30 to 12.49 cSt. It is commonly believed that a 10w30 is "thicker" than a 5w30 or a 0w30, but at 100C (212F) all of them have viscosities in this range. However, some oils have a viscosity higher in the range than others. To actually determine what you are getting you need to look at the product data sheet for the individual brand and grade of oil you are buying. For example, Mobil Clean 5000 10w30, a conventional oil, has a viscosity of 10.4 cSt at 212F per Mobil's website. Conversely, the AMSOIL Series 2000 0w30, a group IV synthetic oil, has a viscosity of 11.2 cSt at 212F per AMSOIL's corporate website. The 0w30 actually has a higher viscosity than the 10w30 and this will contribute to less not more oil consumption.

To achieve multiviscosity ratings, conventional oils need to add viscosity improvers (VIs). To make a 5W-30 oil, one starts with a 5W oil and adds viscosity improvers. These VIs have the property that in cold temperatures their polymers coil up, contributing little to the base oils viscosity measurements. At higher temperatures they uncoil to reduce the base oils loss of viscosity as it heats up. So when the VIs break down (shear down) one is left with properties of the original base oil (the 5W stuff). Thus over time, a low quality 5w30 could over time shear down to a 5w20, or worse. The higher the spread of the multiviscosity oil, the more VIs are needed and the more susceptible to viscosity shear down the oil is. Thus a conventional 10w30 will have less VI and will remain "thicker" longer, which contributes to the common perception that a 10w30 will do better with oil consumption.

However, good synthetics do not need as much VI as conventional oil so in general donít shear down as fast. Since a 10w30 will need less VI than a 5w30, again in general it will perform better since there is fewer VI to shear down and there is proportionately more basestock in the 10w30 since it isnít being displaced by VI. That said, there are other higher costs additives that can offset this effect. FYI, most high quality synthetic 10w30 actually have no VIs and 5w30 and 0w30 synthetics have little VI.
:cheers:

codewize
11-08-06, 10:23 PM
This is why I love this place. :)

So basically a synthetic 10W-30 is a lot more stable because there are no or very little Vi in it making the viscosity true to rating throughout the temp range?

Do I understand that correctly?

Thus the Synthetic 0W or 5W -30's are fine because the viscosity is also more stable and doesn't get as thinned making it less susceptible causing the burn off or leaking associated with the N* as a conventional oil would?

Did I get that right? Sort of.

N0DIH
11-08-06, 11:47 PM
Like Amsoil's (10W)30 diesel oil? No VI or low VI is common place with Amsoil isn't it?

C66 Racing
11-10-06, 12:23 PM
Did I get that right? Sort of.

Codewize,
You did that right... sort of.

With regard to the understanding of VIs and synthetic vs conventional viscosity shear down, you have it.

But, I did qualify my statement to "good" synthetics. There are a huge variety of synthetics on the market. I've posted a description of the various oil basestocks below. Most synthetic oils on the market are Group III. A few such as AMSOIL's SAE Synthetics and currently Mobil 1 are Group IV. Redline, predominantly a racing oil is the only Group V I'm aware of.

Not all synthetics respond the same to viscosity shear down. The below quote is from this AMSOIL commissioned motor cycle oil which demonstrates the issues surrounding viscosity shear down. You can see the actual graphs if you download this file:
AMSOIL Motorcycle Oil ďWhite PaperĒ (http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf) (1 MB pdf file)

"Viscosity Shear Stability (ASTM D-6278)
An oilís viscosity can also be affected through normal use. Mechanical activity creates shearing forces that can cause an
oil to thin out, reducing its load carrying ability. Engines operating at high RPMs and those that share a common oil sump
with the transmission are particularly subject to high shear rates. Gear sets found in the transmissions are the leading cause
of shear-induced viscosity loss in motorcycle applications.
The ASTM D-6278 test methodology is used to determine oil shear stability. First an oilís initial viscosity is determined. The
oil is then subjected to shearing forces at 30 cycle intervals. Viscosity measurements are taken at the end of 30, 90 and
120 cycles and compared to the oilís initial viscosity. The oils that perform well are those that show little or no viscosity
change. Oils demonstrating a significant loss in viscosity would be subject to concern. The flatter the line on the charts
below, the greater the shear stability of the oil. Each SAE grade was split into two or more groups to make the charts easier
to reference.

The results point out significant differences between oils and their ability to retain their viscosity. Within the SAE 40 group,
41.6% of the oils dropped one viscosity grade to an SAE 30. Within the SAE 50 group, 43.8% dropped one grade to an
SAE 40. Most of the oils losing a viscosity grade did so quickly, within the initial 30 cycles of shearing. Testing revealed that
Lucas 10W-40 High Performance Motorcycle oil was the only oil to shear to an SAE 20.
It should be noted that both high and low viscosity index oils exhibited significant amounts of shear and viscosity loss. Two
of the oils with the highest viscosity index, Torco T-4SR in the SAE 40 group and Yamalube 4R in the SAE 50 group, had
the largest drops in viscosity of all the oils in their respective groups. Torco T-4SR sheared to an SAE 30 and Yamalube
sheared to an SAE 40. Valvoline 4-Stroke SAE 50 and Castrol V-Twin SAE 50 had a comparatively low viscosity index and
they too lost significant viscosity, shearing down to an SAE 40."

The API has not come out and defined the term "synthetic." Instead, they have classified oils into the following groups:

Group I base oils are the least refined of all of the groups. They are usually a mix of different hydrocarbon chains with little or no uniformity. While some automotive oils use these stocks, they are generally used in less demanding applications.

Group II base oils are common in mineral based motor oils. They have fair to good performance in the areas of volatility, oxidation stability, wear prevention and flash/fire points. They have only fair performance in areas such as pour point and cold crank viscosity. Group II base stocks are what the majority of engine oils are made from. 3000 mile oil changes are the norm.

Group III base oils are subjected to the highest level of refining of all the mineral oil stocks. Although not chemically engineered, they offer improved performance in a wide range of areas as well as good molecular uniformity and stability. By definition they are considered a synthesized material and can be used in the production of synthetic and semi-synthetic lubricants. Group III is used in the vast majority of full synthetics or synthetic blends. They are superior to group I and II oils but still have limitations. Some formulations are designed for extended oil changes. AMSOIL XL Motor Oils (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Motoroils.htm#AMSOIL_XL_7500_Motor_Oils), Castrol Syntec and many others fall into this category.

Group IV are polyalphaolefins (PAO) which are a chemically engineered synthesized basestocks. PAOs offer excellent stability, molecular uniformity and performance over a wide range of lubricating properties. AMSOIL SAE Synthetic Motor Oils (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Motoroils.htm#AMSOIL_Synthetic_Motor_Oils) and Mobil 1 primarily use group IV basestocks. PAO is a much more expensive basestock than the highly refined petroleum oil basestock of Group III.

Group V base oils are also chemically engineered stocks that do not full into any of the categories previously mentioned. Typical examples of group V stocks are Esters, polyglycols and silicone. Redline uses an ester basestock.

In the 90s, Mobil filed suit against Castrol for falsely advertising Syntec oil as synthetic, when in fact it contained a Group III, highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil, instead of a chemically synthesized (group IV or V) basestock. Due to the amount that the mineral oil had been chemically changed, the judge decided in Castrol's favor. As a result, any oil containing this highly hydroprocessed mineral (Dino) oil (currently called Group III basestock by the American Petroleum Institute) can be marketed as a synthetic oil. Since the original synthetic basestock (polyalphaolefin or PAO) is much more expensive than the Group III basestock, most of the oil blenders switched to the Group III basestock, which significantly increased their profit margins.

C66 Racing
11-10-06, 12:25 PM
Like Amsoil's (10W)30 diesel oil? No VI or low VI is common place with Amsoil isn't it?

That is correct. Most AMSOIL synthetics products do not need VIs and have little to no VIs. :thumbsup:

N0DIH
11-10-06, 01:13 PM
Amsoil used to be Ester/DiEster base stocks (90's). They are not now? So they were Group V and are not Group IV?

C66 Racing
11-10-06, 01:25 PM
Amsoil used to be Ester/DiEster base stocks (90's). They are not now? So they were Group V and are not Group IV?

AMSOIL has been using PAO basestock for a long time now. When exactly they shifted I'm not sure, but early 90s would not surprise me. Although most oil companies, including AMSOIL do not promulgate their actual exact basestock and additive packages, I've read from good sources that AMSOIL uses a predominantly PAO basestock (which is what they advertise for the SAE and Series 2000/3000 oils) but that they add a percentage of ester/diester basestock as well as they have found the mixture performs better than a strict basestock of one or the other.

I do know that PAO and ester basestocks effect seals differently. PAO shrinks seals, ester expands them. I've read that the mixture AMSOIL uses results in a slight (on the order of a few percent) expansion of seals. This provides the benefit that in higher mileage cars when the higher levels of detergents in AMSOIL remove sludge exposing potentially older dried out seals to fresh oil, the oil replenishes and expands the seals so that leakage problems are minimized or non-existant. I've got hundreds of AMSOIL customers and not one has ever reported a seal leakage problem to me. If there is an actual mechanical fault with the seal (e.g. a crack) the slight expansion probably won't correct the problem.

N0DIH
11-10-06, 01:29 PM
So which is better? Ester or DiEster stocks or PAO's?

Are PAO's still 100% synthetic? Are all Amsoil's addtives still synthetic? That was Amsoil's claim to fame at one time.

C66 Racing
11-10-06, 05:47 PM
So which is better? Ester or DiEster stocks or PAO's?

Are PAO's still 100% synthetic? Are all Amsoil's addtives still synthetic? That was Amsoil's claim to fame at one time.

In automotive applications, PAO seems to be favored, but as I mentioned above, Redline still uses an ester basestock. PAO are a man made synthesized product and considered a Group IV synthetic lubricant. Esters are also a man made synthesized product and considered a Group V synthetic lubricant. All AMSOIL products are still synthetic, though they now do make both Group III and Group IV synthetic basestock lubricants. Some of their compressor oils are Group V synthetic basestocks.

You can read more about the benefits of PAOs and Esters in this article I found on another automotive forum:

"Esters: Diesters (dibasic acid esters)

During World War II a range of synthetic oils was developed. Among these, esters of long-chain alcohols and acids proved to be excellent for low temperature lubricants. Following World War II, the further development of esters was closely linked to the aviation gas turbine. In the early 1960s, neopolyol esters were used in this application because of their low volatilities, high flash points and good thermal stabilities.

Diesters are prepared by reacting a dibasic acid with an alcohol containing one reactive hydroxyl group. Note that the hydrolytic stability of diesters is not as good as mineral oils. Hydrolytic stability refers to how the lubricant reacts in the presence of water. Hydrolytic degradation can lead to acidic products, which, in turn, promote corrosion. Plus, hydrolysis can also materially change the chemical properties of the base fluid, making it unsuitable for the intended use. Systems that can contract high levels of moisture include systems that operate at low temperatures or that cycle between high and low temperatures and also certain fuels such as racing engines running alcohol, which has a cooling effect in the engine. Racing engines using ester based lubricants should have the lubricant changed regularly.

Diesters have good lubricating properties, good thermal and shear stability, high viscosity indexes and have exceptional solvency and detergency. Diesters are superior fluids for aircraft engines and compressors, although mainly older jet aircraft. Diesters are also used as a base oil or part of a base oil for automotive engine oils and in some low temperature greases (note: modern military and commercial jet aircraft almost universally use lubricants formulated with polyol esters as the base fluid now).

Diesters are incompatible with some sealing materials and can cause more seal swelling than mineral oils. The scientific reason for this is as follows: diesters have a low molecular weight that results in low viscosities. This combined with their high polarities makes them quite aggressive to elastomeric seals. This can be reduced by using better elastomers or by carefully blending with PAOs to nullify their swelling effects, since PAO base stocks are nonpolar.

Esters: Polyolesters (Neopentyl Poly Esters)

Polyol esters are formed by reacting an alcohol with two or more reactive hydroxyl groups. These fluids are used primarily for aircraft engines, high temperature gas turbines, hydraulic fluids and heat exchange fluids. Polyol esters are much more expensive than diesters. Lubricating greases with polyol esters as the base fluid are particularly suited to high temperature applications. Polyol esters have the same advantages/disadvantages as diesters. They are, however, much more stable and tend to be used instead of diesters where temperature stability is important. In general, a polyol ester is thought to be 40-50 deg. C. more thermally stable than a diester of the same viscosity. Esters give much lower coefficients of friction than those of PAO and mineral oil. By adding 5-10% of an ester to a PAO or mineral oil the oils coefficient of friction can be reduced markedly.

Polymerized alpha olefin: Polyalphaolefin, Olefin Polymers, Olefin Oligomers- a synthetic hydrocarbon

PAOs are commonly used to designate olefin oligomers and olefin polymers. The term PAO was first used by Gulf Oil Company (later acquired by Chevron), but it has now become an accepted generic term for hydrocarbons manufactured by the catalytic oligomerization of linear alpha olefins having six or more carbon atoms. PAOs are gaining rapid acceptance as high-performance lubricants and functional fluids because they exhibit certain inherent and highly desirable characteristics. These favorable properties include:

A wide operational temperature range.
Good viscometrics (high viscosity index).
Thermal Stability.
Oxidative Stability.
Hydrolytic stability. *
Shear stability.
Low corrosivity.
Compatibility with mineral oils.
Compatibility with various materials of construction.
Low toxicity.
Manufacturing flexibility that allows tailoring products to specific end-use application requirements.

* Of particular interest in relation to demonstrating superior hydrolytic stability of PAO fluids is a test that was conducted to find a replacement for a silicate ester based aircraft coolant/dielectric fluid used by the U.S. military in aircraft radar systems. The test method required treating the fluids with 0.1% water and maintaining the fluid at 170 or 250 deg. F. for up to 250 hours. Samples were withdrawn at 20- hour intervals, and the flash points were measured by the closed cup method. A decrease in flash point was interpreted as being indicative of hydrolytic breakdown to form lower-molecular-weight products. The PAO showed no decrease in flash point in any of the test conditions, while the silicate ester based fluid showed marked decreases. The PAO fluid maintained started out with a flash point of 300 deg. F. and only dropped to 295 deg. F. at 80 hours into the test, while the silicate ester fluid, which started out with a flash point of 270 deg. F., ended up with a flash point of 220 deg. F. at only 55 hours into the test.

PAOs are used extensively as automotive lubricants (engine, gear, transmission, grease, hydraulic). PAOs are also super premium oils for automotive applications operating in temperature extremes. PAOs are a synthetic hydrocarbon that is compatible with mineral oils. In industrial applications, they may be combined with organic esters to be used in high temperature gear and bearing oils, as well as gas turbines. They are also used as a base fluid in some wide temperature range greases.

The general manufacturing process used to form PAOs is performed by combining a low molecular weight material, usually ethylene gas, into a specific olefin which is oligomerized into a lubricating oil material and then hydrogen stabilized. There are a variety of basic building block molecules used to form the finished lubricant, which are dependent on the range of requirements of the specific lubricant.

Seal compatibility is an important factor for any lubricant. Unlike mineral oils, PAO does not have a tendency to swell elastomeric materials. Early commercial PAO products were not formulated properly to allow for this difference in behavior. Consequently, early PAOs gained an undeserved reputation for leakage. Extensive tests have since shown that the addition of small quantities of an ester to the formulation easily alleviates this problem.

Recent work has indicated that the proper choice of other performance additives may eliminate the need to employ esters, but this approach is not yet in practice for crankcase applications. In a test of a PAO vs. a mineral oil for seal compatibility, four seal materials were studied: acrylate, silicone, nitrile and fluoroelastomer. The seals were evaluated at the end of the test for changes in tensile strength, elongation, volume (seal swell), and hardness. The PAO performance fell within the specification limits for all four elastomers. The mineral oil failed with silicone. Similar tests have been carried out with fully formulated part- and full-synthetic PAO oils. In all cases the fluids met the specifications.

Recent data shows that PAO-based fluids provide superior performance for the high-tech cars and trucks being built today. Todays engines are smaller and more demanding and operate at higher RPMs and under hood spaces is limited which causes increased operating temperatures. Both the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of PAO fluids are about 10% higher than values for comparable mineral oils. The net result is that PAO-lubricated equipment tends to run cooler.


Summary
There is clearly no doubt that synthetic lubricants are superior to petroleum based oils. An excellent summary of in-depth studies that were conducted on the benefits of synthetic lubricants is presented in Appendix B of the Society for Automotive Engineers, Progress in Technology ****** 22 and was conducted during the 1970s and 1980s. The nine superior performance features of synthetic engine oils that were documented by extensive laboratory and field testing are listed below:

Nine Superior Performance Features of Synthetic Engine Oils
Engine Cleanliness.
Improved Fuel Economy (4.2% average increase)
Oil Economy (lower consumption)
Excellent Cold Starting and Low Temperature Fluidity
Outstanding Performance in Extended Oil Drain Field Service
High Temperature Oxidation Resistance
Outstanding Single and Double Length SAE-ASTM API SE and SF Performance Tests (note SE and SF specs were the latest at the time of the testing)
Excellent Wear Protection
Extended drain capability for heavy-duty diesel trucks and gasoline powered trucks. Note: this particular test was based on truck fleet testing, however extended drain capability holds true for passenger cars as well.
These same superior performance features of synthetic engine oils hold true today just as they did when this extensive testing was conducted and has since been verified by many more studies and testing as well as countless millions of miles of field service in every possible type of vehicle and equipment application."

codewize
11-11-06, 12:08 AM
Ok, wow my brain is now on oil info overload. Thanks so much for all the good info. My next oil change will be to Amsoil 10W-30

This will be my first synthetic venture.

N0DIH
11-11-06, 12:24 AM
Personally, I still would stick with a CI-4 spec oil. Amsoil has a few, I would personally recommend having the higher levels of ZDDP still.

zanyzeuss
12-09-06, 08:28 AM
dont use amsoil, i live in superior, the home base of amsoil. Al Amatuzio stole the formula. Original stuff was called all proof, but was never patented. Amsoil has very poor business practices. I've run mobil one in three 78 cad 425's, 84 4.1 eldo (with 150,000) on original 4.1, 89 4.5, 91 4.9, 94 and 96 eldo's, and 2001 deville all to well over 125,000 miles all with no internal engine problems what so ever. If GM puts mobil one it in the corvettes and cts-v it must be good stuff

N0DIH
12-09-06, 11:34 AM
I have never even heard an thought to the idea was swiped. Any documentation on it? (not saying I don't believe you, but I have never heard anything on it ever)

That is the problem with patents. If you don't patent it, you risk losing it. Now, if you DO document it, and have a witness sign and date and you sign and date, you have a legal document in court ot fight theft of it. Always document your ideas.

Honestly, I am willing to bet 1 synthetic (Group IV) to the next is soooo close that it would be nearly impossible to detect the wear difference in an ENGINE (not a "wear test" that does not simulate anything inside and engine). So it just comes down to your favorite brand is what is important.

GM is going to source who meets their spec AND cost. Amsoil can't compete with Mobil 1. Their business model won't allow it. Until they ditch the MLM, they are doomed to be a small not terribly well respected company. Remember, GM didn't put in Mobil 1 for wear, they did it so they could remove the oil cooler. They needed the improve oil performance over the pertroleum oil performance with an oil cooler. Oil coolers are a cost to install, they can leak, so they can be a warranty issue. Voila, GM solved 2 issues with going to Mobil 1. If it costs $10 to put in the oil cooler, $10 for warranty per car for oil leaks or other issues, and it only costs $5 to change over to Mobil 1 in the car (you think GM is gonna pay retail?). They MADE money by going to Mobil 1....

Honestly looking at the bottle specs, Mobil 1 and Walmart "supertech" oil are awfully similar. Makes me wonder... SuperTech 5W30, like Mobil 1, is one of the very few synthetics that meets CF spec at all. Most all so called synthetics don't meet CF spec (diesel). If it doesn't meet any part of the diesel spec, I won't run it. Anyone know?

codewize
12-09-06, 05:49 PM
Yah know this board kills me. All the discussion, comparison and so on. I become convinced that Amsoil is the greatest thing on earth, spend $50 to change the oil in 1 of my cars and then you guys do this crap.

Same thing happened with my Volant CAI. Everyone talked it up made it sound great and as soon as I got one and installed it everyone was telling me I wasted my money.

WTF. I'm really starting to get pissed. :mad:

N0DIH
12-09-06, 06:06 PM
I am not saying it is bad product, quite the contrary, probably the best synthetic oil out there. BUT, I am frustrated at the business model. I used to be able to pickup most grades at the local NAPA, now I can't, NAPA is ditching them. Frustrating....

If I had the $$, all my vehicles would be running Amsoil (my Cad does have 75W90 gear oil now and Amsoil ATF in the power steering).

How much better is the question. No one really knows. I honestly haven't had the $$ to afford $9 per quart of Amsoil HDD 5W30. So I have to use Walmart SuperTech 5W30 or Mobil 1 5W30. The price is so inflated to cover the MLM stuff.

codewize
12-09-06, 07:13 PM
Ooohhhhhh. Whew. yeah it is pretty costly. My local guy sells it to me for $7.99. I almost didn't do it because of that. I put it in the 93 FWB the next time the N* is due I'll put it in that too.


I am not saying it is bad product, quite the contrary, probably the best synthetic oil out there. BUT, I am frustrated at the business model. I used to be able to pickup most grades at the local NAPA, now I can't, NAPA is ditching them. Frustrating....

If I had the $$, all my vehicles would be running Amsoil (my Cad does have 75W90 gear oil now and Amsoil ATF in the power steering).

How much better is the question. No one really knows. I honestly haven't had the $$ to afford $9 per quart of Amsoil HDD 5W30. So I have to use Walmart SuperTech 5W30 or Mobil 1 5W30. The price is so inflated to cover the MLM stuff.

Highway Star
12-09-06, 09:12 PM
Wasn't there a guy that got 600,000+ miles out of a 70's Caddy 425 (Guinness record holder) before it needed a rebuild? I'd like to track him down and find out what oil he was using. That's probably the oil I would go with.

N0DIH
12-10-06, 05:05 AM
Can't argue with 600K....

Mine LT1 is at 208K now, it likely ran petrolum oil up to 140K and I run synthetic from time to time since. Doesnt burn at all, a leaks a little at the rear seal....

codewize
12-10-06, 10:50 AM
My 4.5 STS, which everyone hates and says the 4.5's were crap, has 220k on it and always used Valvoline 10W-30 with some flavor of oil treatment. The car still runs like hell. The intake leaks oil but it doesn't burn any and still runs strong.


Can't argue with 600K....

Mine LT1 is at 208K now, it likely ran petrolum oil up to 140K and I run synthetic from time to time since. Doesnt burn at all, a leaks a little at the rear seal....

C66 Racing
12-10-06, 01:05 PM
Yah know this board kills me. All the discussion, comparison and so on. I become convinced that Amsoil is the greatest thing on earth, spend $50 to change the oil in 1 of my cars and then you guys do this crap.

Same thing happened with my Volant CAI. Everyone talked it up made it sound great and as soon as I got one and installed it everyone was telling me I wasted my money.

WTF. I'm really starting to get pissed. :mad:

I understand your frustration, but don't let one guy's opinion, stated without factual backup, sway your decision. I use AMSOIL in my Corvette, which I race, not because I sell AMSOIL. I use it because I honestly feel its the best. I started selling it after I started using it. The amount of money my team makes selling AMSOIL is peanuts compared to the cost of a new Vette motor and I lost one while running Mobil 1. I'll keep using AMSOIL.

AMSOIL's MLM method does turn a lot of people off and gives the company a bad reputation in many circles, but I tend to look at it in another way. The founder of AMSOIL, Al Amatuzio was a former USAF fighter pilot and squadron commander. He noted his jets used synthetic lubricants and felt that the benefits of synthetic could be brought to the automotive market. When he retired he started his own company and marketed the first synthetic to exceed API standards. As a retired military officer, he did not have the deep pockets of the big oil companies. I believe he chose to market his product at a lower startup cost using the MLM method. Many reputable companies use this method including Mary Kay, Snap-On, Discovery Toys, etc. AMSOIL has been using this method successfully for over three decades now. He has been recognized by many reputable publications for his push for synthetics in the marketplace and I personally feel that without AMSOIL, you wouldn't be seeing as many synthetics on the market today as you do. Here is a sample:
http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1179.pdf

At this point, AMSOIL has something like 80,000 plus dealers nationwide. Of these, about 400 or so that have taken the time to become certified dealers (by completing a course of study on lubrication) and reached sales levels to become qualified as AMSOIL Direct Jobbers (I'm one of them). AMSOIL is very loyal to this dealer network. A few years ago a large retail chain offered AMSOIL a very large contract ( something like $40 million) to carry AMSOIL. AMSOIL declined the offer.

I also feel their corporate method is to gain sales by making a better product. Mobil 1 is a good oil, but they are beholded to a board of directors and share holders. AMSOIL is not. A few years ago, Mobil 1 released a new line of oil called Extended Performance oils. At the time they advertised that this new line had about 50% more anti-wear additives and detergents than the base Mobil 1. If they felt Mobil 1 was so good, why did they release this new line of oil? I believe it was because of loss of market share to AMSOIL. FYI, Mobil 1 EP is rated by Mobil for 15k miles of use, AMSOILís main line of SAE synthetics is rated for 25k miles of use (or one year whichever comes first). Here is a sample of articles mentioning the differences in corporate philosophy:
Motor Drain Intervals: How Long Must We Wait? (http://www.amsoil.com/lit/lng_article/march_lng_new.pdf)
Motor Oil Drain Intervals: An Ethical Burden? (http://www.amsoil.com/lit/lng_article/dec_03_mcfall.pdf)

In answer to some of the comments above about all synthetics being nearly equal, I donít believe that to be true either, but that is a matter of scale. As I mentioned above, an oil is made up of two main constituents; its basestock and its additives. As can be seen from Mobilís own advertisements, their base Mobil 1 had about 50% less anti-wear and detergent additives than their newer EP. That, in my opinion is a fairly wide variance. If you want to see how that translates to different performance in several oil performance related metrics, read these AMSOIL commissioned studies:
Comparative Motor Oil Test Nov 05 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/Comparativetest11-05.htm)
Comparative Motor Oil Test Dec 03 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/Comparativetesting.htm)

I do feel that translates to improved performance in real world applications as well. This is a used oil analysis report from one of my customers cars, in this case a 99 Corvette C5 Fixed Rood Coue (predecessor to the Z06):
Corvette C5 AMSOIL Series 2000 0w30 Used Oil Analysis Report (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/Used%20Oil%20Analysis%20Reports/C5%20S2000%200w30%206-24-05.htm)
Note: The 1st sample was German Castrol Synthetic 0w30, the most recent two were AMSOIL Series 2000 Synthetic 0w30

Compare the levels of wear metals in his sample (primarily aluminum, iron, copper and lead) to the universal averages for that lab and that motor family). They are about 25-50% of the labs average for that motor family. As most of those samples submitted are probably using the factory fill Mobil 1, I feel this does validate improved real world performance of AMSOIL synthetics.

Finally, for those willing to order online, you can get AMSOIL products shipped directly to your house at wholesale pricing, the same price I pay as a dealer and about 20-25% under retail:
AMSOIL Preferred Customer Program (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/Preferredcustomer.htm)
:cheers:

N0DIH
12-10-06, 09:09 PM
Is there a Cadillac 4.x that doesn't leak oil on the intake? Every one that I have seen does....


My 4.5 STS, which everyone hates and says the 4.5's were crap, has 220k on it and always used Valvoline 10W-30 with some flavor of oil treatment. The car still runs like hell. The intake leaks oil but it doesn't burn any and still runs strong.

bicentennialcadillac
12-10-06, 10:57 PM
Why on earth was this moved to the Chevy forums? The OP has a 425.

N0DIH
12-10-06, 11:10 PM
Silly moderators....

JohnnyO
12-13-06, 01:11 PM
Mobil 1 Extended Performance has extra ZDDP in it. Valvoline Max Life does too, as well as the Max Life oil additive. On a '79 I'd run either a diesel 15-40 or Max Life 10w-30 or 40.
Amsoil is pricey and a '79 is past the point where it would see any benefit from running a sythetic, plus yeah, they like the MLM sales model (think Mary Kay or Amway for oil). .02.

N0DIH
12-13-06, 01:40 PM
Amway?? Yuk! They got such a bad name they changed it and are like all web stores now. Ugly....

Are they allowed to have extra ZDDP in if it is a SM spec oil? Isn't that against the SM spec?

JohnnyO
12-13-06, 03:02 PM
Are they allowed to have extra ZDDP in if it is a SM spec oil?
I guess so, that's what's in it. I don't think that's what makes it SM, rather durability and "slickness", etc. Note that while most oils are labled "Energy Conserving" in the circle on the label, many of the high mileage oils like Max Life are not labeled as such, even the SM-rated oils. Newer engines are okay with that, older ones are only so-so because the energy conserving oils are effectively thinner for a given weight and flat tappets are not especially happy with that.
Check the forums at www.bobistheoilguy.com.

urbanski
12-13-06, 03:38 PM
Why on earth was this moved to the Chevy forums? The OP has a 425.

ask brougham

C66 Racing
12-17-06, 09:30 PM
I guess so, that's what's in it. I don't think that's what makes it SM, rather durability and "slickness", etc.

API SM/ILSAC GF-4 does put very restrictive limits on ZDDP additives for 30 weight oils. Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w30 is labeled to meet API SM and ILSAC GF-4 specs and can have no more ZDDP additives than any other API SM/ILSAC GF-4 oil, specifically 0.08% max limit for phosphorus (which limits the ZDDP). :cheers:

chevelle
12-20-06, 11:00 AM
Actually the ILSAC GF-4 standard is what puts limits on the amount of ZDP in the oil NOT the SM standard. The SM is an API performance standard that does not limit the anti-wear capacity of the oil. The API starburst symbol (GF-4) that states "for gasoline engines" is an indicator of reduced or controlled ZDP levels and the addition of fuel economy improving friction modifiers in the oil. That has nothing to do with the SM performance spec per se.

This is then why the "diesel oils" like Rotella/Delo/Delvac can be rated SL/SM for API performance in gasoline engines and have the higher ZDP levels. They are NOT rated with the ILSAC starburst symbol "for gasoline engines" because they have the higher ZDP levels and they do not contain the friction modifiers for fuel economy. Those oils are simply "very good engine oil" that meets the latest gasoline AND diesel engine oil specifications per the API performance standards. They are marketed as "diesel" oils simply to draw the distinction from the ILSAC starburst "for gasoline engine" oils.

Any modern engine is designed to easily run with the reduced ZDP level of the ILSAC GF-4 oils. Older and specialty engines still need the additional antiwear protection that the Delvac/Delo/Rotella oils offer.

The last time I looked at Mobil Extended Performance oils they were specifically NOT rated with the ILSAC starburst for GF-4 because of the higher ZDP content and lack of friction modifiers.

There is no doubt that Amsoil has some good products but it is possible to buy similar performance oils at much lower prices with much greater availability. They overprice their product to account for their pyramid marketing scheme and try and condone it with inflated performance claims. Their products are just not necessary nor do they need to cost nearly as much as they do.

Amsoil still uses the "four ball wear test" to inflate their performance claims when that test has little or no applicability to automobile engines.....but it is something that Amsoil can market that no one else uses. No one else uses that test for a reason. It is pointless in comparing engine oil performance. In addition, Amsoil still sticks to their inflated oil change interval claims. If temperature alone were the reason for changing the oil then their synthetics (and any other synthetic like Mobil 1) would also allow dramatically extended change intervals. Since many other factors influence oil change intervals the Amsoil claims are groundless but they insist on continuing with that marketing scheme.....which is one reason none of the OEM's will deal with or recommend Amsoil. Besides, Amsoil does not even present their products for OEM testing and certification.

N0DIH
12-20-06, 11:57 AM
I am curious of something, likely many are too.

Many people are against extended oil drains. For what reason? Mobil 1 is marketing for it now to a limited 15K with the EP oils. Amsoil has pushed 25K for years, and Mobil 1 USED to, but stopped years ago.

Now, semi's (yes I know, they have large sumps) go more than 3-7K on oil changes. Why can't a gas engine? Semi's have some nasty soot in the oil that gas engines don't. What would it take to make car have similar drains to a semi? I myself wouldn't mind going 50K on an oil change... I drive enough that it probably would pay off.

http://ohe.cat.com/cda/files/309301/7/pedp7035.pdf

In reality, is TIME a better way to judge oil changes than miles? (Assuming no OLM!)

If we take 250 hours and go with an average of 60 mph (I know, too high, that is more for highway drivers only), that is 15K miles. So that would be more like 7500 miles for average drivers.

Looks like CAT DEO oil (single grade) is high TBN "Precombustion Fuel Injection: If fuel sulfur exceeds 0.50%, shorten the oil change interval based on S•O•S analysis results or use Cat DEO single grade oil API CF with 13.5 TBN.."

90Brougham350
12-20-06, 12:16 PM
I agree. As long as the filter is changed when it needs to be, why should the oil? If my oil still looks like maple syrup 5 or 10,000 miles after a change, it probably doesn't need to be, especially if I'm running a long-life filter.

chevelle
12-20-06, 07:52 PM
There are a number of reasons for changing the oil. Contaminants build up, oxidation takes place, the anti-wear addtive ZDP is slowly depleted, etc. It is almost impossible to define what specific reason any given engine's oil needs to be changed without knowing the exact operating schedule, ambient temperatures, run times, soak times, etc. That is why the oil life monitor was developed by GM. It keeps track of all the things that cause the oil to be degraded to the point that it needs changing.

Oil that looks perfectly fine could have lost all of it's ZDP anti-wear protection and the engine could be unprotected without replenishing the ZDP with a fresh oil change. Regardless of the filter or synthetic or whatever, if the sacrificial ZDP has been depleted the oil is junk and needs to be changed. What you would spend for testing to determine this exact point of ZDP depletion is easily offset by simply changing the oil.

Be a little wary of oil filters that advertise that they filter to too fine a particle. The smaller the pores in the filter the more restriction the filter has (no exceptions despite the marketing hype) and the less oil it will actually filter. You will always trade off percent of oil filtered for finer filtration. Since particles in the oil finer than the minimum oil film thickness do little or no harm the idea of "finer filtration" is pretty much a myth. That is why the OEM's do not put ultra fine filtration filters on the engine in the first place.

The only "common" thing people want to define oil change intervals by is mileage. Unfortunately there are dramatic differences in different engine designs that dictate different change intervals....in other words, some engines beat up the oil much worse than others and need more frequent changes regardless of the type of oil used.

An example is the older 93-99 Northstars compared to 2000 and later Northstars. The earlier engines had 32 direct acting rubbing element tappets. They need more ZDP wear protection and/or deplete the ZDP in the oil much sooner than the 2000 and later engines with roller followers at the cam lobe. Earlier 4.1 style engines with flat tappets, distributor drive gears on the cam and spur gear oil pumps will deplete the anti-wear characteristics of the oil faster yet and require even sooner changes all other things being equal. So.....to try and use "mileage" as an all encompassing means of deciding when to change the oil on any and everything is fruitless and misleading. You have to understand your specific engine requirements and driving schedule.

So much water, gasoline and combustion byproducts end up in the oil on coldstarts that repeated cold starts in the winter with only short trip use can kill the oil extremely fast. Long before the ZDP is depleted. So this could be an overriding factor of mileage regardless of the engine type.

Get the idea..??? Oil changes and the oil change intervals are very complicated and there is no simple answer despite people's attempts to create one. For a company like Amsoil to openly say their oil is good for 25,000 miles is absolute BS. It cannot be used under severe conditions for that sort of mileage but they only mention that in the fine print. The Extended Service Mobil products will last a little longer in service due to the added ZDP concentration to make up for high mileage ZDP depletion but even with those oils severe service like cold weather/short trip operation negates the extended service idea.

JohnnyO
12-20-06, 07:54 PM
This is then why the "diesel oils" like Rotella/Delo/Delvac can be rated SL/SM for API performance in gasoline engines and have the higher ZDP levels. They are NOT rated with the ILSAC starburst symbol "for gasoline engines" because they have the higher ZDP levels and they do not contain the friction modifiers for fuel economy.

The last time I looked at Mobil Extended Performance oils they were specifically NOT rated with the ILSAC starburst for GF-4 because of the higher ZDP content and lack of friction modifiers.
Ditto for Valvoline Max Life and some of the other high-mileage oils.


There is no doubt that Amsoil has some good products but it is possible to buy similar performance oils at much lower prices with much greater availability. They overprice their product to account for their pyramid marketing scheme and try and condone it with inflated performance claims. Their products are just not necessary nor do they need to cost nearly as much as they do.
:werd:

N0DIH
12-20-06, 10:04 PM
Knowing statistics a bit (Green Belt) and how you can use statistics to make valid projections, so personally, I have a fair amount of confidence in GM's timeline to change oil. I honestly cannot have this same confidence in Amsoil making those same statistical analysis. Maybe they did, and if they would be willing to provide that data, I would love to crunch over it. Being GM has virtually unlimited resources, I have some better trust in their conclusions. GM is TS-16949, is Amsoil? That carries weight too. Still doesn't mean they are perfect, but knowing (I worked in a TS-16949 company, I know it well....) that knows they work to a standard.

Again, I am not saying Amsoil has a bad product. I also would find it hard to believe any company would put that much on the line without making a statistical projection of the risks. Honestly, Amsoil's claim is 25K (or 35K with 0W30) OR 1 year. Few people can put >25K miles on their ride in 1 year. So in most cases the oil should get changed out much sooner. I am sure that adds to the statistic....

And we know GM is gonna buffer their #'s a certain %. Doubtful like 3x, but probably more like 10-15%. And that is using the worst oil that they could find that still meets the oil spec for the year of the car.

JohnnyO
12-21-06, 07:44 AM
Different engine from this forum, but I let the OLM on my dad's '04 N* get down to 5% and about 12,500 miles with Mobil 1 in it, got a used oil analysis from Blackstone and it was fine.
I just don't think that Amsoil is any better than Mobil 1 and costs almost double.

N0DIH
12-21-06, 09:27 AM
I would be willing to bet the OLM is someone's Black Belt or Master Black Belt project. It sure screams of it. The statistical analysis on it would have been huge. Wish I could have worked on something like that, it would be a blast.

I sure would like to see a way to directly compare each oil and see what the differences or similarities really are. Makes one wonder if there is any REAL differences after all. I guess if you can get me 18 engines for each oil grade to test, 18 for a control group, and run them each to xx miles (on a test dyno or some GM test fixture), with oil changes at specific intervals (and extended and per mileage on the oils that recommend ext drains), and go all the way till either an oil related failure happens or tear down at a certain stop point and examine each and every engine in detail.

To me, that is the only way to know "who is best". It would be very very expensive, and time consuming. Probably costing in the $200K+ range to do it. Only someone like GM or a major car company likely would or could afford it.

noahsdad
12-21-06, 01:35 PM
Just for reference, I've been using Amsoil in my HT 4100 for 18 months, averaging 6 month/4 thousand mile change intervals. It's been a good experience for me, and the cost is offset because of the extended drain intervals.

But I don't do anything on blind faith, and have my drain samples tested by Blackstone Labs. Since switching to Amsoil, my trace metal measurements (indicating wear) have consistently dropped. My engine is now wearing at a rate 66% slower than the universal averages. Of course your driving style, engine condition, etc may produce different results.

If you want to read the report, feel free:
http://cadquest.blogspot.com/2006/10/results-are-in-amsoil-is-doing-job.html

bicentennialcadillac
12-24-06, 08:35 AM
Thanks for cluing me in to Blackstone. I've asked for a kit.

C66 Racing
12-24-06, 12:11 PM
The last time I looked at Mobil Extended Performance oils they were specifically NOT rated with the ILSAC starburst for GF-4 because of the higher ZDP content and lack of friction modifiers.


That was true, but is no longer.

From Mobil 1's website:

Mobil 1 5w30:
GM 6094M, GM 4718M (Corvette spec)
Ford WSS-M2C929-A
ACEA A1/B1
ILSAC GF-4 (API Certified - Starburst)

Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w03:
ILSAC GF-4
ACEA A1/A5, B1/B5
API SM
(Note - and I looked at a bottle in Walmart yesterday and it is API starburst now as well)

Addressing a few other misconceptions above.

Cost:
I've read independent business analysis reports showing a MLM distribution scheme isn't more costly than a traditional distribution scheme. Though AMSOIL does use a MLM distribution method, AMSOIL pays a fixed percentage of the sale to its dealer network. This percentage (which I can't quote online) is no more than the markup required from a retail outlet such as Walmart. I looked at Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w30 pricing at Walmart yesterday and it was $5.94 a quart. While I can't advertise AMSOIL pricing online, I will say the AMSOIL Preferred Customer Program (http://www.amsoil.com/redirect.cgi?zo=1206638&page=pref) pricing for the main SAE synthetic line rated for one year or 25,000 miles of use in normal service is under $6.50 a quart, not the "double" mentioned above. If anyone wants more info on this program, please drop me a PM. Though this price doesn't include shipping, for some whose time is limited (such as mine) the cost of the shipping more than offsets the time required to go to Walmart to buy the oil.

As for statistical analysis, AMSOIL has been using a recommended one year, 25k mile oil change interval for normal service (15k for severe) for over three decades now and has what is probably the most comprehensive corporate warranty on the market: AMSOIL Corporate Warranty (http://www.amsoil.com/redirect.cgi?zo=1206638&page=warranty)
For a company as small as AMSOIL, to issue a warranty this comprehensive indicates their confidence in the product they sell.

Performance:
Though many can and will argue the validity of virgin oil tests such as the 4-ball test, I've read enough used oil analysis reports such as the one linked by Noahsdad above to have confidence that AMSOIL does perform extremely well in actual performance. For another real world used oil sample, one of my customer's (2000 C5 Corvette) recently sent me this sample which included 5,000 miles of use and one full track day at Watkins Glen:
Corvette C5 Used Oil Analysis Report Ė AMSOIL SAE Synthetic 10w30 (http://www.c66racing-synthetics.com/TestResults/C5%20AMSOIL%2010w30%20UOA.htm)

P.S. Please don't read into any of my comments that I'm saying Mobil 1 is a bad oil, it isn't. All I'm trying to point out is that there are better alternatives. Peace. :cheers:

N0DIH
01-02-07, 04:28 PM
My curiosity is how does a 4 ball wear test relate to an engine? For instance, if one oil has a 4 ball result of 0.4mm scar @ 60kg and another at 0.8mm scar @ 60 kg, one would assume that the wear ability is 2x as good with the 0.4mm scar oil. But we don't have 4 balls in our engine. We don't have contact like that in our engine. So how does it really relate? It seems very subjective to whoever is using the test data. So if the oil with 0.4mm scar helps keep an engine alive for 200K, then one might falsely assume that the 0.8mm would only last 100K. I don't think that is anywhere close.

Quaker State or Pennzoil seem to push that their oil is more slippery. But is it? How can we measure? And how does that have an effect on the engine as well?

codewize
01-03-07, 11:21 PM
This will be getting fixed soon. I want to make this my daily driver again and keep the clock down on the DTS. She needs that and some front end work. Ball joints, inner tie-rod, strut rod bushing (deteriorated from the oil leak) then she'll be good as new again.


Is there a Cadillac 4.x that doesn't leak oil on the intake? Every one that I have seen does....

C66 Racing
01-05-07, 03:40 PM
My curiosity is how does a 4 ball wear test relate to an engine?

While linear comparisons between engine life and 4 ball wear test results are probably unrealistic, I do think there is validity to the test, especially in parts of the engine such as the bearings under heavy load. I lost an LS6 in my Z06 (before switching to AMSOIL) during my first racing season in 2003 so I am personally a little sensitive to how an oil holds up under heavy load. Probably a better comparision is the High Temp High Shear rating. But if you compare factory released specs of the HTHS, AMSOIL's are the highest I've found short of full racing oils which don't have any detergents.

I also think the 4 ball results are supported by the numerous used oil analysis reports I've seen which shows less actual wear metals in an engine using AMSOIL. Whether this improved wear translates to longer engine life is obviously subject to considerable debate. But, I'll take the peace of mind that my engines are wearing less than the next guys...