AMSOIL

[Doug H]

Hi,

Bill - your Post sure sounds like Amsoil blurb - that's sad because Amsoil does make good products! I am sure that you have had excellent results from the products used.

Oh, did they pass Porsche's special anti-foaming test protocol, was the viscosity test sequences used by Porsche used by Amsoil? - I think not! There is much more too!!!

And I note that you did not supply any unbiased information backing up your claim that Amsoil is "the best" or "Number 1". You will NOT be able too!!

Notwithstanding you have had good results, but Porsche must think Globally and widely in terms of vehicle application and operation - hence their Approved Lubricants List. They have had this for years. I worked for Mercedes Benz (Heavy Trucks) and spent a lot of time in Germany and on engeine development - and they have had an Approved Lubricants protocol for many decades. So has CAT (since the 1930s) and Mack, and recently Cummins and DD have found the need for this too

Oil Companies that have Technical alliances with engine Manufacturers do indeed have a unique insight into the lubricant needs of a particular engine family. VW with Castrol, BMW with Castrol, MB (and AMG) and Porsche with Mobil etc.

I have worked with Mobil & Detroit Diesel in the development of products and with Castrol too - over several decades! I was an employee of Caltex-Chevron as the Technical Manager of their Training facility in Copenhagen (Denmark) and had experience in solving sluge/deposit issues in VWs and other engines during the 1960s - as a result I have used HDEOs in my own vehicles ever since (see later)

The Technical alliances produce knowledgeable Engineers in both camps and within the engine manufacturer's component suppliers (valve actuation gear, turbochargers, superchargers, lubrication system components and etc.) too!

I stress again Amsoil does make good lubricants - not exceptional but good. But, certainly no better than any of those on Porsche's Approved Lubricants List

Everyone is free to use what they will but the people that know most about the engine in the vehicle you drive is the people who designed it, produced it and then back it under Warranty. If they recommend a lubricant then it is wise to use it

Yes I use a "mixed fleet" 5w-40 HDEO in my Boxster (under Porsche warranty) that is NOT on the Porsche Approval List but I have millions of kms experience with this product in many engine families and helped with its development over nearly 10 years. Porsche Approved its use in my case. I use a MB Approved lubricant in my CLX under Warranty!

There is NO best oil!

Regards

Edited January 4, 2008 by Doug H

[benaslan]

I've been using Amsoil for years and years in many vehicles. I'm not a dealer and I don't represent them. Doug, what makes you so sure Amsoil isn't better than the others? I see more proof that they are better than I see that they aren't. I open to whatever oil is best for my car. I have Mobile 1 in my 996 TT right now, but am tempted to change to see if another oil will create less oil burn, or make my engine run smoother, or get better mileage (as I have experienced with Amsoil in other vehicles). I haven't tried them all, and lots of people have different opinions, but when I do a search to see other opinions, the only consistency I see is that in this debate, that people are picking Amsoil.

So, anyone else wanna chime in?

[Doug H]

Hi,

benaslan - What is better? How is this judged and to what criteria. Using full UOAs and other test criteria would take at least 800k miles each according to Cummins to evaluate the AW performance of two lubricants. Even then the results will most likely be inconclusive unless the same operating criteria are used! I worked with Castrol on a three year evaluation project during the 1990s with a prototype HDEO semi-synthetic lubricant (you now know it as Tection) and the vehicle covered 5 million kms, there were a number of tear downs and many UOAs. There were many formulation "tweaks" too in the process!

"End on end" UOAs with two different lubricants in the same engine is at best interesting and mostly very misleading owing to the cleaning and replating effects of the new lubricant. Even then the performance is (mostly) judged incorrectly on a few ppm of some wear metals!

Trending wear metal uptake rates within an engine family requires time/distance and a reasonably large pool of target engines!

In my own case (and some of my Clients) with one engine family I have hundreds of samples on my database - it simply enables analysis via exception and provides a good snapshot of the lubricant's condition and suitablity for further use at a point in time. My $50000 engines were on 90k km OCIs and used centrifuge oil conditioners. Iron wear metal limit is 150ppm and soot 4%, viscosity must remain in grade!

The true methods of evaluating lubricants is either via transducers on certain engine components in a clinical situation or via RATT. The oil must be "conditioned" and the operating sequences which need a defined purpose (cam wear, ring pack wear, deposit control etc) must be fully able to be replicated over a series of situations. This will range from WOT to various load and warm up/cool down positions)

In fact RATT (Radio Active Tracer Technology) is now used in either surface or thin layer activation and/or bulk activation and at real time! This is then backed up by in service evaluation using UOAs and other test controls

Castrol for example when assisting VW to promulgate their VW506.01 Quality standard carried out a series of 1000 hour radionucleide tests (VW devised) - wear was measured in nanametres (one millionth of a mm) per hour. This evaluated various additives and base fluid compositions.

Backing this up they had a selection of vehicles in field test service in a variety of "normal" applications in the hands of "joe public". City traffic, highway, mixed and with and without oil changes for up to three years! This is the confirmation phase!

And a Amsoil reresentative promotes their lubricant as "the best" or "Number 1" - I don't think so!

Engine test regimes in the "public" field especially via ACEA are very very good and now being "aped" by the API. The extra testing required to achieve Manufacturer Approval is indeed where its all at now and where it will be into the future. This is especially so as new metallurgies are used and very sophisticated Additive Packages and fluids are developed to compensate for the shortfall in readily available and cost effective petroleum products as we knew them!

I stress again that Amsoil products are good but not exceptional performers (many tended to thicken out of grade with use, a real no no in a modern engine - is this why are not ACEA registered?) and certainly they are no better than many many others. The 100 or so lubricants Listed by Porsche are cost effective and are formulated to suit our engine families!

I have NO affilialtion with ANY Oil Company and I am quite happy for my comments to be evaluated by a Senior Lubricant's Engineer from a Major Oil Company!

Regards

Doug Hillary

M1 0w-40 in 06 MB CLK

D1 5w-40 in 01 Boxster

Edited January 4, 2008 by Doug H

[Bill_SoCal]

Good morning Doug,

I am certainly not questioning your expertise and contribution in regard to oil. Your comment that "there is NO best oil" is a generalization and I would argue that while there may not be an absolute best, there are oils that perform significantly better than others. We both know that first off all synthetic oils offer better performance attributes than conventional oils. Starting there, there is a better oil. We also know that each company uses different additives in their products to achieve a certain quality expectation while also achieving a price point. Of the industry standard tests, depending on the additives, some engine oils will perform better than others, and overall, you certainly have a best grouping of engine oils. You simply can't say that one product can't be developed that meets performance attributes better than another.

We own Porsches because we feel they are a very well made care with a legacy we want to be part of. Is my Cayenne better than a Ford Explorer? I'm sure some could offer the same debate as you do for engine oil. Based on the data, the performance criteria available, I can make an educated judgment that my Cayenne is indeed superior to an Explorer. Would everyone come to that conclusion based on the same data? Maybe not.

I grew up driving VW's and researching oil. I have been actively involved in the industry for over a decade. It is true, I am involved with Synpsg, who distributes Amsoil as their exclusive product offering. You could certainly call me a representative or dealer, but I'm also a Porsche guy. The fact remains, based on the research data I've seen, overall I would not use anything but Amsoil or Mobil 1; and my choice, based on the data, is Amsoil. I certainly didn't mean my prior response to be an Amsoil blurb...I too am a Porsche enthusiast no different than you. And as far as other vehicles, my daughter has a new BMW 325i. It too comes with four year maintenance. I immediately changed out the Castrol. Again, this decision was based on data too. I have never seen an industry recognized test where Castrol has finished first in a specific category...never. If you have, please share it with me. My daughter's BMW uses 5W-30...I changed over to SSO 0W-30. Based on the four ball wear test, here are the top oils by market share: 0W-30 Scroll down and look at the performance test.

While I can't say conclusively that Amsoil is the best, I will say it ranks with the best grouping of top oils available today. There is clearly a difference as there are different quality levels for every additive that goes into to manufacturing engine oil. There are better oils than others. No doubt about it...every product offers different quality levels. That's how we as consumers differentiate and make buying decisions.

Appreciate being allowed to contribute to the board. Glad to be here...

Best regards,

Bill

SSO 0W-30 '05 BMW

AFL 5W-40 '03 Boxster 107K

AFL 5W-40 '06 Cayenne

AFL 5W-40 '08 Cayenne S

[Doug H]

Hi,

Bill - Thanks for your comments! However, you have not produced any unbiased and conclusive data to support the comment about Amsoil being the "best oil" or "Number 1" as there simply is none!

Your comments follow:

1 - " We both know that first off all synthetic oils offer better performance attributes than conventional oils. Starting there, there is a better oil"

Bill, this is a very questionable statement! I know that many Group 3 lubricants perform at least as well if not much better in some applications than the Group 4 lubricants offered by Amsoil and others. It is simply application related, specification based and can be verified in simple ecomonic terms. Ask the trucking Industry!

There are a number of applications where Group 4 synthetic lubricants (such as many Amsoil products) should not be used! If they are used their perfomance can have a detrimental effect on component life!

The Porsche Factory actually use mineral lubricants in many of their own engines - engines that in some cases are virtually irreplacable

Porsche first moved to a minimum specification Group 3 lubricant as factory fill around 1991!

2 - " We also know that each company uses different additives in their products to achieve a certain quality expectation while also achieving a price point"

Bill, this statement is also very loosely based! Most Oil Companies simply purchase an Additive Package made by the five or so (Worldwide) Suppliers. These are blended (like Amsoil does) into a base fluid. The base fluid used holds part of the story about the finished product - it is the "carrier" of the additives. Base fluids developed by Companies such as Chevron-Caltex (and etc), Shell (XHVI), ExxonMobil (SuperSyn etc) etc. are used by many other Blenders under assumed names - Amsoil being but one! The base fluids are used by the Blender to give the lubricant (such as the Porsche Approved and Listed M1 0w-40 or M1 5w-50) its very good low pour point and excellent high temperature (HTHS) performance. Some people claim that the best of the best of these fluids are not on-sold but form the basis for their own products.

Lubricants are produced to satisfy certain application criteria - most determined now thank goodness by the engine Manufacturer and not by the oil Industry (thanks to ACEA and the NA diesel engine makers)

I am not trying to be obstructive Bill but as Loren said earlier, there are around 100 lubricants on Porsche's Approval List from many Oil Companies/Blenders Worldwide - all are great lubricants and all perform at the required levels or well above! Amsoil is NOT on that List!

Again, Amsoil makes good products (AFL is on the MB Appoved List) - they are not exceptional performers though and many other cheaper products are their equal

Regards

Doug Hillary

Edited January 4, 2008 by Doug H

[Bill_SoCal]

Hi Doug,

Agreed and thanks for the great post. I acknowledge and agree Amsoil is not on the Porsche approved oil list. I appreciate you taking the time to post as I too am learning a few things from you that I was not aware of and are certainly worthy of additional study.

I stand behind the statement that "We both know that first off all synthetic oils offer better performance attributes than conventional oils. Starting there, there is a better oil."

I certainly expected we would agree here. Let me clarify, synthetic oils are clearly superior for gasoline high performance engines. There may be specific applications due to the wide range of lubricant applications where a mineral oil might be better than a synthetic, but I am not aware of any application due to the fact that conventional oils simply do not hold up to the extreme cold or heat and demands that synthetic oils will, even with the enhanced additive packages of today mineral oils cannot compete with synthetics. For high performance gasoline engines which we own, one cannot simply not say a mineral oil can protect as effectively as a synthetic. It’s absolutely proven with data and recognized by the leading industry experts. If the decision is cost based, well, yes, I understand. The only functional category that I am aware of that someone might consider a conventional oil over a synthetic is purely cost. There is such a significant difference in properties, protection, and performance capabilities.

Understanding Conventional Mineral Oils:

Understanding Motor Oil: Crude oil, as it is pumped out of the ground, contains hundreds of kinds of hydrocarbons from thick, tar-like asphalts, to thin, volatile liquids like benzene or heptanes, or even light, colorless gases like methane or propane. Refiners separate crude oil into scores of useful compounds. The base stock for [conventional] motor oil is made from medium-size hydrocarbon molecules with 25 to 45 molecules which are neither too thick, nor too thin, and can be pumped under high pressure between moving metal surfaces or an engine to provide a slippery lubricating film that prevents metal-to-metal contact and all but eliminates friction. Motor oil hydrocarbons, like gasoline, consist of olefins, paraffins, napthenes, and aromatics. Simple aromatics ̶ which make good gasoline components due to their ability to resist detonnation ̶ also make good motor oils due to their thermal stability. Polynuclear aromatics do not make good oils (Hartman, pp. 15-16, 1996).

To understand synthetic motor oils (According to Mobil), let’s look first at the origins of all motor oils:

Conventional oils come from crude oil that is pumped from the ground. Crude oil is made up of a complex mixture of molecules that form chains and rings of different sizes and shapes. Long chains of carbon atoms produce a thick, viscous fluid that flows slowly. Shorter chains produce fluid that flows more readily.

In an oil refinery, crude oil is separated into various fractions. These become the basis for lubricating oils and fuels. Thick tangled masses of carbon chains become asphaltic materials used in roofing tar and road work. Very short chains and ring compounds of carbon are volatile and can be refined to produce gasoline and other products.

While petroleum refining is an advanced science, small amounts of contaminants, such as sulfur and reactive hydrocarbons, cannot be completely removed from petroleum, and may end up in motor oil base stocks.

All motor oils are made up of base oils and additives. In general, fully synthetic motor oils contain non-conventional, high-performance fluids. Synthetic blends usually use some non-conventional, high-performance fluids in combination with conventional oil.

To meet the demanding requirements of today's specifications (and our customers' expectations), Mobil 1® uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins (PAOs), along with a proprietary system of additives. Each Mobil 1 viscosity grade uses a unique combination of synthetic fluids and selected additives in order to tailor the viscosity grade to its specific application (http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Why_Synthetics.aspx).

Doug, here’s why synthetics are better:

Synthetics have none of the wax of which mineral oil, for economic reasons, cannot feasibly be 100 percent-free. Synthetic oils’ pour point is -60 degrees F or below, while mineral oils only pour to about -40 F, but they are also formulated for improved high temperature stability. With their tightly coherent molecular structure, synthetics have inherently better resistance to thermal breakdown, and require less VI-improver (perhaps none) to maintain viscosity and integrity at high temperatures, instead of degrading into vapor and sludge. Synthetics not only maintain their thickness better at high temperatures, but they are also more resistant to longer term breakdown and thickening by repeated “cooking” under heavy loads.

All oils meet API standards with some margin, but synthetics tend not only to meet but to exceed the highest standards for passenger car motor oils. In the API test a 350 V-8 is tested under heavy load for 64 hours with 300 degree oil, and then disassembled and checked for internal wear and cleanliness. Synthetic oils’ customized molecules are formulated with structures optimal for reduction of internal friction: Synthetics are actually slipperier than ordinary mineral oils (Hartman, p. 22, 1996).

Synthetics are proven to offer superior wear protection, increased horsepower, cooler running engines, reduced deposits, reduced oil consumption, resistance to oxidation and breakdown, easier winter starts - they all add up to less repairs and a better running, longer lasting engine. More importantly to most drivers today, synthetic oils can help improve fuel economy by reducing friction (retrieved from synpsg.com, 01/08).

While the engineering is much different, synthetic oils were developed due to the demands of jet engines (historically, synthetic development first began in Germany, however, was abandoned due to the cost). When I'm flying at 37,000 feet, I certainly want to know that the best engineered lubricant is keeping the aircraft in the air (and I'm not saying which synthetic aviation is best as I've not done research in this area). This is the same reason synthetic wheel bearing great was developed long ago for jets landing on aircraft carriers. Amsoil is one company referenced in many US Military MIL specs.

My degree is not in chemistry or a petroleum sciences field, however, I can say that I would think a 100% pure molecular structure is better than a fragmented molecular structure of carbon when trying to create the best performing lubricant.

In regard to “the Porsche Factory actually use mineral lubricants in many of their own engines - engines that in some cases are virtually irreplaceable.” Are these collector cars? I don’t know of any high performance engine or engine builder in the world today that uses mineral lubricants. With the technology and testing available today, I would have a hard time understanding this one. It would be clearly a performance and wear disadvantage. Is there a reliable source or peer reviewed written material I can reference? With all the money into a high performance engine, adding mineral oil would not seem such a smart decision. It is a proven fact the synthetics offer less friction; which equates to higher performance due to less friction and so many other performance attributes you can’t get from a mineral oil.

I agree it is a positive that we are seeing oil requirements determined by the manufacturer.

To address your point, "Again, Amsoil makes good products (AFL is on the MB Appoved List) - they are not exceptional performers though and many other cheaper products are their equal." How do I measure this Doug? This is very general. What makes you believe they are not exceptional performers? According to data available by searching the web, they are in fact superior and among the best. Amsoil spends the money to benchmark against the competitors in independent labs (tests that can be dupicated at any lab in the world). Is there somewhere that I can see these lubricants benchmarked against each other to support your claim that there is no best performing oil? It is true, Amsoil spends the money to prove their performance attributes, however, this data is made available to everyone and cannot be argued by any of the big companies...if the performance data was not accurate, I think we would see a number of lawsuits by the top competitors. I can only reference the data I can access Doug. We can all base our oil bias subjectively, however, I base my lubrication decision based on empirical information.

If you have empirical or tangible data, please point me in that direction and I’ll be glad to review the performance results of other oils.

I understand your point to not being one best, but I clearly stand behind the fact that there are better performers than others. I continue to reference data that I’ve seen that proves Amsoil and Mobil 1 are top performers. Mobil 1 is obviously focused on market share and the best product they can product at the price point and quality level that meets the niche high performance market. Mobil 1 from a marketing perspective clearly competes in a purely competitive environment. Amsoil on the other hand is focused on acquiring the best additives package and prices their products according as being the best. Amsoil’s marketing strategy is more differentiated based on quality so they compete in more an oligopoly in my opinion.

If you point me to data that shows a specific oil outperforming Amsoil in the industry recognized tests, that would be great. Again, I use Amsoil in my Porsche’s because I find the company to clear be open in regard to testing, a long track record since being the first in 1972, and I’ve had such great performance success. I base my opinion solely on data and my studies. With that, I will concede and agree that Amsoil is not on the Porsche approved list, however, it is the oil I choose to use based on data and overall performance attributes that are available for me to make a decision.

Best regards,

Bill Parisen

synpsg.com

SSO 0W-30 '05 BMW

AFL 5W-40 '03 Boxster 107K

AFL 5W-40 '06 Cayenne

AFL 5W-40 '08 Cayenne S

[Doug H]

Hi,

Bill - your "lesson" on Mineral & Synthetic lubricants directed at me was not really required. I have been involved in this field and in the development of mineral, semi-synthetic and synthetic lubricants for a very long time!

It is obvious from your Post that you do indeed have a lot of learning to do - this will take time moderated by experience and the likes of the "BITOG" Website will assist you greatly! I do not intend to "pull apart" your Post in detail that would be wrong and too time consuming but I will comment on certain of you comments or statements

My comments of Porsche's engines covers a number of engines made purely for racing (mostly long distance, Carrera, LeMans etc) and the lubricants are warmed to 80C prior to loading and reving the engine beyond 2000rpm! I have had recent and direct contact with both the Engineers and engines involved at out Phillip Island Historic Racing events!

Most other more recent engines use a conventional mineral 15w-40 "mixed fleet" HDEO - this is widely promoted by the Engineers involved! Such oils were once Porsche Factory fill. M1 0w-40 is widely used in all late model race engines - by the Factory and most Privateers

Indeed it is very clear that a modern mixed fleet 15w-40 HDEO will perform at least as well as a synthetic and probably much better in most Pre MY84 aircooled Porsche engines

Have no doubt - synthetics are excellent when correct application based and some applications certainly preclude their use! Porsche knew this and even the 928 engine was equipped for synthetic use from the early 1980s. Porsche have not Approved a mineral oil for use in any MY84> since 1999!

Many engine makers will actually advise against the use of synthetic lubricants - some of the reasons why are because of the very characteristics you promote as "positives" and which are most desirable in other "correct" applications

Some Mobil 1 (and Delvac) products contain esters and are NOT solely based on PAOs - this has been so for a number of years!!

As to whether Amsoil is better than comparable specification products - well the obligation is on you to prove that it is!

I have a database covering UOAs from many vehicles - petrol, diesel and gas powered - and using a huge range of lubricants. In the case of 911 aircooled engines and comparing wear metal trends, MINERAL lubricants clearly outperform synthetics. Amsoil's product's results are around average over all engine families.

When comparing each lubricant's condition as obtained from the UOAs it is clear that some Amsoil products tend to become more viscous (commonly known) amongst some other issues such as a poor TBN (TAN) performance

Bill - I do not wish to debate this matter and simply bore the pants of all of the Forum's users, I do wish to restate that Amsoil does make a number of good products. At the same time they are around average in their class - no more no less!

As for comparative data, if only Amsoil had all of their products either API or preferably ACEA Quality registered as the Major Oil Companies do this may indeed be a meaningful request. At present ACEA (composed of the Euro Vehicle/Engine manufacturers) have the best test protocols and Amsoil simply say some of their product "Meet" or "Exceed" these or they use the same terminology regarding the very serious Engine Manufacturer's test protocols

This extract from Detroit Diesel-MTU's (a Division of DB) (7SE270) states this;

"Beware that some marketers may indicate that their products "meet" API requirements. THIS IS NOT ADEQUATE. Although the licensing system does not gaurantee good oil performance, the marketer must be able to support data and follow established testing guidelines to substantiate that the service classification is met! ONLY OILS LICENSED BY API SHOULD BE USED IN DETROIT ENGINES!"

Porsche is mentioned on the label of Amsoil's AFL 5w-40 lubricant - we are asked to believe that it is as good as the 100 odd Porsche Approved and Listed lubricants.

As good? Better? Inferior? Simply we are asked to believe Amsoil that it is "the best" or "Number 1".

I make no judgement except to say again that Amsoil's products are about average performers in their individual specification class

Regards

Doug Hillary

Edited January 6, 2008 by Doug H

[Bill_SoCal]

:cheers:

Agreed Doug. Thanks for taking the time to share a few posts. I don't think anyone is bored by our posts; it is certainly educational. Please note that as far as my learning is concerned, all material I posted was from professional sources; they are not my own opinion. I appreciate you recognizing that I have a lot to learn. I am constantly learning and doing research. I hold a BS in Business; a MBA in Management and Strategy, and recently just completed the CMBA which is the certified competencies of an MBA. There are only a few hundred people that hold that have chosen to test for that elite designation. I will admit I have no engineering or chemical engineering education. I have never provided material solely based on my opinion or my claims to be a subject matter expert; I always do my best to use others research and provide them credit in any argument in regard to a specific point.

I think we both agree we love our Porsches! That's what's important here and we share that in common.

I do agree that you, like myself, have a great deal of knowledge in regard to lubricants.

I'm sure we'll pick this conversation up on some future post, but I enjoyed the opportunity to post with you.

Happy New Year and best regards! All the best in 2008!

Bill

[Doug H]

Hi Bill,

yes the mysteries of Tribology are many!

You will find Bob Is The Oil Guy (BITOG) an interesting and informative site

All the best to you and yours for 2008 from Tropical North Queensland in Australia

Kind Regards

Doug

[silver arrow]

In the turbo Subaru community we found Mobil 1 to be of lower viscosity for almost every weight and as a result we got lifter noise and a lot of oil blow by. Mobil 1 is ***** water in my opinion. I am about to do my first oil change and will probably use Castrols synthetic and see if is helps with lifter noise.

Sean