Amsoil

[MChalkley]

JBM - Great info! Thanks for checking on that. I may start minimizing the inventory a little myself. I knew that the diesel standards are more stringent, but I've been more of a stickler for viscosity specs than you were told you need to be. It works for me. I trust them. I think PaulB does, too. He had very good things to say about them in one of his posts. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Mark

 

[Anonymous Poster]

I took a 3-day power transmission class a couple of weeks ago. One of the subjects of the class was lubricants. The unit of measure for viscosity is the time in seconds required for 60 ml of oil to flow through a standard orifice at a standard falling head (pressure) and at a given temperature. Viscosity is measured at both 212F and at 100F. The units are Saybolt Universal Seconds or SUS (sometimes called SSU).

We learned the single most important property to match when choosing oil is viscosity. One thing that was very interesting is that the allowable spec for example a 10W rating is so large that the SUS number can vary 20% or more and still meet spec. The instructor said this large range was originally adopted by SAE to keep the oil prices low in the hope that people would change their oil more often.

The spec range is similarly large for each oil weight. This means that if you were to choose oil with a weight different than the weight specified for your machine and that oil is towards the far end of the spec, then the viscosity could be significantly different than what is specified for the machine.

For example from a chart I am looking at, 10W ranges from 115 to 170 and 15W ranges from 185 to 350 SUS at 100F. Same thing with but different numbers at 212F. If your spec calls for 10W and you use 15W, the 15W oil, at 185, could be very close to the 170 upper limit for 10W. However that 15W oil could just as easily be at 350, which is a long way from the 170 limit for 10W oil. These numbers are approximations from the chart, but illustrate the point.

If there is a lubrication engineer out there, maybe they can shed more light on the subject.

Andy

 

[gordon]

That must have been one good class thats for sure. Some eye opening info I never would have thought such a wide range could be considered the same wt.
Thanks for the info.
Gordon

 

[JBM]

Sorry not to be able to address you by username. Your viscosity info is "eye-opening" and sure to cause me some rethinking about which oil to use. One question. Does the variation in SUS numbers hold true for both petroleum and synthetic oils?
JB

 

[Bird]

Andy, I find it interesting that my B2710 manual goes into such things as "Distillation Temperature, Viscosity Kinematic, Viscosity Saybolt (SUS), Sulphur Weight, Copper Strip Corrosion, and Cetane Number" for the diesel fuel, but not for the lubricants. Sounds like an interesting class you attended.

Bird

 

[Anonymous Poster]

JB, yes the variation would hold true no matter what kind of oil. If a manufacturer makes oil of any kind and the SUS number falls within the SAE range at any point, they can call it the weight oil for that range.

In the class they talked briefly about synthetic oil. It was pointed out that synthetic has some superior properties, in fact many industrial gearbox manufacturers will allow the horsepower rating to be increased 20% if synthetic is used. However they also said that because of the increased cost, synthetic oil was not recommended unless that horsepower increase was required or if longer intervals between oil changes were needed because the gearbox was very difficult to get at to change the oil.

The instructor strongly insisted that any lubricants that contain extreme pressure (EP) additives should not be used in any gearbox that contains a wet brake. The reason for this is the way the wet brake works. As the brake is applied, the oil film is wiped off the surface, and the breaking action begins. The extreme pressure additives in oil will prevent this braking action from occurring properly and will often result in a sudden and very expensive failure (tearing out) of the braking surfaces, just when the brake is most needed. He pointed out that all synthetic oils have these extreme pressure properties no matter if they have the additives or not. He stressed that synthetic oils should not be used in a gearbox with wet brakes. If there was no other choice then the internal brake should be removed and an external brake added. As he was telling us this, I could not help but think of the Kubota transmissions with wet brakes.

Andy

 

[JBM]

Just when I thought I had it figured out!! Thanks for the info Andy. I called Amsoil again and talked at length to a different tech person. He, like the first Amsoil tech guy, said it is fine to use the diesel 15W-40 in my Jeep's gas engine that specifies 10W-30 (which by the way comes from the factory with "synthetic" gear oil in the rear differential). Your point about high pressure lubricants in gearboxes with wet brakes makes sense, and sounds like it may apply equally to my motorcycle which has a "wet clutch". I'm still going to try the Amsoil engine oil but guess I will play it safe and order a case of both the 10W-30 and the diesel 15W-40. Thanks again.
JB

 

[MChalkley]

I talked to an Amsoil engineer and he said there had never been any such failures in any equipment using their synthetic lubricant reported to them, nor is there any reason there should be. For that reason, they warranty their product against any type of failure, including this one, if such failure can be attributed to the lubricant. He further said that EP additives are a known source of this problem, though it is rare. He also said he had heard of such disinformation regarding synthetics being bandied about before - apparently some people assume that, since synthetics have similar EP properties as non-synthetics using the additives, they must behave similarly. Nothing could be farther from the truth - they arrive at their performance characteristics from differing approaches.

However, as will always be the case, if someone doesn't like something, reasons can always be found, or invented, to bolster one's position.

Mark

 

[PaulB]

Mark already knows this, but just reading about you guys calling amsoil and talking to this tech rep or that tech rep reenforces what I had said in a previous post - like their product or dislike it, you can not argue the fact that amsoil is a very consumer oriented company, which makes communication easy and rewarding. Any of you guys have any trouble getting through to the people you wanted to talk to? I doubt it. Like I said before, just try to talk to the chief engineer in the R and D department at Mobil or Texaco (or kubota for that matter) and see how far you get.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

I am not an oil specialist and do not know for sure if what I learned in class is true. It certainly sounds reasonable. The class was given by an organization with no ties to any company or industry and because of this, no hidden agenda. I am only trying to pass on some knowledge that may help others. I have nothing against synthetic oils, the company I work for uses them in the gas turbine engines we make, and I have used them on more than one occasion at home.

Almost all of the things I have read in these discussions in favor of synthetic oil have been to reiterate the opinion of an engineer/salesman from an oil company. This is not an objective source. The motive of the person at the oil company is always in question. That is not to say all their advice is false, but it may be shaded in favor of their product.

For example: every time you have a question about cars or trucks you always call the Ford motor company to get an answer, and all the people in your discussion group also always call Ford with their questions, and you discuss the answers, and there is very little information from any other source, pretty soon Ford cars and trucks start sounding a lot better than all the other brands. This may or may not be true.

If someone does like something, reasons can always be found, or invented, to bolster one's position, I am trying to be objective and pass on some information, please do not take offence.

Andy

 

[Bird]

Very good point, Andy. In this particular case, I think the Amsoil is a good product, and apparently good people, and PaulB's experience is definitely a plus for the company. However, while that experience is a plus for the company in my opinion, it's no proof of anything to old skeptical folks like me, because in my prior profession, I learned that the "nicest" and most pleasant person to deal with you can find is a professional con artist; it's their stock in trade. And no, I don't think the Amsoil folks are, but as you said, they have to be biased a bit./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Bird

 

[MChalkley]

No offense taken.

It does amuse me, though, that the detractors of synthetics' always say there's no "proof". Then, when the only "proofs" that can be proffered are given, the response always amounts to "Yeah, but...". If lab specs are given, all of which "prove" synthetics' superiority, the gripe is that they aren't "real world" tests. If "in the field" results are given, all of which "prove" the superiority of synthetics, the response is that the tests are "subjective" and don't "mean anything".

Petroleum products have one and only one advantage over synthetics: price per quart. It's a simple fact "known" by all the "experts" everywhere. There's never been a single test done by anyone of any type on any thing that even begins to insinuate otherwise. There's no room for discussion, debate, or argument, unless we want to allow hearsay and general opinion, at which point the whole exercise deteriorates into meaningless drivel. That's what I get tired of.

Now, as I've said many times before, if someone wants to argue the point that the superiority of synthetics doesn't provide them, in their circumstances, any useful benefits, that's fine. They may have a point - and only they can decide that. If a person's only issue is price per quart, then synthetics aren't for them. I think that's a very shortsighted approach, but everyone has a right to their own opinion. But I sure wish everyone would just say that's what it is, or that they don't know - anything but make up reasons with absolutely no basis in fact to justify a desire to save a little cash. There's nothing wrong with being cheap, in and of itself. I try to be cheap every place it's practical, myself. I personally think a person should choose carefully where he chooses to be cheap, though - for me, motor oil isn't the place. Just my opinion, of course. Based totally on meaningless drivel. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Mark

 

[MChalkley]

Bird - It's an excellent point - such a good one, in fact, that it's a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Most of those who are detractors of synthetics are biased in their own right. At any rate, anyone who says synthetics aren't superior to petroleum won't quote any real data - there isn't any. It's ironic, though, that all the data proving otherwise is meaningless. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Mark

 

[richh]

I have and read all the posts now and have a couple a qust. What dose a qt. of amsoil cost? How ofen do you change it ?? Can you go longer miles/hrs. betewen changes?? how long ? On trucks [Ihave a ford turdo D] better mpg.?? how much?? Im one of those cheap guys use carqust oil [suapost to be made by valvolin] $1.00 qt.has all of the right rateings for CAT JD ECT. I my tractor I change it every 50 hrs. in stead of the recomended 100 hrs.THe thruck holds 13 qt. and i go 5000 miles. I im open to the idea of synthetics but could never justafi the cost. I do use motor kote one of those tfe super slipery addatives, get it at the logging congres every year, the test they show you [live not video] is somthing else. so this is just more drivel any feed back?? IM get a new L4610 and would like to treat her right, thanks
RICH

 

[Bird]

You're right, Mark. I've never seen any evidence that the synthetics are not good. But as to which specific brand is best; maybe Amsoil is. Certainly they will claim to be, but won't the other manufacturers claim the same thing? And the same thing is true of the petroleum products. And I called Quaker State's technical folks last summer and got a young man who was very nice and helpful, and he told me there's no problem with using their regular Quaker State petroleum oil in a diesel, even though it doesn't have the proper ratings; just that you'd need to change more frequently. I sure wouldn't do that. And, as I've said before, I'm convinced the synthetics are as good, or better, than the petroleum. What I'm not convinced of is that they are worth the extra cost unless the change interval is extended, and while I would love to extend the interval, I'm leary of doing that unless a person spent the time and money to do what you apparently have done; add additional filtration and use a lab regularly for an oil analysis. Of course, I think the lab analysis is the best way to go for big fleets, regardless of the type of oil used, but a bit impractical for me way out here in the boondocks. So, I continue to use what I know has worked well over many years and many vehicles, but I'll change in a heartbeat if I'm ever convinced it's cost effective.

Bird

 

[MChalkley]

Richh - Amsoil costs roughly $4.25/qt to dealers. I think it costs $20/yr to be a dealer - I don't remember exactly, but that's close. If you live in a populated area, you can probably find somebody like me who's a dealer and will sell it to you at cost if you just want to save the $20/yr. I think it's worth the money myself just to get the monthly "propaganda".

BTW, my views are now considerably more biased and mercenary than they were just a couple weeks ago. It seems that a reader of this board called Amsoil a while back and said he wanted to become a dealer. They asked him who his referring dealer was and he gave them my name. They put my dealer number on the paperwork they sent him, he became a dealer and bought some oil. Amsoil sent me a nice letter thanking me for my referral and a check for $1.14. So, now I'm a paid advocate. Just wanted everyone to know of the conflict of interest here. I don't want to ever be accused of being dishonest with you guys. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif It does make it a little difficult, though - I've always enjoyed saying I've never made a dime off of selling Amsoil. Now I'll have to say I've never made more than $1.14. Doesn't have quite the same punch... Well, I guess until I cash the check, I still haven't made it, have I? Hmmm. Something to think about. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

I change the oil in my tractor at the recommended interval for several reasons. First, at the intervals and amounts we're talking about, it still amounts to very little money; second, tractors are used in very dirty conditions and I don't have bypass filtration on it; third, it usually takes so long to get enough hours to change it that I think it's "ready" anyway. If you use your tractor infrequently, and have petroleum oil in it, I dont' think you should ever let it go longer than a year between changes, because the oil itself deteriorates and evaporates much faster than synthetic.

In my trucks and cars, oil change intervals are a different story entirely. First of all, no matter what oil you use, it has to be kept clean. Using synthetics is no excuse for not changing filters at the recommended intervals. I use bypass filtration wherever possible and this keeps the oil far cleaner for far longer than standard full-flow filters can. For that reason, I only change the oil every 2-3 years or so on the truck and once a year on the car, no matter how many miles they've gone.

I think some of the additives provide friction reduction improvements similar to those provided by synthetic oil, but with the disadvantage that the carrier oil is still the weak link. If it gets exposed to extreme conditions, it will still fail. The "coatings" in the additives are there to compensate, but I feel like it's still just treating the symptom, not the disease.

Mark

 

[Anonymous Poster]

To clarify the point about brake failure from oil with extreme pressure additives or synthetic oil, the instructor indicated that this had a high likelihood of occurring if these lubricants were used in a gearbox with wet brakes. He said he had seen it several times and it was not pretty, in addition to the danger involved from the brakes suddenly seizing. He said the same gearbox manufactures that would rate their gearboxes 20% higher when using synthetic oil, would not warrant it for use if the gearbox had wet brakes. I remember him stressing the word “all” when he said that “All” brands of synthetic oil had these EP properties and would cause this problem. The instructor was not against synthetic oill, far from it. He praised its lubricating abilities and long life. The only things he pointed out as negatives were price and the wet brake problem.

Many of us tractor owners, especially those with HST, do not use our brakes much. They may become extremely important in an emergency situation however.

If there is a wet brake failure in a machine, the person repairing it may not realize it has anything to do with the lubricant. I would guess that a very small percentage of brake failures would get reported to a lubricant manufacturer.

This just may be another example of how one product may not be the best at all applications. Individual products designed for specific applications usually perform better at that application than the Swiss army knife products.

Andy

 

[MChalkley]

Bird - Now we're getting to a different subject entirely. You'll probably remember that I've scrupulously avoided getting into the "Amsoil vs. Mobil 1" debates. I don't know if one is better than the other or not. I can tell you that if Amsoil got more difficult to get hold of or bit the green weinie or something, I'd start using Mobil 1 without a seconds' lost sleep. I use Amsoil because they were among the first on the market, they do vast amounts of research, have largely been responsible for the 500 "me too" synthetics on the market nowadays, provide all kinds of biased "proof" that their products are among the best there is, and are just plain really good people to deal with, willing to help in any way they can at any time. I don't know where else I'd find that combination, so they're the company/product for me.

I agree with you about not being willing to take the Quaker State rep's suggestion, but I can tell you why he said what he did: One of the primary components of the diesel ratings for motor oil is their ability to handle soot contamination without losing lubricity. Oils without the diesel ratings don't do very well. But, if you change it more frequently the soot levels don't build up to the point that it causes the oil to fail. Now, that sounds like a reason "in the wrong direction" for oil analysis, to me.

As for analysis, pretty much everybody is in the boonies. You just have the lab mail you the tiny little bottles, and you fill 'em up when you want the oil checked, and drop 'em in the mail. That's all there is to it. If you really wanted to try an experiment, try taking the vehicle that costs you the most in oil right now, switch it over, then start doing analysis, and change it when the lab says it's anywhere near marginal. Either change your filters at the same interval as before or put bypass filtration on, whichever you prefer. Bypass filtration is best, of course, but a bit of a hassle for an experiment. Figure the cost of the analysis into the equation, too - maybe you'll feel the reams of info you get back from the lab is worth something to you in its own right, maybe not. If your fuel mileage or some other measureable quantity improves, factor the money saved there into the equation and take the longer life from friction reduction that the increased fuel mileage "proves" you've accomplished as "gravy".

Mark

 

[_RaT_]

Post deleted by Paddock

 

[_RaT_]

Oop's almost forgot my comment I was going to make about Amsoil. It seems that here in the West, Amsoil was once a big deal, but it appears to have all but disappeared, in fact its hard to find. The question that has occured to me though is this:

Dear Abby, the posts on the sensational internet site tractorsbynet, taut a product called Amsoil. I would like to know how often they change it? I'm sure someone has indicated it, but my patience with posts that deal with flag waving wore thin. Perhaps its at 3000, 5000 or 7500 miles or greater. I would venture to say that the Amsoil is about $3.00 to $4.00 a quart, x 10 or more quarts, @15000 to 25000 miles per year. Thats a fair chunk "o" change I still use Delo 15W-40, have hundreds of thousands of miles on my truck and wonder if it would be beneficial to use it. I'm sure that the synthetics are probably better then the old fossil types, in fact, I'll make a bet they are, I just wonder if there is a practical side to it. I see engine oil temp as a big bounus for the synthetics, but to be honest, I can't make my diesel get hot or even close to overheating (oil temp, taken into account). I've pulled boats up the freeway here in CA. in a headwind, doing 70mph in 106 degree heat with the AC on and I cannot overheat it. Is Amsoil snake oil or would it be something I should consider? Please Abby, I neeeeed to know. Muchos grassass in advance, Mark (Rat)