Amsoil and the API

[Lhotka]

I've read the above 263 posts. So what's better? Amsoil or regular oil?



Just kidding of course.

 

[Don M]

Originally posted by lschultz

I m getting tired of reading this. Put an end to it. Use what you want its your truck!Theres somebody like you- Don M - over on Freds TDI. Or is it you?I want even look at this anymore.

No, that guy or gal is not me... I have never been to a FREDS site unless that is the site that Riflesmith told me about.



This is what all the amsoil salesmen have said to me so far. They all want to stop the thread.

I will check the TDI site out and see who this other guy is.



Don~

 

[Don M]

Originally posted by Lhotka

I've read the above 263 posts. So what's better? Amsoil or regular oil?



Just kidding of course.

good old Delo for a buck or so a quart is looking pretty good to me. Since I fuel the daylights out of my truck, I gotta change a bunch. Delo, Rotella T, Premium Blue, Delvac all great oils and all have the API certification. Amsoil is 5 bucks a quart and is not API certified.

If a guy uses an oil that costs 5 bucks a quart, 11 quarts is gonna be 55 bucks. The same oil from Chevron or Shell is about 12 bucks. Geesh!



Don~

 

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by Don M

Amsoil does not meet the standards they have set. Meaning the product has elected to forego API testing and receive the license or donut that they ask for.

Don~

Don,

I think the more accurate statement would be "we don't know if Amsoil (the fully synthetic diesel) meets API specs since Amsoil won't submit it for testing/certification"



Also, I've seen several references to Amsoil being the first to offer full synthetics starting around 1970. I don't think this is entirely correct as synthetics were developed for gas turbine engines before 1970, correct?



Brian

 

[rrausch]

I think those cunning Germans during WWII first developed synthetic oil.



Personally I run Shell Rotella in the engine and Amsoil in the rear end.

I'm not too interested in paying $5 a quart for engine oil.



Boy this is the longest, thread I've ever seen!!!

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

Also, I've seen several references to Amsoil being the first to offer full synthetics starting around 1970. I don't think this is entirely correct as synthetics were developed for gas turbine engines before 1970, correct?

Yes, synthetic lubricants have been required from the earliest days of aircraft gas turbines. Examples of aeroderivitive gas turbine synthetic lubricants that predate Amsoil would be Stauffer Jet II, Esso 2380 and Mobil Jet Oil and Jet Oil II. These aircraft synthetics were usually phosphate ester-based lubricants, however, that are not really comparable to synthesized long-chain hydrocarbon base stocks as used in the automotive synthetics.



Rusty

 

[NVR FNSH]

Another question from the King of Questions - sorry Don, I think I've got you beat



Are any of you doing extended drain intervals having the oil (regardless of brand) analyzed prior to installation as a control sample? Would (or does this) that mfg is changing it's recipes?



Brian

 

[Don M]

Brian,



I have sent some Amsoil to several colleagues to have them try and crack the formula or at least give me an idea of what is in the stuff. I sent 15w40 HDD&M. Same stuff I used in my engine.

At the same time I sent a sample of the same oil, but it was considerably older in manufacture date. It may give me some interesting results.



Further, I have spoken with the API and the wording that amsoil uses is legal. "meets API specs" breaks no legal laws of using the API name and not the donut. Others, seem to have a bit of trouble with it.



I do know the API has set a limit for certain elements in their specification to meet the requirements of the API. Amsoils automoblie oil has considerably more of certain elements than the specification requires. This would not "meet API specs" and would be considered false advertising, IMO.



Further, I have tried my hardest to find out what TDR member was sued for speaking out about Amsoil and the API.

Does anyone have any idea who it was?



Don~

 

[SlyBones]

Re: Licensed, Certified, ISO etc.

Originally posted by Oil Man

OK once again Lubrication Engineers 8800 Monolec Ultra 15w-40 is API LICENCED CH-4, CF, CF-2 / SJ. It is also approved by Mack as MackEO-M Plus http://www.macktrucks.com/product_lit/litfrme.html It is Cummins CES 20076. It is the right viscosity for your trucks (15w-40) and not only has a VERY low wear rate but has an oxidation resistance better than some synthetics. LE oils are manufactured under an ISO 9001 Certified Quality System, which will ensure the same high quality oil time after time. It will go very long oil drains like it was designed to do and handle soot for those same long oil drains.



I’ve heard it said that a bypass filter would not take out the wear metals that you see in oil analysis. They will take out some of the wear metals that your spin-on full flow filter does not take out. If your full flow filter filters down to 30 microns and you were to do a particle count on it you would see something like this;



0 to 5 microns 10,000 ppm

6-10 microns 500 ppm

11-20 microns 100 ppm

21 to 30 microns 30 ppm

30 to 50 microns 3 ppm



By doing oil analysis you only see the particles that are about 30 microns or larger. When you install a bypass filter that is a 5-micron filter, then you would see a great drop in particles that are larger than 5 microns. And yes this would change your reading of oil analysis at the 30 and above micron range. This is just an example of what you might see and not an exact replication of any actual test.



I’ve heard it said that soot is a lubricant or that filters will take it out or that it will become abrasive to your engine. Soot is, or should be about 1 to 3 microns of size if your engine oil is doing its job. If an oil does not have a good detergent/dispersant or one that is used up, then the soot starts to stick to themselves causing a larger soot particle. When soot becomes larger in the size of 5 to 7 microns then it can become abrasive to cylinder walls. Soot in never a lubricant. You must have at least a 1-micron absolute bypass filter to take out the soot. There will be a blackening of the oil even if you take out the soot. Black oil does not mean bad oil.



I hope I’ve cleared up some misconceptions about oil. If you need an API licensed oil, or an oil that is manufactured under an ISO 9001 system, or need to see that your oil has the Mack EO-M Plus certification or that it is Cummins 20076 etc. then call Mag-Hytec at 1-818-786-8325 and try the LE 8800 15w-40 engine oil and set your mind at ease.

Well this confused me. If my full flow filter has a 30 micron rating and I did a particle count on the stuff in the filter ( the way interpret your sentence ) then I would expect to see the opposite results. I would expect the filter to contain a high 30 micron count as thats what is captures. I would expect that the 0-5 micron count would be small, as its all still in the oil. -- Your chart looks like what I would expect from analyzing the oil with a 30 micron filter.



By doing the oil analysis I would only expect to see particles 30 microns or smaller. As all the larger ones got trapped in the filter. More like your chart.



Based on the previous posted SAE testing that showed that particles that cause the most wear are in the 2-22 micron range, and that our filters are typically rated for only 30-40 microns, I am thinking that the filters only catch gross stuff, and dont prevent wear. Only oil changes prevent wear. I would only use extended intervals if I installed a bypass filter. No bypass filter, 3000 mi. Period. -- The oil maybe in great shape. But all those particles are still in there doing damage and nothing is taking them out.



Now with a bypass filter extended intervals, for me the jury is still out. Since no one, at least that I read, has posted the micron particle size of wear metals in the oil or the micron size of soot particles, I dont really know whether the filter is truely skewing wear readings or not. And they are removing wear particles. So you dont need to change the oil to prevent wear. -- For me I am not going with the MFG's dont recommend it crap. They dont recommend anything. Seems to me there are other market segments where extended intervals are OK and MFG's do support it. Just no the "passenger vehicle" market. And I think its because of good ole MONEY. Imagine for a monent if every car out there started changing the oil at 100,000 mi intervals. The oil companies would loose billions. Not to mention Jiffy Lube would go out of business, and all the companies that make accessories, services, distribution, etc. etc. They would all loose so much money that even if extended intervals were perfect, they would never tell us. They would lie their a$$ off to keep us all in there every 3000mi spending our money.

 

[Oil Man]

The full flow filters that are about 30 microns are not absolute. That means that there are some particles much larger than 30 microns that will not get caught by the filter. Also there would be some smaller particles that are under the 30 micron size that you would find in the 30 micron filter. If you were to use a filter with a 30 micron absolute filtration with a high beta rating then you would not see any particles larger than 30 microns.



You mentioned that nobody has told you what size wear particles are. They come in all sizes --- typical size would be 2 to 40 microns, however if you have soft metals in a cam or lifters etc you will see higher micron size particles.



Using a bypass filter is great Fleetgard, Amsoil, Vortex all have very good bypass filters.



One thing that is not published is that most oils have a filteration of 15 to 20 microns NEW out of the can. Because of this I find it hard to believe that most wear is in the 2-22 micron range. I think that you would get wear if there were a lot of 2-22 micron range. That is if you had an elevated amount of particles in the 22 micron range.



When doing a particle count on a diesel engine, you will get a number that is higher than just wear particles. A particle in a test is one that blocks light. This could be dirt, wear, or soot. The need to look at the soot% and dirt ppm and then what the particle count is would give you a better idea of what you particle count is.



This gets technical but I hope it helps.

 

[SlyBones]

Kevin,



I was not taking those numbers as absolute, just example data. I just thought your data was bass ackwards from the way I interpreted where the data came from. -- I expect to see big particles in the filter and small particles in the oil. Not the other way around. Just the way I read things.



So here is my confusion still. I get that its 2 - 30 microns ( agreed not absolute ) particles causing wear. In general I believe that this is because larger particles are trapped by the filter and smallers ones pass by the bearing surfaces without scratching them up.



My impression was, and of course this maybe where I am loosing it, is that when we do oil analysis and we see wear metals we are not measuring the number of 2 - 30 micron particles causing the wear, but the resulting metal they scratched off the bearing surface. Now maybe this is the same thing. One is causing the other is it spirals downhill in some sort of logirithmic ( sp? ) fashion.

 

[RADdodge]

Don M



Thanks. Now I know more than I ever wanted to know on this subject. Don't get me wrong, I think we all appreciate the points being made here. I like gutsy. But man, I think I would have rather used the time to read this thread to go to the movies. This HAS been entertaining though...

 

[drawson]

I think i know what Don M is up to with this post he is trying to get his post numbers up. Trying to catch me aren't you LOL

Man dude you got to have a pretty fast typing speed for all of these long posts. i know Don has a bombed computer with the voice input system.



Hey Don got the #4 plate today. My oldest had a B/Ball game tonite so it won't go in until tomorrow. No oil results yet

 

[HC]

DonM wrote:

Since I fuel the daylights out of my truck, I gotta change a bunch.

In multiple posts, you seem to have made a major point out of what the manufacturer’s recommendations are for oil. You’ve also used words that strongly suggest you question the intelligence of anyone foolish enough to collect information from other sources and go with a choice that conflicts with the Cummins’ recommendations, because Cummins knows the product best, and has spent many years and millions of dollars developing it. Your signature doesn’t give details, but the above statement strongly suggests that you have made modifications to your truck that would not meet with Dodge or Cummins approval. Don't you see any inconsistency here? None?



On the “Filters” thread, you posted

cant go wrong with WIX!

Oh really? I thought you didn’t believe in going against Dodge and/or Cummins recommendations? See

http://dodgeram.org/tech/tsb/2001/09-004-01.htm Guess what, Wix isn’t listed. Even if you tell me Wix makes one of the filters that is listed, I want it IN WRITING, FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH (that would be Dodge or Cummins) that I can use the Wix filter. Otherwise I have no guarantee that the Wix filter is made to the same specs as the one they make for rebadging.

And the link to the filter study contained some gems like this:

"When it comes down to it, all of the lower-priced filters ($5 or below) have they (sic) ups and downs. In reality, there are only five different manufacturers available. Here are the low-cost filters that I feel safe using, based on all this information (in alphabetical order): AC Delco, Purolator, and Wix. "



Yeah, that’s what I want for my Cummins - a “low cost” filter with “ups and downs. ” NOT.



The study also included this comment about the Wix: “Like the AC Delco, it also has a minor internal sealing problem. In this case, the bypass valve has a metal-to-metal seal to the filter cartridge. It probably doesn’t really leak either, but if it did, dirty oil could get to the clean side of the filter. Otherwise it is a good filter. ” Now there’s a real confidence booster. Other than the possibility that this filter might not filter the dirty oil, it’s a good filter. Yeah, I know I'm quoting only the parts that support my position, but I'm just making a point.



If bypass filters work so well, why aren't they standard equipment, I believe you suggested? I can think of many reasons why not, but for #1 on my list I'll point out that the redesign that would have prevented most of the fires in Ford Pinto's was estimated at $11 per car. (Correction: A second option would have been only $5. 08 per car - the $11 figure was just Ford's original estimate. ) http://www.uoguelph.ca/~lsatchi/Disaster.html So tell me again why you believe they would spend $50 to give my car the potential to last longer, when most people don't even keep them 100k? Didn't you hint that people would line up to buy the cars that could go long periods between oil changes? Why do you believe that, when so many still change at 3k because they don't believe the Manufacturers' claims that you can go 7. 5k? If they built the car tomorrow, ten years from now most of the public would still not believe it was OK to go more than 5 or 6k between changes.



How do you feel about the "never change" system Cummins has developed for their industrial engines? I guess it doesn't really work... but if you agree it does work, then tell me the difference between continuously burning some of the oil in the engine (Cummins CENTINEL system) and then topping up, vs. getting out some of the old oil by changing filters and then topping up (extended drain plan with appropriate filter changes). Either way, the fact is that due to new oil being added, the "average" age of the oil in the crankcase NEVER gets to 100k, because every time you change both your full flow and bypass filters you're dumping about 20% of the old oil and replacing it with brand new.



Early in this thread, you had my support on a couple of points, and my sympathy. I think sometimes we don’t discuss the “pros and cons” of the various products enough. We tend to discuss just the pros. I too have been attacked for trying to balance the equation and tell others about a product feature or side-effect that I didn’t like, so that anyone choosing the product would be more informed and not surprised later. But somewhere between page 5 and page 15 of this thread, you lost me, and I started feeling BETTER about my Amsoil and my bypass filter, not worse. I apologize for attacking you on a couple of points, but like some of the others I feel like you have been attacking my intelligence for 18 or 19 pages now, and I could only take so much before pointing out a few things I had noticed along the way.



Besides, I think you were wearing the other guys down, and I had to give them a short break. But remind me not to ever try partying with you - I’ll sure you could stay up all night!

Now, can’t we all just get along?

 

[Oil Man]

Slybones

You said,

"My impression was, and of course this maybe where I am loosing it, is that when we do oil analysis and we see wear metals we are not measuring the number of 2 - 30 micron particles causing the wear, but the resulting metal they scratched off the bearing surface. Now maybe this is the same thing. One is causing the other is it spirals downhill in some sort of logirithmic ( sp? ) fashion. "



Yes, the resulting metal to metal contact that scratched off the surface would be one way of saying it. Sometimes it comes from dirt that causes the wear and sometimes it's from pushing the engine past the point of which the oil can effectively lubricate. Sometimes from too much fuel washing the lubrication off the surface, sometimes it's from over heating the oil and oxidation by-products cause wear, sometimes too much soot can cause wear, etc. When you get too much of those wear particles then you must change the oil. Each engine mfg has limits as to how much wear ppm they will allow before an oil change is due.



So wear is caused by many things---but after the wear happens the suspended wear particles can also cause some wear.



The original point that I made above is that by using a bypass filter of lets say 3 microns, you would take out most of the above 3 micron particles of wear. When you do an oil analysis you would see very little wear, because the bypass filter would take out those size particles that the regular filter would not take out. This would keep the oil in better condition for extented use, but it will not help the original wear caused by the above things. It will reduce some of the wear caused by a build up of those wear particles because the bypass filter will take them out of the oil. If you are really interested in cutting the overall wear down you must use a high quality oil. This would reduce the initial wear and a bypass filter would take out most of the small amount of wear that was generated. Every oil has a specific wear rate the lower the specific wear rate the lower the initial wear will be regardless of which filter you use. Lubrication Engineers 8800 Monolec Ultra is just one of a slect few oils that have this very low specific wear rate.



I believe that I could have worded my original post to make it more understandable. That was my falt.

 

[Don M]

HC wrote: "Your signature doesn’t give details, but the above statement strongly suggests that you have made modifications to your truck that would not meet with Dodge or Cummins approval. Don't you see any inconsistency here? None?"



My truck is out of warranty. I did use the factory recommended oil, filters, air filters, etc until it was expired due to mileage.

Mt rig was stock up until last Feb. I have learned more about hot-rod diesels in the last year than I ever thought I would. I also learned that it is suicide to ever speak your negative results with Amsoil.



HC wrote:"Oh really? I thought you didn’t believe in going against Dodge and/or Cummins recommendations? See

http://dodgeram.org/tech/tsb/2001/09-004-01.htm Guess what, Wix isn’t listed. "



Again my truck is outta warranty. For the guys who are still in warranty, the WIX filter is not a warranty voiding product like the non API certified Amsoil fully synthetic is. The Dodge owners manual provides its owners with a picture of the API donut. This way it is not confusing when trying to determine a suitable oil for your engine. amsoil is using confusing lingo on their bottles with the "meets API specs" Maybe it does meet API, but it is not API licensed. It has neary a donut.





HC wrote:How do you feel about the "never change" system Cummins has developed for their industrial engines? I guess it doesn't really work... but if you agree it does work, then tell me the difference between continuously burning some of the oil in the engine (Cummins CENTINEL system) and then topping up, vs. getting out some of the old oil by changing filters and then topping up (extended drain plan with appropriate filter changes). Either way, the fact is that due to new oil being added, the "average" age of the oil in the crankcase NEVER gets to 100k, because every time you change both your full flow and bypass filters you're dumping about 20% of the old oil and replacing it with brand new.



HC, you and me both know the oil quantities are not the same. Take a peek at the Cummins with the CENTINEL systems on them. They generally hold about 32-40 quarts of oil. We have 11.

The oil drain intervals on those engines are already much longer than ours. You cant stop and drain the oil every 5000 miles on a long haul truck or mining vehicle. It would have way to much down time. The OEM's have increased the capacity to address the problem. Our wear rates and oil capacity is not linear to the big rigs or big engines.



HC, if you feel better about doing two things that are not recommneded after reading the info I provided... well, thats your choice. If you overfuel your truck you are adding to the other two.

Do you actually think that not doing what the manufacture asks to do on two points (not using API licensed oil, and not changing when asked) are getting you ahead? Maybe you get to change the oil less, but at what cost?



True story to follow:



a guy that owns a toyota car started using Amsoil. It was the non API rated oil. His engine developed a head gasket leak and anti-freeze entered the crankcase. The Amsoil did not cause the gasket failure. It was more likely than not a defective gasket.

The oil was slugded from the anti-freeze. He was doing the extended oil drain intervals with the Amsoil as well. He took the car in to the dealer to have in looked at. The dealer would not honor the warranty because the engine was running the NON API approved oil and the extended drain intervals. They had two reasons to not do it. He tried to get relief from Amsoil. They would not because the oil was not the reason for failure. The oil did not fail. The gasket failed. Amsoil warrants the oil wont fail, not the gaskets. See where Im going with this? He had nowhere to turn, but his own wallet. Had he used the oil and changed it like the manufacturer asked him to... he would have been covered for the gasket failure. If you guys put yourselves in his shoes maybe you may come away with a different outlook.



Don~

 

[SlyBones]

Kevin,



Thanks. No fault at all, just making sure I got it in my brain straight.

 

[SlyBones]

Don,

We could go on all day with crap about if the guy had not installed that Comp box Dodge does not recommend they would have not have denied him warranty when the gasket failed. Then the guy went to Edge ( no flaming meant ) and they did not warranty it because it was not the Comp boxes fault. So what was the poor guy to do. Now if he would have just not installed that box like DC recommends... . You can make that same lame story substituting most the parts we go and buy. Your sob story did not change my outlook at bit.



NOTE: SECTION 2. 7 OF THE TRUCK WARRANTY MANUAL STATES DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILURES RESULTING FROM IMPROPER REPAIR OR THE USE OF PARTS WHICH ARE NOT GENUINE DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION / MOPAR OR DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION / MOPAR APPROVED PARTS. DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE USE OF OIL FILTER NOT APPROVED BY DAIMLERCHRYSLER MAY NOT BE COVERED BY THE NEW VEHICLE WARRANTY. DAIMLERCHRYSLER RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING OIL FILTERS. DO NOT USE ANY OIL FILTER CONTAINING NEOPRENE. PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS.



Looks to me like Wix filters are a warranty voiding filter if they were not in this list. TSB 09-004-01.

 

[HC]

On most issues, we're just trading opinions, so I'll only respond to only some of the items and let the others go.

For the guys who are still in warranty, the WIX filter is not a warranty voiding product like the non API certified Amsoil fully synthetic is.

The way I read the TSB, the issue is exactly the same. If an engine fails due to a lubrication problem with Amsoil in it - No Warranty from Cummins or Dodge. If the engine fails with a Wix filter and the failure is caused by the non-approved filter - No Warranty from Cummins or Dodge. Same thing. You've had a bad experience with one potential warranty-voider, so I understand why you feel the way you do about that one. I just don't understand why you're so quick to support the other one, and even claim "that's different!"

Do you actually think that not doing what the manufacture asks to do on two points (not using API licensed oil, and not changing when asked) are getting you ahead? Maybe you get to change the oil less, but at what cost?

Yes, I do think I'm getting ahead, or I wouldn't be doing it. At what cost? Short term - zero $$$. I could save money, but I've chosen to be more conservative on filter change and analysis intervals, because my goal is long life, not short term $$$ savings. Long term - I'll keep the truck longer, and save big $$$.



Re your "true story". It only points out the importance of understanding the total picture before you venture off the beaten path. In this case, sounds to me like the individual broke the number one rule of extended drains: it wasn't coupled with oil analysis, or he probably would have known about the gasket leak long before it progressed into oil and engine failure. If he had been in possession of several oil analyses taken at 5k or 7. 5k intervals, consistent with the "change" recommendations in the owner's manual, I think he would have been in a much better position to fight this issue in court, and win. I doubt it would have gone to court - once his lawyer showed their lawyer the evidence, it most likely would have been settled. I don't know about the literature Amsoil published years ago, but I do know that their current stuff is very clear - don't use extended drains unless coupled with an oil sampling program.



When you make a fueling modification (or other mod of your choice) to an engine 30,000 miles before the warranty expires, you're betting about $5000 (+/-?) if something goes wrong and you require a rebuilt engine. When you make the same mod to the engine 1 mile after the warranty expires, you're still betting about $5000 if something goes wrong and you require a rebuilt engine. The only difference is you drove 30,000 miles before enjoying the new improvements. I wouldn't modify an engine with only 10,000 on it, but that's just me. But I don't see the warranty expiration date as being quite such a sharp line. Somewhere around 30k to 50k, I knew I had a keeper, not a lemon.



I don't disagree that some mods, and some products, put the warranty at risk, or even void the warranty in some cases. But those willing to take a few very small risks can often reap some very real benefits, too.

 

[SlyBones]

So what did I learn from this thread. My opinions of the data presented.



-- The reason to change the oil is to remove wear particles suspended in the oil, to remove contaminants like soot, dirt, glycol, fuel and water and because the oil can loose its properties like viscosity, TBN, etc.



-- Our full flow filters suck. Period. They are only removing the larger particles and still allow far too many smaller particles in the 2 - 20+ micron range that can still cause wear.



-- Without a bypass filter you should be changing the oil on a regular basis because its the only way to get the crap out. Full flow filters suck.



-- With a bypass filter, you can run extended intervals with oil analysis. In know Don does not agree. However the way I see it, if the analysys is telling you the oil is good, meaning good viscosity, good TBN, the contaminants are low, and the bypass filter is doing its job of removing the crap for you, then we have covered the reasons to change that I know of. So screw DC. I am my own warranty station.



-- You always need to start with a good quality oil as a baseline.



-- Bypass filters are removing wear metals. So while this is good from the extended interval point of view, it means you cannot use the analysis to try and predict pending failures. Because the signs maybe getting filtered out. So people can claim its skewing the spectrographic analysis, I conclude this does not mean you cannot run extended intervals, it means you cannot predict pending failures.