Oil choice for your LT5
01-17-2010, 01:18 PM
#21
Mobil 1 is chosen by more car manufacturers as factory fill in their vehicles than any other motor oil.
The tests that Amsoil use are not real life scenarios. The four tests they use as "bench marks" are also a joke.
Try to find amsoil independent tests on the web, its a big challenge.
Interesting to see how Amsoil takes cheap shots at Mobil 1 but Mobil 1 does not take cheap shots at Amsoil.
Amsoil being "the best" is Amsoil speak and 98% of the "Amsoil Speak" is Amsoil vendors or users who "claim its the best" yet offer no real empirical data.
Discussing oil, oil filters, spark plugs, etc., is like talking about sex, religion or politics. We all have our opinions and we'll usually will stick to them regardless what anyone else advises.
Just FYI, even Marc has gone on record saying it would at least be 100,000 miles to see significant wear.
Amsoil also bad mouths Mobil 1 - Those guys are real professionals
Why Doesn't Mobil 1 Formally Respond to Amsoil Claims?
Answer:
We believe that most knowledgeable consumers realize the kind of engine testing and OEM endorsements associated with the Mobil 1 brand. At ExxonMobil we let our customers, endorsements, and extensive engine and field testing do the talking.
They also have a response for the 4 ball test and all the other silly tests on the mobil 1 site in regards to Royal Purple, Amsoil etc.
I always keep my cars well over 100,000 miles, they run like raped apes and are clean as a whistle internally with great compression. What else more can you ask for?
You have to love the hype and videos though - reminds me of an infomercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_A88UthC30
Amsoil would be well served to do away with the entire Mary Kay/ Tupperware party concept of marketing a fine product...it only distracts/confuses/sickens many a gearhead and is hurting their bottom line.
Amsoil and Mobil 1 are both excellent oils. You can't go wrong with either.
The tests that Amsoil use are not real life scenarios. The four tests they use as "bench marks" are also a joke.
Try to find amsoil independent tests on the web, its a big challenge.
Interesting to see how Amsoil takes cheap shots at Mobil 1 but Mobil 1 does not take cheap shots at Amsoil.
Amsoil being "the best" is Amsoil speak and 98% of the "Amsoil Speak" is Amsoil vendors or users who "claim its the best" yet offer no real empirical data.
Discussing oil, oil filters, spark plugs, etc., is like talking about sex, religion or politics. We all have our opinions and we'll usually will stick to them regardless what anyone else advises.
Just FYI, even Marc has gone on record saying it would at least be 100,000 miles to see significant wear.
Amsoil also bad mouths Mobil 1 - Those guys are real professionals
Why Doesn't Mobil 1 Formally Respond to Amsoil Claims?
Answer:
We believe that most knowledgeable consumers realize the kind of engine testing and OEM endorsements associated with the Mobil 1 brand. At ExxonMobil we let our customers, endorsements, and extensive engine and field testing do the talking.
They also have a response for the 4 ball test and all the other silly tests on the mobil 1 site in regards to Royal Purple, Amsoil etc.
I always keep my cars well over 100,000 miles, they run like raped apes and are clean as a whistle internally with great compression. What else more can you ask for?
You have to love the hype and videos though - reminds me of an infomercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_A88UthC30
Amsoil would be well served to do away with the entire Mary Kay/ Tupperware party concept of marketing a fine product...it only distracts/confuses/sickens many a gearhead and is hurting their bottom line.
Amsoil and Mobil 1 are both excellent oils. You can't go wrong with either.
Last edited by xlr8nflorida; 01-17-2010 at 02:51 PM.
01-17-2010, 02:29 PM
#22
Here you go>>
Modern Motor Oil and the LT5 Engine
Marc Haibeck
Engine oil has evolved in many ways over the last 20 years. The oiling needs of the LT5 have remained fixed as they were in 1989, when the first ZR-1 was sold to the public. GM specified API standard SGi for the ’90 to ’93 engines. GM specified API “SG or SH”ii for the ’94 and ’95 engines.
As new engines have evolved, so have the requirements for oil performance. Today’s modern oil has been changed to reduce friction, pumping losses, formation of deposits, more tolerance of high temperature, and for emissions system performance.iii The EPA is interested in extending the government mandated catalyst life requirement from the current five years or 50K miles to about 10 years or 100K miles. It is this requirement that runs contrary to the needs of the LT5. Catalysts are affected by metallic additives in motor oil. The metallics can lower the efficiency of a catalyst through a process known as deactivationiv. API SG oil uses zinc (ZnDDP) and phosphorus as EP (Extreme Pressure) anti-wear additives. Phosphorus is the more detrimental of the two, and is being progressively reduced to address the catalyst deactivation issue.
Maximum phosphorus per the API standard: SG .12%
SH .12%
SJ .10%
SL .10%
SM .08%
Most modern GM engines use roller valve lifters. They have short timing chains to drive a single camshaft or dry belts to drive multiple camshafts. The need for EP protection for these engines is decreasing. Japanese carmakers that like to use long metal timing chains are evaluating the effects of the future oil standard on their designs.
My concern is for the flat valve lifters, the camshafts, the timing chains and the sprockets in the LT5. I believe that the SM oil is not appropriate for the LT5. The Mobil 1 Oil Company has also recognized the needs of flat lifter engines with respect to their products. They recommend their reformulated 15W-50 productv for engines with high-tension valve springs. I think that 15W-50 oil is too high in viscosity for the LT5.
The Amsoil Company has addressed this issue with a product that is specifically designed for engines with flat valve lifters. It is formulated with high phosphorus and zinc levels. It meets the API SG specification that was used when the LT5 was designed. The product is named AMO 10W-40 Synthetic Premium Protection. It takes a two-pronged approach, higher EP additives and superior film strength contributed by the higher viscosity.
EP related performance specifications for AMO: Phosphorus 1265 ppm
Zinc 1378 ppm
EP
Modern Motor Oil and the LT5 Engine
Marc Haibeck
Engine oil has evolved in many ways over the last 20 years. The oiling needs of the LT5 have remained fixed as they were in 1989, when the first ZR-1 was sold to the public. GM specified API standard SGi for the ’90 to ’93 engines. GM specified API “SG or SH”ii for the ’94 and ’95 engines.
As new engines have evolved, so have the requirements for oil performance. Today’s modern oil has been changed to reduce friction, pumping losses, formation of deposits, more tolerance of high temperature, and for emissions system performance.iii The EPA is interested in extending the government mandated catalyst life requirement from the current five years or 50K miles to about 10 years or 100K miles. It is this requirement that runs contrary to the needs of the LT5. Catalysts are affected by metallic additives in motor oil. The metallics can lower the efficiency of a catalyst through a process known as deactivationiv. API SG oil uses zinc (ZnDDP) and phosphorus as EP (Extreme Pressure) anti-wear additives. Phosphorus is the more detrimental of the two, and is being progressively reduced to address the catalyst deactivation issue.
Maximum phosphorus per the API standard: SG .12%
SH .12%
SJ .10%
SL .10%
SM .08%
Most modern GM engines use roller valve lifters. They have short timing chains to drive a single camshaft or dry belts to drive multiple camshafts. The need for EP protection for these engines is decreasing. Japanese carmakers that like to use long metal timing chains are evaluating the effects of the future oil standard on their designs.
My concern is for the flat valve lifters, the camshafts, the timing chains and the sprockets in the LT5. I believe that the SM oil is not appropriate for the LT5. The Mobil 1 Oil Company has also recognized the needs of flat lifter engines with respect to their products. They recommend their reformulated 15W-50 productv for engines with high-tension valve springs. I think that 15W-50 oil is too high in viscosity for the LT5.
The Amsoil Company has addressed this issue with a product that is specifically designed for engines with flat valve lifters. It is formulated with high phosphorus and zinc levels. It meets the API SG specification that was used when the LT5 was designed. The product is named AMO 10W-40 Synthetic Premium Protection. It takes a two-pronged approach, higher EP additives and superior film strength contributed by the higher viscosity.
EP related performance specifications for AMO: Phosphorus 1265 ppm
Zinc 1378 ppm
EP
Here's an article from the December 2007 GM Tech Link:
"The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) (fig. 3 and 4) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).
Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.
ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.
In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.
In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.
A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.
However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.
Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.
The facts say otherwise.
Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.
The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.
- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.
- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s (fig. 5).
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group"
Marc is great at a lot of things and in particular the LT5. But I think I'll trust an engineer with actual facts/data. The load on the LT5 cam lobes is not even close to the loads seen on an OHV flat tappet valve train, especially when taking into account the difference in valve sizes, spring pressures, and the multipling affect of the rocker arm on the spring pressures as seen by the cam lobe/tappet interface. The new SM oil has passed several valvetrain tests (as noted above) with no problems and there are plenty of flat tappet OHC engines like the LT5 that have zero problems with the SM oil...the LT5 is no different. This is another case of extreme overreaction by the consumers resulting in a Chicken Little response of "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"!!! And as usually happens throughout history, there are people/companies that swoop in to take advantage of the hysteria by "fanning the flames" and make big profits. As you can see from the article above, ZDDP wasn't only for anti-wear...it was also used as an antioxidant. You'll also note that at levels above 1400 PPM for phosphorus, wear actually increases and at 2000 PPM it actually starts attacking the metal parts causing spalling. Too much of a good thing can be bad so for the people "self-medicating" by using a ZDDP additive, you may actually be doing more harm than good if you inadvertently increase ZDDP levels too high...but you'll never know what levels you have because you don't have the equipment to monitor it. You should know shortly though if you used too much.
And once again, 10W40 is not the correct viscosity for the LT5. GM recommends 5W30 at all temperatures and with the advent of 0W30, it's a no brainer to use it to get protection as soon as possible when starting an engine at ANY temperature. But as I said in the beginning, use whatever makes you happy.
The following users liked this post:
HAWAIIZR-1 (03-15-2022)
01-17-2010, 02:55 PM
#23
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Where Woke Goes to Die
Posts: 8,194
Received 615 Likes
on
431 Posts
There are many knowledgeable folks here. That said VERY few have the experience and have actually seen the inside of an LT5. There are several names that come to mind, Marc Haibec, Jim VanDorn, Jeff Flint etc. Following what any of these guys recommends is probably a safe bet.
It stands to reason that 20 years ago oil was made with different levels of the additives the LT5 needs, as apposed to todays formulas. Why its so inconceivable to some to buy an oil that contains the same or close to the same formulas is baffling to me.... I'll go with Mr. Haibecs recommendations!
It stands to reason that 20 years ago oil was made with different levels of the additives the LT5 needs, as apposed to todays formulas. Why its so inconceivable to some to buy an oil that contains the same or close to the same formulas is baffling to me.... I'll go with Mr. Haibecs recommendations!
01-17-2010, 03:00 PM
#24
Glass Slipper nails it and you can tell he has done the research on real websites not "propaganda" sites.
And to add to the post above. When people keep talking about all the "extra additives" that Amsoil has and that Mobil 1 is being cheap etc.
Too much EP additives cause corrosion in your engine. So just because you have more does not make it better. Source - Mobil 1 Engineers
Just like adding ZDDP, it will kill your catalytic convertors and if you wan't to add it for peace of mind, you better add the right amount or its going mess with your oil. Too much ZDDP is not a good thing.
I find those 4 tests that Amsoil plasters all over the internet a joke
Don't believe the hype, I use labs regularly for all my engines. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/
And to add to the post above. When people keep talking about all the "extra additives" that Amsoil has and that Mobil 1 is being cheap etc.
Too much EP additives cause corrosion in your engine. So just because you have more does not make it better. Source - Mobil 1 Engineers
Just like adding ZDDP, it will kill your catalytic convertors and if you wan't to add it for peace of mind, you better add the right amount or its going mess with your oil. Too much ZDDP is not a good thing.
I find those 4 tests that Amsoil plasters all over the internet a joke
Don't believe the hype, I use labs regularly for all my engines. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/
Last edited by xlr8nflorida; 01-17-2010 at 03:18 PM.
01-17-2010, 03:10 PM
#25
There are many knowledgeable folks here. That said VERY few have the experience and have actually seen the inside of an LT5. There are several names that come to mind, Marc Haibec, Jim VanDorn, Jeff Flint etc. Following what any of these guys recommends is probably a safe bet.
It stands to reason that 20 years ago oil was made with different levels of the additives the LT5 needs, as apposed to todays formulas. Why its so inconceivable to some to buy an oil that contains the same or close to the same formulas is baffling to me.... I'll go with Mr. Haibecs recommendations!
It stands to reason that 20 years ago oil was made with different levels of the additives the LT5 needs, as apposed to todays formulas. Why its so inconceivable to some to buy an oil that contains the same or close to the same formulas is baffling to me.... I'll go with Mr. Haibecs recommendations!
If the truth was known, if you used regular dino oil and changed your oil on a regular basis ( < 3000 miles) I'd make you a big wager, you would go 150,000 miles as well before a rebuild. However, synthetics are much better.
It's really splitting hairs. Do your own research and make your own conclusions. I've researched the matter probably days on end. Also, because some of the motors in my family are huge engines (very pricey) in commercial boats and Tug Boats. Oil changes and coolant changes in those babies come in several 5 gallon jugs. Due diligence, keeping a watchful eye on things and blackstone labs are the keys to keeping out of trouble.
01-17-2010, 03:14 PM
#26
Wow..my point was the special lube needs for the LT5... I would be glad to edit out the word 'Amsoil' so you all can insert your brand of choice. I not sure about all this animosity of Mobil 1 vs Amsoil... such bantering just does not interest me. And yes, Marc is one of those folks I listen to and respect.
I probably won't get to 100,000 miles in my lifetime but should I decide to start driving the **** out of it and it blows up at 100,000-150,000 miles well then I got my $$$'s worth and I'll just go get a replacement from Phrogs.
He has a few laying around
The lab testing comes in handy often because each motor runs differently and some have more wear then others. So while 1 motor maybe can go 5,000 miles on its oil, another motor should be changed at 2,000 miles or excessive wear can occur.
Last edited by xlr8nflorida; 01-17-2010 at 03:37 PM.
01-17-2010, 04:36 PM
#27
Le Mans Master
You seem to be doing the same thing, misrepresenting a fact. And one you've already previously acknowledged you were wrong about.
Here is what GM says about my LT5:
You made claims that this was due to VI's in dino oil vs synthetic, but I don't believe you've actually established that as fact. GM's move to 5w-30 synthetic probably had as much to do with convenience (once the LT1 went synthetic) as anything else. I've never seen a bulletin that suggested the early cars start using 5w-30 instead, is there one that you've seen?
I appreciate the TechLink article, it was a good read. They used to make those public, but for some reason put them back behind login protection. They were interesting to read.
I currently use Redline for no real reason I can explain. I am not too huge on the $90 oil changes, and have thought about going back to M1. After reading that, I may just make the jump next time around.
01-17-2010, 06:48 PM
#28
Premium Supporting Vendor
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 vs AMSOIL 0w30
But, independent of our own personal views on AMSOIL vs. Mobil 1, I think this is contrary to the overall discussion of this thread, which is does the LT5 require more ZDDP than is in 30 grade API SM oils (whether they are AMSOIL or Mobil 1 - and note that the AMSOIL mentioned in this thread is not a 30 grade oil and not subject to the 800 ppm phosphorus limit). There was a good, non-biased article on this topic in one of the Corvette magazines this summer (Corvette Fever I think), and they drew the same conclusion - more ZDDP is needed.
__________________
C66 Racing #66 NASA ST2, SCCA T2
AMSOIL Dealer (Forum Vendor)
AMSOIL Ordering Information (Retail sales using reference #1206638 benefit the forum.)
AMSOIL Preferred Customer Program (Members buy at Wholesale - a savings of about 25%)
AMSOIL Catalog
C66 Racing #66 NASA ST2, SCCA T2
AMSOIL Dealer (Forum Vendor)
AMSOIL Ordering Information (Retail sales using reference #1206638 benefit the forum.)
AMSOIL Preferred Customer Program (Members buy at Wholesale - a savings of about 25%)
AMSOIL Catalog
01-17-2010, 07:15 PM
#29
Real data from my own personal car (recently sold ), an LS2 powered 06 CTS-V. Feel free to think whatever you want about AMSOIL, but it consistently performs very well in used oil analysis results:
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 vs AMSOIL 0w30
But, independent of our own personal views on AMSOIL vs. Mobil 1, I think this is contrary to the overall discussion of this thread, which is does the LT5 require more ZDDP than is in 30 grade API SM oils (whether they are AMSOIL or Mobil 1 - and note that the AMSOIL mentioned in this thread is not a 30 grade oil and not subject to the 800 ppm phosphorus limit). There was a good, non-biased article on this topic in one of the Corvette magazines this summer (Corvette Fever I think), and they drew the same conclusion - more ZDDP is needed.
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 vs AMSOIL 0w30
But, independent of our own personal views on AMSOIL vs. Mobil 1, I think this is contrary to the overall discussion of this thread, which is does the LT5 require more ZDDP than is in 30 grade API SM oils (whether they are AMSOIL or Mobil 1 - and note that the AMSOIL mentioned in this thread is not a 30 grade oil and not subject to the 800 ppm phosphorus limit). There was a good, non-biased article on this topic in one of the Corvette magazines this summer (Corvette Fever I think), and they drew the same conclusion - more ZDDP is needed.
Where is the empirical data and I don't mean those silly 4 tests on every Amsoil Dealer's website.
Tests like Mobil 1 does on entire taxi cab fleets, racing etc.
Over 50% of Nascar teams use Mobil 1. It is also the official lubricant of Nascar. The other big oil players in Nascar are:
Havoline, Valvoline and Pennzoil.
What % of Nascar cars use Amsoil? Can't seem to find that on the Internet. I'd say its safe to say its just a hand full of drivers.
Mobil 1 is chosen by more car manufacturers as factory fill in their vehicles than any other motor oil.
If Amsoil is so superior, why isn't 50% of Nascar running Amsoil in their $50,000+ engines?
It it because they are all cheap *****?
Last edited by xlr8nflorida; 01-17-2010 at 07:53 PM.
01-17-2010, 08:38 PM
#30
Racer
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2009
Location: Sherbrooke Quebec
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said it was not a good Oil. I'm sorry but you are an Amsoil Dealer and I'm asking where all the great independent tests are on the Internet? I mean come on, It clearly states Amsoil is the best and beats Mobil 1 hands down all over the internet.
Where is the empirical data and I don't mean those silly 4 tests on every Amsoil Dealer's website.
Tests like Mobil 1 does on entire taxi cab fleets, racing etc.
Over 50% of Nascar teams use Mobil 1. It is also the official lubricant of Nascar. The other big oil players in Nascar are:
Havoline, Valvoline and Pennzoil.
What % of Nascar cars use Amsoil? Can't seem to find that on the Internet. I'd say its safe to say its just a hand full of drivers.
Mobil 1 is chosen by more car manufacturers as factory fill in their vehicles than any other motor oil.
If Amsoil is so superior, why isn't 50% of Nascar running Amsoil in their $50,000+ engines?
It it because they are all cheap *****?
Where is the empirical data and I don't mean those silly 4 tests on every Amsoil Dealer's website.
Tests like Mobil 1 does on entire taxi cab fleets, racing etc.
Over 50% of Nascar teams use Mobil 1. It is also the official lubricant of Nascar. The other big oil players in Nascar are:
Havoline, Valvoline and Pennzoil.
What % of Nascar cars use Amsoil? Can't seem to find that on the Internet. I'd say its safe to say its just a hand full of drivers.
Mobil 1 is chosen by more car manufacturers as factory fill in their vehicles than any other motor oil.
If Amsoil is so superior, why isn't 50% of Nascar running Amsoil in their $50,000+ engines?
It it because they are all cheap *****?
I've learned much though!
01-17-2010, 09:51 PM
#31
This one from an amsoil distributor:
Amsoil dealer, Mack Goshorn, has reported that two of his customers, one owning a Ford Powerstroke 7.3L and another one with a Dodge Cummins Turbo-Diesel have told him that they have seen in a remarkable increase in fuel economy with their experience of switching to Amsoil. The customer with the Ford Powerstroke went from 11 MPG to 16 MPG. If the customer with the Ford drives the national average of 1,200 miles per month and pays $2.50 per gallon, that's an annual fuel cost of $3,273 at 11 MPG. If everything stays the same and the fuel economy increases to 16 MPG after switching to Amsoil, the annual fuel costs now drop to $2,250 per year. That's an annual savings of $1,023 which MORE THAN COVERS the cost of switching to Amsoil. So Amsoil pays for itself many, many times over when switching from conventional oil for this customer. Needless to say, this customer is very, very excited about Amsoil helping to improve fuel economy. The customer owning the Dodge with the Cummins Turbo-Diesel experienced an increase of 4-1/2 MPG for the fuel economy.
5 miles per gallon more?
And then this little gem:
In fact, we know of several major NASCAR racing teams that use AMSOIL in their race cars yet the motor oil sponsors logo on the hood and quarter panels is not what is in the vehicle! They want you to believe it is..... but it isn't. Fact is, every successful major race car in the world uses synthetics, and about 85% of them use AMSOIL synthetics. We know exactly who these racing teams are but are not permitted to advertise who they are because they have such a large amount of money at stake with their sponsors wanting the public to believe they are using the brand of motor oil that is is advertised on the car.
uh huh suurrreeeeeeeeeeeee..... 85% - total BS!
Amsoil dealer, Mack Goshorn, has reported that two of his customers, one owning a Ford Powerstroke 7.3L and another one with a Dodge Cummins Turbo-Diesel have told him that they have seen in a remarkable increase in fuel economy with their experience of switching to Amsoil. The customer with the Ford Powerstroke went from 11 MPG to 16 MPG. If the customer with the Ford drives the national average of 1,200 miles per month and pays $2.50 per gallon, that's an annual fuel cost of $3,273 at 11 MPG. If everything stays the same and the fuel economy increases to 16 MPG after switching to Amsoil, the annual fuel costs now drop to $2,250 per year. That's an annual savings of $1,023 which MORE THAN COVERS the cost of switching to Amsoil. So Amsoil pays for itself many, many times over when switching from conventional oil for this customer. Needless to say, this customer is very, very excited about Amsoil helping to improve fuel economy. The customer owning the Dodge with the Cummins Turbo-Diesel experienced an increase of 4-1/2 MPG for the fuel economy.
5 miles per gallon more?
And then this little gem:
In fact, we know of several major NASCAR racing teams that use AMSOIL in their race cars yet the motor oil sponsors logo on the hood and quarter panels is not what is in the vehicle! They want you to believe it is..... but it isn't. Fact is, every successful major race car in the world uses synthetics, and about 85% of them use AMSOIL synthetics. We know exactly who these racing teams are but are not permitted to advertise who they are because they have such a large amount of money at stake with their sponsors wanting the public to believe they are using the brand of motor oil that is is advertised on the car.
uh huh suurrreeeeeeeeeeeee..... 85% - total BS!
Last edited by xlr8nflorida; 01-17-2010 at 10:06 PM.
01-18-2010, 01:44 AM
#32
Yes, we are all aware of that fact. If you want to go strictly by the owners manual recommendation of 10W30, call Marc and let him know how wrong he is for recommending 10W40.
You made claims that this was due to VI's in dino oil vs synthetic, but I don't believe you've actually established that as fact. GM's move to 5w-30 synthetic probably had as much to do with convenience (once the LT1 went synthetic) as anything else. I've never seen a bulletin that suggested the early cars start using 5w-30 instead, is there one that you've seen?
I appreciate the TechLink article, it was a good read. They used to make those public, but for some reason put them back behind login protection. They were interesting to read.
I currently use Redline for no real reason I can explain. I am not too huge on the $90 oil changes, and have thought about going back to M1. After reading that, I may just make the jump next time around.
I appreciate the TechLink article, it was a good read. They used to make those public, but for some reason put them back behind login protection. They were interesting to read.
I currently use Redline for no real reason I can explain. I am not too huge on the $90 oil changes, and have thought about going back to M1. After reading that, I may just make the jump next time around.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-viscosity-index.htm
Some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_oil
And from that link:
"With their improved viscosity index, true synthetic oils need little or no viscosity index improvers, which are the oil components most vulnerable to thermal and mechanical degradation as the oil ages, and thus they do not degrade as quickly as traditional motor oils."
For non-synthetics, a 5W30 needed more VII additive than a 10W30 making the 5W30 lose sufficient lubricating properties in the high shear (mechanical degradation) and high temperature environment (high horsepower engine) of the LT5. That should establish the VII in non-synthetics as the reason GM recommended 10W30 vs 5W30.
The LT1 came out in '92 with 5W30 synthetic, so if it was a matter of convenience, why didn't GM switch the LT5 to 5W30 synthetic in '92 instead of waiting until '93? Again, if convenience were the factor, why didn't GM use 10W30 non-synthetic from the LT5 in the '90-'91 L98 instead of the non-synthetic 5W30? Convenience wasn't a factor, the VII in non-synthetic 5W30 was.
I haven't seen a bulletin stating to use 5W30 in the '90-'92 LT5s but what's so different about them vs the '93-'95 LT5s that keeps them from using the same thing? Oil technology has come a long way since 1989 and there's no reason to be stuck in yesteryear when you can get the benefits of a 0W30 synthetic today...of course in any flavor you desire. Any 0W30 synthetic on the market today will take the LT5 to 200K miles easily.
Last edited by glass slipper; 01-18-2010 at 01:47 AM.
01-18-2010, 02:11 AM
#33
Real data from my own personal car (recently sold ), an LS2 powered 06 CTS-V. Feel free to think whatever you want about AMSOIL, but it consistently performs very well in used oil analysis results:
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 vs AMSOIL 0w30
But, independent of our own personal views on AMSOIL vs. Mobil 1, I think this is contrary to the overall discussion of this thread, which is does the LT5 require more ZDDP than is in 30 grade API SM oils (whether they are AMSOIL or Mobil 1 - and note that the AMSOIL mentioned in this thread is not a 30 grade oil and not subject to the 800 ppm phosphorus limit). There was a good, non-biased article on this topic in one of the Corvette magazines this summer (Corvette Fever I think), and they drew the same conclusion - more ZDDP is needed.
Cadillac CTS-V Used Oil Analysis – Mobil 1 5w30 vs AMSOIL 0w30
But, independent of our own personal views on AMSOIL vs. Mobil 1, I think this is contrary to the overall discussion of this thread, which is does the LT5 require more ZDDP than is in 30 grade API SM oils (whether they are AMSOIL or Mobil 1 - and note that the AMSOIL mentioned in this thread is not a 30 grade oil and not subject to the 800 ppm phosphorus limit). There was a good, non-biased article on this topic in one of the Corvette magazines this summer (Corvette Fever I think), and they drew the same conclusion - more ZDDP is needed.
"Blackstone attributed the increase in insolubles on the second sample to possible dirt contamination of the sample. While that is possible, we believe that the increase in insolubles was more likely attributed to sludge buildup that was cleaned out by the AMSOIL's increased level of detergent (primarily the increased levels of calcium present in the AMSOIL as compared to the Mobil 1)."
I agree with Blackstone, I can't tell you how many times I see bad results from an oil analysis in my job and I tell them to clean the sample bottle thoroughly and resample only to have the second one come back good. I also think your reason is total BS...there is no way any modern engine will have any sludge built up at 10K miles even if it was still the factory fill and everything wrong was done. This is the type of hype and BS xlr8nflorida is talking about...the oil doesn't need to be hyped, Amsoil is a good oil on its own but it's getting a snake oil status with the hype and BS getting thrown around. The test you did wasn't exactly a "controlled test" either.
Corvette Fever??? (Or any magazine for that matter) You're kidding right? You want me to listen to a bunch of journalism majors that get dizzy at the mere mention of TBN, VII, etc about oil? No thanks, they just jumped on the ZDDP hysteria bandwagon and are clueless. I'll trust a GM engineer thank you.
Last edited by glass slipper; 01-18-2010 at 02:14 AM.
01-18-2010, 08:43 AM
#34
Premium Supporting Vendor
I agree with Blackstone, I can't tell you how many times I see bad results from an oil analysis in my job and I tell them to clean the sample bottle thoroughly and resample only to have the second one come back good. I also think your reason is total BS...there is no way any modern engine will have any sludge built up at 10K miles even if it was still the factory fill and everything wrong was done. This is the type of hype and BS xlr8nflorida is talking about...the oil doesn't need to be hyped, Amsoil is a good oil on its own but it's getting a snake oil status with the hype and BS getting thrown around. The test you did wasn't exactly a "controlled test" either.
For the OP, sorry this has devolved into a Mobil 1 vs. AMSOIL debate. I know that wasn't your point. This discussion appeared to me to be about the importance of high ZDDP in the LT5 and where you could get it and I was only trying to share how to obtain the AMSOIL that several others posted they used, before this got sidetracked.
If you decide you need high levels of ZDDP, you are going to have a tough time finding one. The AMSOIL AMO carries about 1265 ppm phosphorus and 1378 ppm zinc. If you'd like to documentation that shows that, drop me a PM and I'll send it your way. Here are the Mobil 1 phosphorus and zinc levels:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/...duct_Guide.pdf
I'm jumping off this thread to prevent further sidetracking your thread.
01-18-2010, 09:09 AM
#35
Le Mans Master
Over 50% of Nascar teams use Mobil 1. It is also the official lubricant of Nascar. The other big oil players in Nascar are:
Havoline, Valvoline and Pennzoil.
What % of Nascar cars use Amsoil? Can't seem to find that on the Internet. I'd say its safe to say its just a hand full of drivers.
Havoline, Valvoline and Pennzoil.
What % of Nascar cars use Amsoil? Can't seem to find that on the Internet. I'd say its safe to say its just a hand full of drivers.
It's a silly comparison. Money is why.
01-18-2010, 09:13 AM
#36
Le Mans Master
The LT1 came out in '92 with 5W30 synthetic, so if it was a matter of convenience, why didn't GM switch the LT5 to 5W30 synthetic in '92 instead of waiting until '93? Again, if convenience were the factor, why didn't GM use 10W30 non-synthetic from the LT5 in the '90-'91 L98 instead of the non-synthetic 5W30? Convenience wasn't a factor, the VII in non-synthetic 5W30 was.
As to why they changed, I don't think you or I could prove one way or the other. It's a guess. You are guessing one way, but don't flip out if someone else guesses a different way.
01-18-2010, 11:07 AM
#38
You just said yourself why M1 is so common. They are the official oil of NASCAR. I bet they pay for that right, the same way Aflac pays to be the official supplemental insurance of NASCAR. Goodyear tires are run on 100% of NASCAR teams. Does that make them the best tire for all passenger cars? Why don't high-performance Corvettes come on Goodyears, is GM too cheap?
It's a silly comparison. Money is why.
It's a silly comparison. Money is why.
Say what you want about $, but I'm sorry Nascar is not going use Mobil 1 in their $50,000 engines per race if its not an excellent oil.
01-18-2010, 11:32 AM
#39
Melting Slicks
Glass Slipper nails it and you can tell he has done the research on real websites not "propaganda" sites.
And to add to the post above. When people keep talking about all the "extra additives" that Amsoil has and that Mobil 1 is being cheap etc.
Too much EP additives cause corrosion in your engine. So just because you have more does not make it better. Source - Mobil 1 Engineers
Just like adding ZDDP, it will kill your catalytic convertors and if you wan't to add it for peace of mind, you better add the right amount or its going mess with your oil. Too much ZDDP is not a good thing.
I find those 4 tests that Amsoil plasters all over the internet a joke
Don't believe the hype, I use labs regularly for all my engines. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/
And to add to the post above. When people keep talking about all the "extra additives" that Amsoil has and that Mobil 1 is being cheap etc.
Too much EP additives cause corrosion in your engine. So just because you have more does not make it better. Source - Mobil 1 Engineers
Just like adding ZDDP, it will kill your catalytic convertors and if you wan't to add it for peace of mind, you better add the right amount or its going mess with your oil. Too much ZDDP is not a good thing.
I find those 4 tests that Amsoil plasters all over the internet a joke
Don't believe the hype, I use labs regularly for all my engines. http://www.blackstone-labs.com/
1- Catalytic Converters? They went the way of the Red Line, Amsoil, Royal Purple etc., so unless usage in the engine can damage what is stored in the basement, all should be OK
2-Both you and Glass slipper correctly point out the potential danger of "too much" ZDDP". Although I am truly miles behind both of you, particularly, glass slipper in his knowledge and understanding of the engineering concepts surrounding this topic, I did take a non-scientific approach with the ZDDP. The additive manufacturer suggests two bottles per 5 quarts, or about three bottles for the ZR-1 fill. I thought about that for a bit on oil change day, and then went with a single bottle instead. Clairvoyant, I guess.(aka blind luck!).
I again say, Mobil put tons of research and $$$$$ into the devlopment of their synthetic, which was released around 1976. I remain convinced that the finest chemical engineers have also worked to advance the product in the following 34 years!!!
It enjoys almost universal acceptance, and has never let me down, while remaining competitvely priced.
This thread however , as it has on many topics in the past, including oil, has again helped me refine my selections further.
Thanks to slipper..... good bye 5w 30 Hello 0W30.
If the 0W30 is good enough for our Prius and Honda Hybrids, why not use it in the ZR-1.
Secondly, My trip to Carlisle this year will not involve picking up more ZDDP additive.
Someone can check with my son in 50 years, and see how the engine has held up using this revised method.
As always, this Forum asks, answers, debates, and enlightens, all who engage.
I know far more from the experience than I ever would have learned elsewise.
That aside, each of us will still do whatever we feel most comfortable with. In my case, that has been helped greatly by the talent that contributes freely to this Forum!
I know my car, FAR better as a result!
Thanks all!
Marty
1FUNZR1
01-18-2010, 12:22 PM
#40
Le Mans Master
High-performance Corvettes did come on GoodYears and then were changed to Michelin's because the Michelin's outpeformed the GoodYears.
Say what you want about $, but I'm sorry Nascar is not going use Mobil 1 in their $50,000 engines per race if its not an excellent oil.
Say what you want about $, but I'm sorry Nascar is not going use Mobil 1 in their $50,000 engines per race if its not an excellent oil.
Mobil 1 is the same way. I agree, they aren't gonna use some crap that doesn't work. But if you have the choice between two things that work, and one will pay you money, which one would you use?
It seems to me like you are suggesting that what NASCAR uses must be better than what they don't use. If you believe that, I think your logic is pretty flawed. If that's not what you are trying to say, then I don't follow your point.