Amsoil
10-23-2013, 05:27 AM
#51
Banned
yeah, my bad, scrolled up too far.. haha
If your car doesnt burn any oil use the signature 0w30, if it burns oil use XL 5w30. Signature series just costs too much to have to dump in there every 1000 miles. The main advantage of the signature series is that it lasts a lot longer than the XL.
Also, If any of you guys buy by the case let me know. I can do pretty good discounts on oil by the case
10-23-2013, 07:35 AM
#52
the car is pretty consistent on the oil, it hasnt burned any noticeable amount. i guess ill make the switch to signature series. about how many miles can you run the SSO under hard driving? im sure its covered here somewhere, but in my case i wont see many miles so would i be doing an oil change once a year? lol
10-23-2013, 07:41 AM
#53
Banned
I ran it in my 12SI for about 13k before I started to notice any reduced performance in the car. I beat the snot out of that car daily.
The s2000 turns another 1000 rpms over my SI, so I'd run it about 8k and send a sample off.
The s2000 turns another 1000 rpms over my SI, so I'd run it about 8k and send a sample off.
10-23-2013, 07:51 AM
#54
that sounds good then. ill be running it at my next oil change which will be in april since car is going to be stored over the winter. so given that info its perfect for my use. autocross starts in april ends in october. thanks!
10-23-2013, 12:17 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 17 ft below sea level.
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
16 Posts
The numbers don't lie.
All numbers are equal, but some numbers are just a little bit more equal than others.......
IOW: it depends on what numbers you're look at (bottle vs specs) and the ability (or willingness) to interpret them.
CCV = Cold Crancking Viscosity ASTM D-5293
CPV = Cold Pumping Viscosity ASTM D-4684
Valv.Maxl FE 5W-30
CCV spec'd at <6600 @ -30C
No CPV listed
Now.. that's real info, this is what we need.
Q: "How much is it?"
A: "Less than 6600"
Q: "Yeah.. mmkay.. HOW much less?"
A: "...........?"
Motul Eco 5W-30
Some specs but no CCV or anything about visc at -30C/-35C
Very Usefull.
Q: "How much is the CCV?"
A: "Need to know basis only SIR"
Q: "Well.. I need to know"
A: "No you do not SIR"
Pennz Plat 5W-30
CCV 4110 @ -30C
CPV 13300 @ -35C
VI = 177
Pretty impressive numbers.. for a 5W oil.
As if 4110 @ -30 will not pass 6200 at -35C.
But it can't because the bottle says 5W.. right?
Quaker State UD 5W-30
CCV 3980 @ - 30C
CPV 12800 @ -35C
VI 172
See Pennz.
Both Shell btw.
Amsoil SSO
V100 - 10.3 cSt
V40 - 56.6 cSt
VI - 173
CCV - 5927 @ -35C
No CPV
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
All in all this post shows the times are changin'
Car manufacturers ask for thinner oils as they design engines for thinner oils to save fuel.
The real TinFoilHat people see the conspiracy in that, as "They want my engine to wear out so I have to buy a new car every 2-3 years...."
The base oil manufacturers are also producing better and better base stock to supply the demand.
The general public however is slow to understand and old habits die hard (3k mile OCI etc)
So what's the answer?
Use old style labels on new oils to sell what you produce.
For the avergae consumer this is good news actually.
They will just look at the oil cap or manual and match their oil label with that.
Do they care the oil they buy is better than they think?
No.
Then you have the consumers that think they know more than others.
They do not want the "thin stuff" because, wel.. it is just way to thin for their car as they always drive "hard", you know.
They "need protection" and that thin stuff is not givin' it.
As they do not look any further than the bottle they are happy buying their strong 10W-30.
How little do they know.
Now.. if you actually look further than the end of your nose and try to understand what you're looking at you will see that the modern 5W oils mentioned in this post are pretty close (and IMO actually are) 0W's
I'm sure that if you would show a knowledgable poster at BITOG the V100/V40/VI/CCV of the oils in this post - without brand, type, name, anyting - and ask them what they think the SAE spec of that oil is, they would tell you all oils are 0W's: the duck comment.
What have I learned from this post?
Like I said: times are changin'
Yes, you can not baldy state anymore that oils labelled
5W will be outperformed by 0W oils.
I think the data shows enough though.
When my SSO stash runs out I will have to start digging up the data again to see what oil I will use next.
All numbers are equal, but some numbers are just a little bit more equal than others.......
IOW: it depends on what numbers you're look at (bottle vs specs) and the ability (or willingness) to interpret them.
CCV = Cold Crancking Viscosity ASTM D-5293
CPV = Cold Pumping Viscosity ASTM D-4684
Valv.Maxl FE 5W-30
CCV spec'd at <6600 @ -30C
No CPV listed
Now.. that's real info, this is what we need.
Q: "How much is it?"
A: "Less than 6600"
Q: "Yeah.. mmkay.. HOW much less?"
A: "...........?"
Motul Eco 5W-30
Some specs but no CCV or anything about visc at -30C/-35C
Very Usefull.
Q: "How much is the CCV?"
A: "Need to know basis only SIR"
Q: "Well.. I need to know"
A: "No you do not SIR"
Pennz Plat 5W-30
CCV 4110 @ -30C
CPV 13300 @ -35C
VI = 177
Pretty impressive numbers.. for a 5W oil.
As if 4110 @ -30 will not pass 6200 at -35C.
But it can't because the bottle says 5W.. right?
Quaker State UD 5W-30
CCV 3980 @ - 30C
CPV 12800 @ -35C
VI 172
See Pennz.
Both Shell btw.
Amsoil SSO
V100 - 10.3 cSt
V40 - 56.6 cSt
VI - 173
CCV - 5927 @ -35C
No CPV
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
All in all this post shows the times are changin'
Car manufacturers ask for thinner oils as they design engines for thinner oils to save fuel.
The real TinFoilHat people see the conspiracy in that, as "They want my engine to wear out so I have to buy a new car every 2-3 years...."
The base oil manufacturers are also producing better and better base stock to supply the demand.
The general public however is slow to understand and old habits die hard (3k mile OCI etc)
So what's the answer?
Use old style labels on new oils to sell what you produce.
For the avergae consumer this is good news actually.
They will just look at the oil cap or manual and match their oil label with that.
Do they care the oil they buy is better than they think?
No.
Then you have the consumers that think they know more than others.
They do not want the "thin stuff" because, wel.. it is just way to thin for their car as they always drive "hard", you know.
They "need protection" and that thin stuff is not givin' it.
As they do not look any further than the bottle they are happy buying their strong 10W-30.
How little do they know.
Now.. if you actually look further than the end of your nose and try to understand what you're looking at you will see that the modern 5W oils mentioned in this post are pretty close (and IMO actually are) 0W's
I'm sure that if you would show a knowledgable poster at BITOG the V100/V40/VI/CCV of the oils in this post - without brand, type, name, anyting - and ask them what they think the SAE spec of that oil is, they would tell you all oils are 0W's: the duck comment.
What have I learned from this post?
Like I said: times are changin'
Yes, you can not baldy state anymore that oils labelled
5W will be outperformed by 0W oils.I think the data shows enough though.
When my SSO stash runs out I will have to start digging up the data again to see what oil I will use next.
10-23-2013, 03:15 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Anderson, S.C.
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I'm seeing is a lot of missing links/data from you and a lot of assumptions to go along with it. You can't assume that an oil will meet a grade at one temperature simply because it has good numbers at an entirely different temperature. Under 0C, a lot of oils will start to behave in non-newtonian ways, especially if they have a lot of VI improvers in them. Likewise, you can't make the assumption that an oil makes a specific grade simply because you can't find the data to support that conclusion.
10-24-2013, 01:00 AM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 17 ft below sea level.
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
16 Posts
There is little to assume looking at the Pennzoil Ultra 5W-30 data.
They tested it at -35C and the outcome was below 0W spec.
Same for the 5W-20 on the same datasheet.
Must be a double typo........
Can't be right.......
It simple can not be a duck......
The CCV temp-visc curves are most likely not linear at those temps, just like the Widman.
Even if they were there is no other datapoint to draw a line through anyway.
So you (one) look(s) at the complete picture, V40, V100, VI, pour point.
And it's telling me: "0W labelled 5W for marketing reasons"
That's IMO.
And.. if I may add: the oils in question are not bad at all.
The more I look at the Quaker State oil specs the more I like them!
HTHS = 3, no TBN unfortununately.
It's not like there is a scheme going on to make consumers pay more for less.
Almost the opposite: you pay less for more.
The conspirasists under us will have something to complain about though as their oil is thinner than they think it is / should be.
The oil companies know what's best for you and without telling you they force this thin stuff down your throat that will destroy your engine!
They tested it at -35C and the outcome was below 0W spec.
Same for the 5W-20 on the same datasheet.
Must be a double typo........
Can't be right.......
It simple can not be a duck......
The CCV temp-visc curves are most likely not linear at those temps, just like the Widman.
Even if they were there is no other datapoint to draw a line through anyway.
So you (one) look(s) at the complete picture, V40, V100, VI, pour point.
And it's telling me: "0W labelled 5W for marketing reasons"
That's IMO.
And.. if I may add: the oils in question are not bad at all.
The more I look at the Quaker State oil specs the more I like them!
HTHS = 3, no TBN unfortununately.
It's not like there is a scheme going on to make consumers pay more for less.
Almost the opposite: you pay less for more.
The conspirasists under us will have something to complain about though as their oil is thinner than they think it is / should be.
The oil companies know what's best for you and without telling you they force this thin stuff down your throat that will destroy your engine!
10-24-2013, 01:27 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. I started off interested in the thread since I splurge and use Amsoil just b/c it's a couple more dollars/qt. than Mobil 1, so, why not?'
2. I got bored with it, too much technical stuff that I didn't understand.
3. Last winter, I used 5*30 weight, but this year I ordered 10*30 weight.
4. I live in Indy. Tell me it's no big deal, or tell me that I will be sorry later.
5. I drive year-round with an 04, with 50k miles, my son with the same at 80k miles.
2. I got bored with it, too much technical stuff that I didn't understand.
3. Last winter, I used 5*30 weight, but this year I ordered 10*30 weight.
4. I live in Indy. Tell me it's no big deal, or tell me that I will be sorry later.
5. I drive year-round with an 04, with 50k miles, my son with the same at 80k miles.