[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
The attached link will take you to a read-only PDF of a Lubes'n'Greases article on extended drain intervals. This article is posted on the Amsoil Corporate website. No, I don't sell Amsoil. But after reading the article, I have to wonder whether or not the author does.
A few opinions I'd like to express:
1) The European "committee representing vehicle manufacturers" referenced in the article is the European Automotive Manufacturer's Association, or the "ACEA" rating you see frequently mentioned in our many oil debates. The proposed change to a similar rating method here in the US was fundamentally flawed, as it would've allowed EACH MANUFACTURER to generate specs (which is what they're doing now, anyway) rather than forming a common-interest association. (By contrast, the article paints the American Petroleum Industry (API) as more of a corrupt dictatorship.)
2) I think if you follow Amsoil's recommendations (maximum 1yr/25k miles, with filter change (& additional oil) at 6mos), any premium, PAO-based, fully synthetic motor oil will last as long as Amsoil says theirs will. I prefer Mobil 1, but mostly due to cost & convenience reasons, not because I think it's better than Amsoil. (The author points to Amsoil's "mountain of vehicle miles over three decades" confirming its abilities, but there are equally high mountains of Used Oil Analyses confirming Mobil 1's abilities.) Also be aware that Amsoil's recommendations change with regard to turbocharged engines.
3) The maximum allowed amount of the anti-wear (A/W) additive phosphorus WILL be decreased when API/ILSAC introduces their GF-4 rating (it wasn't reduced in the change from "old" GF-2 to "current" GF-3), but the author doesn't mention that several companies are adding other compounds (like more expensive molybdenum) to offset this reduction.
4) The author claims Mobil 1 is "shackled" by its current "follow the manual" interval recommendations. However, no metion is made of it's earlier "25,000 Mile Oil" recommendations. This is claimed to be a heinous plot to increase consumption, but I suspect (remember, these are my opinions) that they're more afraid of massive, cash-hemorrhaging lawsuits resulting from gross product misuse in an increasingly finger-pointing American society. Plus, it's a lot easier than trying to re-educate a public brainwashed on outdated practices. But again, that's just my opinion.
5) Shell is quasi-praised as "semi-shackled" for it's "High Mileage" label, but again, no mention is made of Mobil's attempt at identical labeling or why they decided to abandon it. Confusing the consumers is NOT good marketing strategy, but I do agree that an oil offering "extended drains for out of warranty vehicles" may be a benefit (in a variety of ways) to both consumers & oil producers. As mentioned, Mobil 1 meets ACEA A5 (& more protective ACEA A3) requirements, which are far more severe than the API's SL/GF-3 rating. These oils are proven to meet extended drain capabilities. By contrast, no metion is made of Shell's ACEA classification, or the fact that oils meeting GM's new "long life" spec can also meet the lowest ACEA rating of A1 for both protection & longevity.
Again, I feel any proven, premium full syn will provide the best protection, not just "Brand A" or "Brand M." But, you should read the article for yourself. I also found the environmental aspects alarming, but not unexpected.
posted by 216.160.177...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
