Dyno testing Amsoil against other oils.

[customboss]

SBC, SOFT FLAT TAPPET CAM, SPECIAL RINGS THAT MARK WEAR,  clearing flushes to remove previous lubricant. 
Bench tests to complete tests for longer drains and turbo deposits. 
 

Redline, Pennzoil Ultra, Ravenol, Amsoil SS, Driven, LiquiMoly, HPL, Mobil1 TSUV 
 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2025 by customboss

[customboss]

[customboss]

REDLINE HELD 100F more heat than other oils. 
 

[customboss]

[customboss]

@Black02Silverado

@Grumpy Bear

@OnTheReel

@KARNUT

@diyer2

discuss after watching the video. 

[customboss]

Look to me that Amsoil is best all around for longer drains and low deposits. 
 

Redline shocked me allowing TEOST deposits for turbo. I think they put too much additives in the chemistry. Also it’s very resistant to beneficial shear. Why it held too much heat. 
 

If you change oil more often the silicate additives that ONLY Shell Pennzoil has make the difference. So it’s a good value.
 

I would just look at iron wear for deciding lowest wear chemistry.
 

 

Edited December 6, 2025 by customboss

[OnTheReel]

4 hours ago, customboss said:

Look to me that Amsoil is best all around for longer drains and low deposits. 
 

Redline shocked me allowing TEOST deposits for turbo. I think they put too much additives in the chemistry. Also it’s very resistant to beneficial shear. Why it held too much heat. 
 

If you change oil more often the silicate additives that ONLY Shell Pennzoil has make the difference. So it’s a good value.
 

I would just look at iron wear for deciding lowest wear chemistry.
 

 

The oils highest in moly did the worst in TEOST. The mid-SAPS Euro blend of RL would have done better for sure.
 

Iron wear is a 3 PPM spread from best to worst. In the order tested, the first two were highest, (RL, Pennzoil) and then everything else within 1 PPM. Which is curious in its own right. Nevertheless this is all within the margin of error for RDE. 
 

Red Line temperature is a weird one. Viscosity and HTHS is highest but Driven is very close in both specs and did best. COF difference?

[customboss]

2 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

The oils highest in moly did the worst in TEOST. The mid-SAPS Euro blend of RL would have done better for sure.

I’ve tested Redline TEOST in days past and it did well.

So MOLY is not a factor from a chemistry point of view. Why I mentioned it.

Over-treated additives however ARE a factor because they form deposits. 

 

GOOD observation : Driven is not as overtreated as Redline. It’s also mostly PAO and AN. My take  is the additives are holding heat in the thick base oil of Redline. 

 

VISCOSITY at too high a level or HTHS too high for an engine that just needs 5w-30 is overkill and holds heat. 
 

Note too that this SBC test engine running a “soft cam” was protected perfectly by all the SP rated oils so ZDTP is not necessary outside of API ratings. Even for flat tappet engines.  
 

PS tin napthenate is used with MOS2 formulations thus we see Sn on various formulations. It doesn’t have to be there. 

 

Edited December 7, 2025 by customboss

[OnTheReel]

17 minutes ago, customboss said:

I’ve tested Redline TEOST in days past and it did well.

So MOLY is not a factor from a chemistry point of view. Why I mentioned it.

Over-treated additives however ARE a factor because they form deposits. 

 

GOOD observation : Driven is not as overtreated as Redline. It’s also mostly PAO and AN. My take  is the additives are holding heat in the thick base oil of Redline. 

 

VISCOSITY at too high a level or HTHS too high for an engine that just needs 5w-30 is overkill and holds heat. 
 

Note too that this SBC test engine running a “soft cam” was protected perfectly by all the SP rated oils so ZDTP is not necessary outside of API ratings. Even for flat tappet engines.  
 

PS tin napthenate is used with MOS2 formulations thus we see Sn on various formulations. It doesn’t have to be there. 

 

Not selling my stock in Red Line HP but would concede in a turbocharged engine, it’s not going to be my first choice even before the test. Like I said, I have strong reason to believe the Euro spec would be much better.
 

Maybe I missed it but if this “soft” cam was installed new for this test, some of the increased temperatures and elevated iron could be due to residual break in.
 

Hear me out. RL was tested first, and Pennzoil second. RL had highest iron, Pennzoil had second highest. RL had highest temperature, Pennzoil second highest. Torque rank…RL worst, Pennzoil second worst. These two oils are complete opposites as far as chemistry, viscosity and HTHS are very far apart. So you have to wonder about flawed methodology…

[Chuck FB]

50 minutes ago, customboss said:

I’ve tested Redline TEOST in days past a BBd it did well.
So MOLY is not a factor from a chemistry point of view. Why I mentioned it.

Over-treated additives however ARE a factor because they form deposits. 

 

GOOD observation : Driven is not as overtreated as Redline. It’s also mostly PAO and AN. My take  is the additives are holding heat in the thick base oil of Redline. 

 

VISCOSITY at too high a level or HTHS too high for an engine that just needs 5w-30 is overkill and holds heat. 
 

Note too that this SBC test engine running a “soft cam” was protected perfectly by all the SP rated oils so ZDTP is not necessary outside of API ratings. Even for flat tappet engines.  
 

 

 

I noticed that the Mobil TS has a far lower calcium level vs any of the other oils and was that a factor that played into its ability to have a reasonable cam wear rate as the zddp components as a whole were not competing with it, but also is there a long term use negative to such a low amount of calcium for controlling acids. I guess its not a surprise that it wasn't very good at sheer stability and where would that sit with a bit more fuel dilution and actual real world use in an engine with many hot/cold cycles and time passing in protecting an engine ( the GM suggested 7500 mile OCI for example ). I noticed somewhere else on the forum lately that a UOA of the Mobil TS was put up and it did not have near the zinc level, is the oil varying that much in specs or is the analyzing that far off from one company to the next ?.

 

The RL oil is sky high in calcium and I wonder what the reason behind that is as isn't that like a reading an older diesel formulation would have and could that have contributed to its higher wear rate ( although the bar graph makes it look far worse that it is for dramatical purposes ) due to competing with the zddp additives. Again long term in an engine I wonder if some of these higher viscosity oils would show a better result than what these lab test procedures are showing. After all there must be a reason why the Euro oils with requiring to meet a certain minimum spec HTHS level of I believe 3.5 is a thing with the premise of engine protection from wear. 

 

Funny you should say that OnTheReel as I was wondering the same thing as I saw the results and wondered if there would have been a different outcome with those first two oils had they been tested last instead. Also in the back of my mind, picking out who might have paid the most for the best result LOL ... or did any of the companies hand them the bottles of oil "wink wink, special bottles". Hopefully everything was played fair but an honest error in testing procedure or the testing of the oils in the lab UOA wise or with the new oil testing done for sheer etc is always possible I suppose, to error is to be human it seems. 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2025 by Chuck FB

[customboss]

1 hour ago, OnTheReel said:

Not selling my stock in Red Line HP but would concede in a turbocharged engine, it’s not going to be my first choice even before the test. Like I said, I have strong reason to believe the Euro spec would be much better.
 

Maybe I missed it but if this “soft” cam was installed new for this test, some of the increased temperatures and elevated iron could be due to residual break in.
 

Hear me out. RL was tested first, and Pennzoil second. RL had highest iron, Pennzoil had second highest. RL had highest temperature, Pennzoil second highest. Torque rank…RL worst, Pennzoil second worst. These two oils are complete opposites as far as chemistry, viscosity and HTHS are very far apart. So you have to wonder about flawed methodology…

I hear you and Chuck FB. I’m critical of Lake Speed Jr many times but I’ve been dogging him to tighten up his tribology. This test by Shaver Engines was done very well. The critical flushing between tests and standardized SBC engine was done well. Reminded me of testing I did back in NASCAR qualifying engine work on dyno correlated to teardown and continual hear time oil analysis. 
 

Think of it this way. Drop the brand names and listen closely to the chemistry descriptions. I don’t care about brand I care about value for your application. 
 

I hear you but the engine was fully broken in before first test. Why they use these rings and cam. 
 

The bench testing obviously has nothing to do with dyno engine. 
 

The chemistry,  TOTAL chemistry of the formulation is critical. 
 

The key additive in Pennzoil isn’t even able to be seen except its performance. 
 

Thanks for great input. Any of these oils work well but are you getting value? 
 

 

 

[customboss]

Perplexity review : 
 

This video is a controlled comparison of eight high-end 5W‑30 synthetics on a flat-tappet small-block Chevy, using both engine-dyno data and standardized lab tests.[youtube]
Oils and test setup
The test compares Red Line, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum, Ravenol DXG USVO, Liqui Moly (Group III formula), High Performance Lubricants “no VI improver” oil, Mobil 1 Truck & SUV, Driven LS30 (older SN formula), and Amsoil Signature Series.  All are run for 2 hours at about 280 °F oil temp, with repeated 3,000–6,000 rpm pulls, and used-oil analysis on a specially designed “fast-wear” flat-tappet cam and coated rings to quantify wear metals.[youtube]
Wear and dyno results
Wear metals (after correcting for tin from moly additives) range from about 8 to 16 ppm over the 2‑hour run, with Driven LS30 and Liqui Moly giving the lowest wear readings and Red Line the highest in this specific test.  On the dyno, Liqui Moly and Driven LS30 show the strongest torque “area under the curve,” while Red Line’s higher base-oil viscosity costs some power and raises oil temperature relative to water by roughly 10 °F more than the thinner Pennzoil Ultra Platinum.[youtube]
Oxidation, shear, and deposits
In oxidation (PDSC), High Performance Lubricants is the standout at about 117 minutes, followed by Amsoil Signature Series in the high‑80‑minute range, with Pennzoil Ultra Platinum and Mobil 1 Truck & SUV clustered around the high‑60‑minute mark; Driven LS30 is weakest here, consistent with being aimed at short-interval performance use.  In KRL shear stability, HPL’s no‑VI oil and Driven LS30 show the least viscosity loss, with Pennzoil Ultra Platinum also performing better than expected and beating Ravenol’s low‑VI USVO in this particular measure.  In the turbo deposit (TOST/TEOST‑type) test, Liqui Moly and Ravenol are essentially tied for best, Amsoil Signature Series is next, and Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is an honorable mention just behind them.[youtube]
“Is Amsoil the best?” — key takeaway
Amsoil Signature Series never really “wins everything,” but it consistently places near the top in wear, oxidation stability, and turbo deposit resistance, making it a strong all‑rounder rather than a single-metric champion.  The presenter’s explicit conclusion is that there is no one universally best oil; each formulation is optimized for a different balance of wear protection, temperature, drain interval, shear stability, and deposit control, so the “best” choice depends on the specific engine and use case.[youtube]
If you want, the results can be translated into a simple table focused on the metrics that matter for your particular engines and drain intervals. STBY for table. 

[customboss]

Oil	Wear metals (2 hr test)	Dyno performance (torque/power)	Oxidation stability (PDSC)	Shear stability (KRL)	Turbo deposit test (TOST/TEOST)
Red Line 5W‑30	Highest in this group	Weakest; least area under curve	Mid-pack	Good, but not top	Mid-pack
Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5W‑30	Low–mid wear (≈13 ppm)	Good; near top group	Upper‑mid (≈68–69 min)	Very good; better than expected	Upper‑mid; just off podium
Ravenol DXG USVO 5W‑30	Low wear (≈11 ppm)	Good	Mid–upper	Good, slightly behind PUP	Among best (tie for 1st)
Liqui Moly (Group III) 5W‑30	Very low wear (≈8 ppm)	Among best area under curve	Mid	Weakest shear stability	Among best (tie for 1st)
High Performance Lubricants no‑VI	Low wear (≈13 ppm)	Good	Clear best (≈117 min)	Best (almost zero shear)	Mid
Mobil 1 Truck & SUV 5W‑30	Low wear (≈11 ppm)	Good	Upper‑mid (≈68–69 min)	Mid–good	Mid
Driven LS30 (old SN) 5W‑30	Very low wear (≈8 ppm)	Among best area under curve	Weakest oxidation life	Excellent; near top	Weak on deposits
Amsoil Signature Series 5W‑30	Low wear (≈11 ppm)	Good; not top of pack	2nd best (high‑80s min)	Good; not class‑leading	Very strong; 3rd, close to top

[OnTheReel]

1 hour ago, customboss said:

 

Thanks for great input. Any of these oils work well but are you getting value? 
 

 

 

Depends how they actually perform in your own vehicle and whether or not that even matters to someone. I’d like wear as close to zero so I don’t mind splitting hairs. And my lead foot can expose weaknesses of certain oils very easily. 
 

These bench tests are fun and can be informative. But most people are lazy and just blanket apply their results to every vehicle and every operator. Even something like oil temp is highly variable. I’m on 5w50 RL (5.0 HTHS), I log everything, and I haven’t seen any increase in temp vs any of the other oils I’ve tried in lighter grades. None.

 

The difference he measured between RL and Driven is astounding in comparison. I really don’t see RL 5w30 being too thick for any SBC. But would have been interesting to see him run 5w20 RL instead. Many people actually drop a grade when switching to Red Line so it would be logical.

 

[Atlas]

I'll admit, I don't get too far into the chemical engineering aspect. I'm content to be an "end user" with regard to motor oils. But some of these tests leave me with questions.

 

Why don't they test oil with the engine in the car, on a track, doing track things (for performance applications). I get the idea behind reducing variability in operator inputs to compare across oils, but how much value does that have when a bench test is so far removed from an actual road test.

 

For everyday wear tests why don't they test in-vehicle where the engine gets to heat, cool, sit outside in humid weather, get stuck in 2 hours of stop/go traffic, and short cycled a bunch of times running up to the store and back. That's real. A dyno isn't.

 

Rotella T4 flush? You can't tell me flushing between doesn't influence the next test. Why not flush multiple times with the next oil to be tested? Wouldn't that be a cleaner method?

 

I'm sure extrapolating results from a few hours of lab testing is useful, but these oil tests are always some guy on Youtube (doing it for the click/like/comment revenue stream).

 

A SBC is one application. I'm curious about modern applications: With direct injection, EGR, PCV and all the things that absolutely destroy engine oil...