Dyno testing Amsoil against other oils.

[customboss]

11 hours ago, Chuck FB said:

That would have been a very interesting UOA comparison to have re run the RL once again at the end of the test after a RL flush, then an actual run.

They didn't need to in a broken in new clean test engine.. Each oil saw the same engine. Not hard to understand but I guess it is.  You don't need A-B-A when you get same engine after flushing. 

 

I've done thousands of engine tests at Cummins and this was solid.  

[customboss]

On 12/7/2025 at 11:12 AM, Z45 said:

Test, no test. I been using AMSOIL since circa 1976 with extended drains and NEVER had a engine issue since, rarely have to add oil between OCI. Saw this story {image below) in 1976 when Mobil 1 was selling in select markets.  Tried to buy some but no where in my area and then stopped for gas at a small station in U.P. of Michigan and they had this new Synthetic oil on display, AMSOIL. Bought a case of 10W-40 and never looked back.  From the point on I NEVER changed oil at 3,000 miles ever again, many times going 15,000 miles in a year.  Never had an engine issue.  Was fun back then po'ing die hard oil changers by not changing my oil at 3,000 miles. 

 

History repeating itself, this was 1976. Back then AMSOIL and Mobil 1 were both claiming 25,000 OCI. But Mobil later dumbed down Mobil to gain market share in the QL industry.

I've run synthetics for the same amount of time and feel same way as you, well said.  AMSOIL is American made and uses best in class CLEAN railroad cars of additives and base oils. I can't say even after testing every known lubricant you can imagine a problem with AMSOIL. 

 

 

[customboss]

4 hours ago, Atlas said:

 

A nice 100 mile loop would be too kind. I'd suggest something that mimics a typical daily duty where most people tend to live (congested areas) including a few short cycles / trips under 3 miles, lots of stop/go in traffic, and idle.

 

Automatic start/stop: ON

 

And use a modern DI, small-displacement turbo with at least an 8-speed trans. Maybe a 2.0L hurricane (Stellantis), Ford 2.0 or 2.3, VW 2.0, etc.

 

I think that would be a true oil torture test.

How will you control environmental variables? Test driver variables? Fuel? 

[customboss]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Compare oil temps to base oil types. That is explain how a Group III with a 15% deficit in thermal conductivity and thermal capacitance ran cooler by a wide margin to the primary POA formulations. So physics is junk? 

 

If that's true why did Redline POE/PAO hold more heat than any of the oils tested? 100F delta is alot.  IT SHOCKED ME! 

 

Hard to argue with that physics right?   

 

Here's my answer :  If you load a PAO/POE based oil up with TOO MUCH ORGANOMETALLIC additives it will retain heat. Also I think the % of POE is very low now in Redline. Not what it was back in my racing days for sure. 

 

Is Redline a terrible formula NO but its got too many additives, look in a bottle and let it sit, you will see additives as black specs fall out. 

 

If you want POE go to HPL. 

[Atlas]

2 minutes ago, customboss said:

How will you control environmental variables? Test driver variables? Fuel? 

 

All good questions. Someone looking for accurate and comparable results would want to control those things as closely as possible.

 

I'm reminded of when Kia/Hyundai started doing real-world warranty testing in the early-mid aught's. Instead of test tracks and lab testing, they threw factory-built, pre-production cars at the road to both anticipate potential warranty concerns and also address those issues in production before the public got their hands on the cars. 100k miles plus. There were people who would drive the things all day on public roads, racking up miles in the real world, using pump fuel from all over.

 

Lab testing is good, but it has its limitations.

[Chuck FB]

11 minutes ago, customboss said:

They didn't need to in a broken in new clean test engine.. Each oil saw the same engine. Not hard to understand but I guess it is.  You don't need A-B-A when you get same engine after flushing. 

 

I've done thousands of engine tests at Cummins and this was solid.  

 

I should elaborate in my thinking process when I was watching the results from the video, that correlation with wear metals declined step by step from the first oil tested and so I wondered if it was just coincidence with the oils chosen to run first or what had been run in that engine prior to this round of testing or when did they last have an engine tear down. In prior videos from some time back they were literally tearing down ( and believe it was that very same block ) the engine and swapping out pistons and rings multiple times and talking about honing as well. Like at the end of this video, they tore down the engine enough to pull the cam shaft, could not even touching such a engine in that way and reassembling the same parts cause a slight disturbance in a UOA that was run after the partial tear down ?. 

 

Having said that, are the wear metal differences that statically different between the oil samples given the variables in lab testing equipment results ?

[customboss]

10 minutes ago, Atlas said:

 

All good questions. Someone looking for accurate and comparable results would want to control those things as closely as possible.

 

I'm reminded of when Kia/Hyundai started doing real-world warranty testing in the early-mid aught's. Instead of test tracks and lab testing, they threw factory-built, pre-production cars at the road to both anticipate potential warranty concerns and also address those issues in production before the public got their hands on the cars. 100k miles plus. There were people who would drive the things all day on public roads, racking up miles in the real world, using pump fuel from all over.

 

Lab testing is good, but it has its limitations.

Called fleet trials and they have so many variables they aren't as accurate as one would think.  @Grumpy Bear is right,  test your own oil and all those variables are controlled for you in your environment, with your fuel, with your driving, etc. 

 

 

[Atlas]

24 minutes ago, customboss said:

Called fleet trials and they have so many variables they aren't as accurate as one would think.  @Grumpy Bear is right,  test your own oil and all those variables are controlled for you in your environment, with your fuel, with your driving, etc. 

 

 

 

Another angle on this is...what do the deltas in the results actually mean for the real world? Is it the difference between an engine lasting 100k versus 150k? Or would it be more like 480k versus 510k?

 

A 25% increase in laps on a race rebuild?

 

What do the coolest oil temps actually accomplish in a regular oil change interval versus the next supplier whose oil runs hotter?

 

This, I believe, was my original beef with The Bear. He's since changed his tune that "if what you're doing accomplishes your goals" then pay no attention--and that makes much more sense than where we started which was, "everything except for my way is wrong".

Edited December 8, 2025 by Atlas

[customboss]

20 minutes ago, Atlas said:

 

Another angle on this is...what do the deltas in the results actually mean for the real world? Is it the difference between an engine lasting 100k versus 150k? Or would it be more like 480k versus 510k?

 

A 25% increase in laps on a race rebuild?

 

What do the coolest oil temps actually accomplish in a regular oil change interval versus the next supplier whose oil runs hotter?

Test not designed for wear alone but delta between these particular engine oil chemistries. 
 

Cooler temps are definitive. Higher oil bunker temps will directly correlate to lower wear and OXIDATION of that lubricant. Jr thought it as the higher HTHS of the Redline chemistry. I disagree. It’s the additive load. 
 

100F hotter than the others is grossly indicative of a problem. 

[customboss]

39 minutes ago, Chuck FB said:

correlation with wear metals declined step by step from the first oil tested

Incorrect conclusion in an engine that was maintained to be a NON VARIABLE. 

 

AGAIN it was built run in and stabilized BEFORE first oil tested. 

[customboss]

If the detractors think the wear levels are not meaningful statistically that’s a good indication of a stable platform to showcase oils on. 
 

You can’t have it both ways. 

[Chuck FB]

7 minutes ago, customboss said:

Incorrect conclusion in an engine that was maintained to be a NON VARIABLE. 

 

AGAIN it was built run in and stabilized BEFORE first oil tested. 

 

Like I say its a question I pose because unless I missed it and I very well could have, I didn't grasp a meaningful "before this test" explanation as to what the engine had been testing prior or how long before that it had been torn down. And as to the difference in wear metals, that too is partly a question on my part as to your thoughts on just how much or little is that difference in wear metals from greatest to least on this test. I can only say from watching prior videos and Lake Speed pointing out wear metal stats in a typical customer used UOA sample, that a couple of PPM variable isn't enough to in the big picture put too much credence on. That was why in my own mind ( and not claiming to be correct at all, I am just the layman here ) I saw the bar graphs in the way they were laid out as perhaps showing a larger spread of differences and almost like standing too close to a large picture and not being able to see the full view as a result. 

 

Pretty much I am asking questions to help fill in answers to questions I have to better understand how real world meaningful these particular tests are. 

 

Also would I be correct that although its very interesting to pit various oil types against each other, their applications are somewhat different, one at least is not at all made to run in a turbo direct injection gas engine due to LSPI risk, one is an all our race oil never designed for sustained street use, call it a very uneven playing field vs if lets say all the oils met a certain spec and lets pick the Dexos 1 spec for example ( again given this forums main theme of engines ! ) for a apples to apples comparison rather than an apples to oranges comparison that this test leaned towards.

 

Hoping I made some sense there in my question and thought process.  

[customboss]

Just now, Chuck FB said:

 

Like I say its a question I pose because unless I missed it and I very well could have, I didn't grasp a meaningful "before this test" explanation as to what the engine had been testing prior or how long before that it had been torn down. And as to the difference in wear metals, that too is partly a question on my part as to your thoughts on just how much or little is that difference in wear metals from greatest to least on this test. I can only say from watching prior videos and Lake Speed pointing out wear metal stats in a typical customer used UOA sample, that a couple of PPM variable isn't enough to in the big picture put too much credence on. That was why in my own mind ( and not claiming to be correct at all, I am just the layman here ) I saw the bar graphs in the way they were laid out as perhaps showing a larger spread of differences and almost like standing too close to a large picture and not being able to see the full view as a result. 

 

Pretty much I am asking questions to help fill in answers to questions I have to better understand how real world meaningful these particular tests are. 

 

Also would I be correct that although its very interesting to pit various oil types against each other, their applications are somewhat different, one at least is not at all made to run in a turbo direct injection gas engine due to LSPI risk, one is an all our race oil never designed for sustained street use, call it a very uneven playing field vs if lets say all the oils met a certain spec and lets pick the Dexos 1 spec for example ( again given this forums main theme of engines ! ) for a apples to apples comparison rather than an apples to oranges comparison that this test leaned towards.

 

Hoping I made some sense there in my question and thought process.  

Shaver Engines Guy and Lake Jr did speak to engine. The second video I posted which is an earlier test of cheaper oils used same engine. Same technique. 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, customboss said:

If that's true why did Redline POE/PAO hold more heat than any of the oils tested? 100F delta is alot.  IT SHOCKED ME! 

 

Hard to argue with that physics right?   

 

Here's my answer :  If you load a PAO/POE based oil up with TOO MUCH ORGANOMETALLIC additives it will retain heat. Also I think the % of POE is very low now in Redline. Not what it was back in my racing days for sure. 

 

Is Redline a terrible formula NO but its got too many additives, look in a bottle and let it sit, you will see additives as black specs fall out. 

 

If you want POE go to HPL. 

 

It varies a bit by grade but the test I run agree with Lake. Oxidation still showing lots of POE. 5W30 at 100 and my most recent 5W40 over 60. The 0W40 is near 120 as is the 0W20 still. If your going to say it isn't an indicator then ask Lake why he can estimate content by oxidation? 

 

Yes it has changed over the years. Most recent MSDS <14.9% light distillate. The carrier oil for the add package. Remainder is still 30% or more POE and balance PAO. As of Feb this year. 

 

Pay attention to the most recent additive packages. Lower TBN's, More Mg and less Ca. Less Moly. More Boron. Lower loads of Phos and Zinc as limited by ACEA A3/B4. The oil is changing, your brain is stuck. Every few months they add a new LSPI friendly grade to the HP line. You want a DEXOS oil with a Red Line label. Use the Black bottle Professional series. 

Add the double talk he did. Tossing out the first few dyno power pulls after showing more area UNDER THE CURVE with the Red Line until purged from the motor and multiple power passes. He can't have it both ways. 

 

Nothing in my real world experience is agreeing with this testing. Temperatures I have show MULTIPLE times to be substantially lower. Never used an oil that runs cleaner. Shown that over the life of my projects. Have also shown failure, something the rest don't like to show, using cheap but licensed oils. 

 

Something I agree with from the Engineering Explained guy is, "You can find a study to support every position". 

 

In no world, under those base conditions is RL running 100F over temperature for the reason of additive overloading. Something is amiss and you friend are starting to disappoint me by not questioning that yourself. 

 

Increased wear was the result of high temp causing low location viscosity and not additive failures. it's why GM tells Camaro owners to VIS UP on track day. That test is ridiculous. But you want to believe it, fine by me. 

 

 

[OnTheReel]

I definitely think there’s a certain degree of “Hollywood” whenever anyone does these YouTube oil videos. Not sending the pitchforks out for LSJr as I believe he did try to make things fair. But the temperature / iron / torque relationship with the order of testing is very hard to ignore and it should have stuck out to him as well. No curiosity?

 

Put all that aside…the bigger issue once again is how the video gets interpreted. The subject is simply too nuanced to make videos like this and expect a casual enthusiast to draw the correct conclusion. Which generally should be NO conclusion at all…