The Amsoil Anomaly:
#181
01-05-2007, 02:35 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nothern Indiana
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beware -MLM Has New Marketing Tricks For ATF Fluid - Namely Mercon SP!!!
Can we move this to the Oil and Lube thread since its being discussed there also.
Originally Posted by moderator
prepare to assimilate...
Last edited by horsepuller; 01-05-2007 at 07:42 PM.
#182
01-05-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by aurgathor
Bocomo, since you're already using Mobil 1, Amsoil wouldn't be a whole lot more expensive, and you could try to independently verify the claim about the mpg gain with Amsoil. 
Of course, I would definitely not use it in a vehicle that's under warranty.
Of course, I would definitely not use it in a vehicle that's under warranty.
#183
01-05-2007, 02:46 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nothern Indiana
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by firesoutmatt
Matt,
Thank you for contacting AMSOIL with your concerns.
In response to your inquiry, our AMSOIL ATF has very recently been reformulated to meet the requirements of MERCON SP. Please use batch # 10189 or higher.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ed Kellerman
AMSOIL Technical Advisor
Thank you for contacting AMSOIL with your concerns.
In response to your inquiry, our AMSOIL ATF has very recently been reformulated to meet the requirements of MERCON SP. Please use batch # 10189 or higher.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ed Kellerman
AMSOIL Technical Advisor
What part isn't clear enough for you Bob ????
AMSOIL ATF has very recently been reformulated to meet the requirements of MERCON SP. Please use batch # 10189 or higher
#184
01-05-2007, 03:11 PM
Post Fiend
Originally Posted by aurgathor
But normally, one need to disconect many things, including some vacuum hoses to get the cover off.
Possible. My point is that doing any engine work that can conceivably have an effect on the operation can introduce significant errors, and so they are a big no-no, although for an ad-hoc test this can be relaxed somewhat, so I wouldn't pick on a belt, alternator, or water pump change if that's needed (just to name a few) as long as nothing else is touched and the same parts are used. (no higher amp alternator, for instance)
Nope. I'm arguing about the validity of his test and conclusion. I had a class titled "Research Methods" (PSYCH 210) in college, and we had many examples there where even seasoned researchers have overlooked something they thought didn't exist, or was insignificant. And this could be a textbook example, too.
The most obvious problems I see with this test:
1. Control is tainted
2. No attempt was made to verify that the mpg gain was due to Amsoil
Simply alternating between Amsoil and another oil could've remedied the above issues.
As for the conclusion:
3. For me, 16% is very hard to believe without any additional data from a source that can be trusted, or an explanation with some other data.
I'm not sure if it was intended to be a test from the beginning, or he just noticed the better mpg (I assume the latter) and that makes a confound more likely.
I did some googling for +Amsoil, +mpg, +gain and generally the quoted gain was between 5% - 10%, though there were higher numbers, too. Interestingly (?!), many of the sites were somehow related to Amsoil, so they weren't exactly independent. And in some cases, it was easy to spot the confound, like comparing 10W40 Mobil 1 to 0W40 Amsoil.
Lastly, I haven't mentioned this in this thread yet since it may not apply to this case (or I don't know how) but there is the:
4. Amsoil, umm, err, placebo effect
What exactly do you consider result?
In any case, if the mpg gain was due to Amsoil, anyone using it should be seeing mpg gains in the same ballpark, which I'd say would be in the 10% - 15% range, to be on the conservative side.
BTW, I have yet to see others posting mpg gains with Ansoil....
Possible. My point is that doing any engine work that can conceivably have an effect on the operation can introduce significant errors, and so they are a big no-no, although for an ad-hoc test this can be relaxed somewhat, so I wouldn't pick on a belt, alternator, or water pump change if that's needed (just to name a few) as long as nothing else is touched and the same parts are used. (no higher amp alternator, for instance)
Nope. I'm arguing about the validity of his test and conclusion. I had a class titled "Research Methods" (PSYCH 210) in college, and we had many examples there where even seasoned researchers have overlooked something they thought didn't exist, or was insignificant. And this could be a textbook example, too.
The most obvious problems I see with this test:1. Control is tainted
2. No attempt was made to verify that the mpg gain was due to Amsoil
Simply alternating between Amsoil and another oil could've remedied the above issues.
As for the conclusion:
3. For me, 16% is very hard to believe without any additional data from a source that can be trusted, or an explanation with some other data.
I'm not sure if it was intended to be a test from the beginning, or he just noticed the better mpg (I assume the latter) and that makes a confound more likely.
I did some googling for +Amsoil, +mpg, +gain and generally the quoted gain was between 5% - 10%, though there were higher numbers, too. Interestingly (?!), many of the sites were somehow related to Amsoil, so they weren't exactly independent. And in some cases, it was easy to spot the confound, like comparing 10W40 Mobil 1 to 0W40 Amsoil.
Lastly, I haven't mentioned this in this thread yet since it may not apply to this case (or I don't know how) but there is the:
4. Amsoil, umm, err, placebo effect
What exactly do you consider result?
In any case, if the mpg gain was due to Amsoil, anyone using it should be seeing mpg gains in the same ballpark, which I'd say would be in the 10% - 15% range, to be on the conservative side.
BTW, I have yet to see others posting mpg gains with Ansoil....
I was agreeing with you, and you're arguing? WTF dude! I was pointing out that there could have been even more confounds than just the valve cover gasket. The very act of taking everything apart and replacing it could have caused a multitude.
For the record, this is what I would consider a meaningful result, from which conclusions can be drawn:
1. Consistant
2. Repeatable
3. Has a large enough data set to be meaningful. (large enough varies with what you're studying).
4. Test is relevant to what you're studying. (you dont test cooking oil for anti-wear properties, for instance)
5. Only one value is changed at a time, everything else is held consistant. (in this case that would be the motor oil)
His test fails repeatedly on that measure. See here:
1. Consistant: He only tested once, so this doesn't apply.
2. Repeatable: He didn't.
3. Data set: One test is too low.
4. Relevant: Yes, mileage is a relevant test for motor oil.
5. Only one value changed: More than one value was changed, so his test fails here too.
I consider result to mean any outcome of any experiment. However, this differs greatly from meaningful result (see above).
So yes, he did get a result, just not a meaningful one.
#185
01-05-2007, 03:34 PM
Well since I just bought my truck Tuesday we may need another volunteer for some independent testing. My 2006 F150 4x4 only has 1170 miles. I may change the oil and filter at about 2000 miles, then every 5000. I guess I better get some base numbers first, then I can see if my MPG ever goes up.
#186
01-05-2007, 04:20 PM
Post Fiend
I'd wait a while for the mileage to stabilize. They normally gain mileage for quite a while after break-in, and this may skew the results.
Then ask for proper testing methodology, preferrably in a new thread. This one's getting rather clogged!
Then ask for proper testing methodology, preferrably in a new thread. This one's getting rather clogged!
#187
01-05-2007, 04:50 PM
Bocomo, your profile has a 2000 F250 -- that would've been good enough, but with a brand new truck you could void warranty, plus the motor is not broken in.
#188
01-05-2007, 06:05 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: York, PA
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackstone test report using amsoil
i've been running amsoil and their dual remote bypass filtration in my 2000 f-250 superduty 7.3 diesel for 210,000 miles. Since learing about oil testing and being concerned about the bypass system, I have began testing of the oil every 5,000 miles. Here are the results:
(hopefully the attachment shows up)
(hopefully the attachment shows up)
#191
01-05-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by bloomy63
i've been running amsoil and their dual remote bypass filtration in my 2000 f-250 superduty 7.3 diesel for 210,000 miles. Since learing about oil testing and being concerned about the bypass system, I have began testing of the oil every 5,000 miles. Here are the results:
(hopefully the attachment shows up)
(hopefully the attachment shows up)
an Amsoil oil:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/3...ggestions.html
#192
01-05-2007, 06:26 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: York, PA
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The turbos going bad were from me abusing them, constant over boost. since i have installed the bb turbo, no problems so far. and no signs of bearing wear on the blackstone reports.
#194
01-05-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by bloomy63
The turbos going bad were from me abusing them, constant over boost. since i have installed the bb turbo, no problems so far. and no signs of bearing wear on the blackstone reports.
#195
01-05-2007, 06:45 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nothern Indiana
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Ayers
The bypass filters are probably pulling the wear metals out....and it looks like you only have about 50K miles on this turbo.....
lol I know of alot of turbos that didn't make it 5k miles on Motorcraft oil.