When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Pete, your tests show exactly what someone needs for some good comparisons. I believe what you did was very fair and an accurate way of evaluating the two oils, well, with observation number 1 anyway. IIRC, Amsoil has very little, if any Moly in it, or what is in there is not used as a friction modifier. I also experienced the same as observation number 2, truck just felt stronger.
Some question the green tint to it, and why it's like that. Reason is, the base stock Schaeffer's uses is actually clear as water, because of it's purity. It's died green so the customer knows that it's really oil. Plus, could you imagine trying to check a dipstick with a clear oil!!
IIRC, Amsoil has very little, if any Moly in it...
JT, I mentioned that in my earlier post...the last time I knew there was zero moly in Amsoil, but they might have changed their formulation. I want to add that I was not trying to bash Amsoil, I just put together what I know about Schaeffer's and Amsoil - and on that basis, Schaeffers is the clear choice (based on moly content, engine manufacturer spec's, and TBN) I'd be using the 9000 if there was a rep nearby (in fact, I emailed Schaeffers about rep possibilities in the Reno area ).
BTW, JT, do you have a UOA of SChaeffers 9000 showing TBN? If so, would you post it?
First Schaeffer's Supreme 9000 has a TBN of 12, while AMSOIL Synthetic 5W-40 Premium Diesel Oil has a TBN of 8. I will bet a UOA on the Supreme 9000 oil has a TBN greater than 8 after 5000 miles (I bet someone here can demonstrate that...please post a UOA showing TBN if you have one)! Now look at this from Schaeffers website:
.
This can't be true because at 13500 miles my TBN was 9.2
Neal, I don't have one in electronic format that I could attach, but I did search back through my UOA's that were mailed to me and the newest one I have with a TBN was from 01/07. After 3000 miles, the TBN was 10.4 with the series 9000.
One thing I'll say about TBN is that with the reformulation to the newest CJ spec, everybody's base or starting TBN has dropped to a lower number. However, it's what's been done to the oil that will make that TBN last that's the key. So, say a new oil had an old starting TBN of 12 and now it's got a starting TBN of 9, it's not going to fall off as fast as it did before, and it's still safe to run extended drain intervals. I know this is true with Schaeffer's, the not falling off as fast as the old stuff, and starting with a lower TBN, but don't know how the other oils will hold up. Schaeffer's made sure to make the new formulation such that extended drain intervals would still be something you could do without worry.
This can't be true because at 13500 miles my TBN was 9.2
I'd like to add a correction to what I stated earlier: ..."First Schaeffer's Supreme 9000 has a TBN of 12, while AMSOIL Synthetic 5W-40 Premium Diesel Oil has a TBN of 8." The new formulation of Schaeffer's 9000 has a TBN of 10, not 12. Twelve was the TBN in the earlier formulation.
I'd guess your OA supplier has a problem with equipment calibration Ray (or as JT hypothesized later in this thread), that you had the earlier formulation)...from AMSOIL website, please check spec line #10:
Neal, I don't have one in electronic format that I could attach, but I did search back through my UOA's that were mailed to me and the newest one I have with a TBN was from 01/07. After 3000 miles, the TBN was 10.4 with the series 9000.
One thing I'll say about TBN is that with the reformulation to the newest CJ spec, everybody's base or starting TBN has dropped to a lower number. However, it's what's been done to the oil that will make that TBN last that's the key. So, say a new oil had an old starting TBN of 12 and now it's got a starting TBN of 9, it's not going to fall off as fast as it did before, and it's still safe to run extended drain intervals. I know this is true with Schaeffer's, the not falling off as fast as the old stuff, and starting with a lower TBN, but don't know how the other oils will hold up. Schaeffer's made sure to make the new formulation such that extended drain intervals would still be something you could do without worry.
I absolutely agree (they are yanking out a lot of buffering agents in this newer standard), but wouldn't you agree if we came up with a UOA on Schaeffer's 9000 at 5,000 mile OCI it would still be above the TBN of Amsoil (8.0) in the same rig after a 5,000 mile OCI? In addition, don't you believe that in similar applications, the Schaeffer's 9000 would always have a TBN higher than Amsoil's synthetic?
I have some Blackstone TBN values for both Amsoil's DEO (NEW oil, at about 8K miles, and then again at about 13K miles) and my first run on the Schaeffer's 9000 (same three mileage points as with the DEO). I'll try to find them tonight and report up the comparative values.
I absolutely agree (they are yanking out a lot of buffering agents in this newer standard), but wouldn't you agree if we came up with a UOA on Schaeffer's 9000 at 5,000 mile OCI it would still be above the TBN of Amsoil (8.0) in the same rig after a 5,000 mile OCI? In addition, don't you believe that in similar applications, the Schaeffer's 9000 would always have a TBN higher than Amsoil's synthetic?
I would definitely agree that the Schaeffer's TBN would be higher than the Amsoil's TBN. It may fall under an 8.0 by 5000 miles, but I wouldn't imagine it would be much below that. Depends a lot on driving conditions, mods to the truck, etc...but you already know that.
Ray's 9.3 TBN may have been from a while back, before the reformulation, hence the higher number than what current specs are. Similar to my Schaeffer's TBN of 10.4 on the old stuff being higher than current new specs. Just a thought on what's causing the discrepancy.
There's also the potential for either lab error, manufacturing error, or both.... and this is true for all manufacturers and all labs.
I've spent 23 years working with (and sometimes managing) industrial "high-tech" labs, ISO qualifications/auditing, manufacturing QA/QC departments, etc., and I can say with certainty that there's not an instrument anywhere that does not have some degree of error to it.
Add to that the fact that a lot of technical specifications are established with statements like "meets or exceeds...", "minimum of...", or "maximum of...", there is definitely some wiggle room on some technical properties for all product lines.
I just made the switch to shell 5w-40 and I am kicking myself now. However the only place that sales it near me is retail and they want $24 a gallon. Would I be better off on 5w-40 or 15-40? Dont have much cold weather but I want the best oil for my truck plus synthetic seems to smooth the idle. Just tryin to make sure the 5-40 cant harm my truck in anyway.
Ben... there's no harm at all... I've been running the 9000 product for nearly 20,000 miles through both cold and hot southern months... nary an issue!
I just made the switch to shell 5w-40 and I am kicking myself now. However the only place that sales it near me is retail and they want $24 a gallon. Would I be better off on 5w-40 or 15-40? Dont have much cold weather but I want the best oil for my truck plus synthetic seems to smooth the idle. Just tryin to make sure the 5-40 cant harm my truck in anyway.
You are using VERY good oil in that truck...you will not do it any harm and a lot of good. Watch you oil change interval and use top quality filters and you will never have a problem with that oil.
But which formulation of Amsoil (CJ4,CJ4+, etc) did it come from? The earlier formulation had a higher TBN (I assume) because all the older formulations of other brand oils had a higher TBN before the new spec's. BTW, I have seen numerous lab reports from Blackstone and others which had to have calibration errors. I have run analysis equipment in a physiology lab which measured things in PPM...breath the wrong way around them during calibration and the readings would come out bogus.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.