Your Next Oil Change.com

Three cost effective solutions from AMSOIL

2011-11-25T11:57:00.000-08:00

How often do you change the oil in your vehicle? Do you follow a more traditional 3,000-mile/3-month schedule, the recommendation in your owner’s manual, or are you interested in extended life oil changes? Whatever your oil change preference, AMSOIL has the solution for you. Starting at only $5.38 per quart, AMSOIL high quality synthetic motor oil may be more cost effective than you ever imagined. Send us a message today and see what we can do for you. AMSOIL, the first API rated synthetic passenger car motor oil since 1972.

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

Imported From Detroit - Making an Award Winning Engine

2011-04-02T00:10:00.000-07:00

Trenton Michigan USA

All-new Chrysler 3.6-liter, DOHC, 24-valve Pentastar V-6 Technical Specifications

2011 Ward's 10 Best Engines List
Horsepower: 292 hp @ 6350 rpm
Torque: 260 ft-lbs. @ 4800 rpm
EPA mileage est. (cty/hwy): 18/27 mpg
Displacement: 3.6 liters
Bore x stroke: 96 x 83 mm
Valve train system: Double-overhead cam with roller finger followers and hydraulic lash adjusters. Dual independent cam-torque actuated phasers.
Fuel injection: Multi-point port fuel injection
Construction: High-pressure die-cast aluminum cylinder block and semi-permanent mold aluminum cylinder head.
Maximum engine speed: 7200 rpm
Fuel requirement: E85 (Ethanol) or unleaded regular, 87 octane (R+M)/2
Emission capability: PZEV
Canister-free oil filter element on top of the engine — prevents landfill, allows incineration, eases oil changes.
5W-30 ILSAC GF-5 Motor Oil is recommended. The standard change interval, with this oil, is 8,000 miles under normal driving conditions with six quart oil capacity.

AMSOIL motor oil recommendation:

Click here for more information

AMSOIL INC. has been the recognized leader in synthetic lubricant and filtration products since 1972 producing the first 100% synthetic motor oil to be recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Amsoil Dealer info:

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

Links:

Chrysler 3.6L Pentastar DOHC V-6 Exhaust Note sound clip - link

Press Release: All-new Pentastar V-6 Engine from Chrysler Group LLC Improves Powertrain Flexibility and Fuel Efficiency - link

2011 Ward's 10 Best Engines Ceremony - link

AMSOIL Quickshot SE Awarded Best New Powersports Product by SEMA Judges

2010-11-19T23:47:00.000-08:00

AMSOIL Quickshot SE Fuel Additive has been granted the Best New Powersports Product award for 2011 at the SEMA Show at the Las Vegas Convention Center. This year, over 2,000 new products were submitted for consideration of this distinctive honor in various categories. In determining the winners, judges looked for superiority of innovation, technical achievement, quality, consumer appeal and marketability.

AMSOIL Quickshot SE is a premium fuel additive formulated to clean and restore optimal performance in small engine and powersports equipment fuel systems. It acts as a fuel stabilizer between uses and short-term storage and helps prevent damaging corrosion. Its revolutionary formulation focuses on three major fuel-related issues common in small engine equipment: ethanol, water and dirty gasoline.

AMSOIL Quickshot SE is designed to keep water dispersed throughout the fuel tank, moving it out and decreasing the chance of ethanol separating from the gasoline. Moisture finding its way into gas tanks through condensation is dispersed in tiny molecules and safely moved out of the tank through the combustion chamber. The lack of additives in today’s gasoline can cause fuel system gumming and varnish, creating deposits on critical components. AMSOIL Quickshot SE cleans hard to remove deposits on pistons, spark plugs, injectors, carburetors and other combustion chamber parts to maintain peak operating power.

AMSOIL Quickshot SE is recommended for use in all two-and four-stroke gasoline powered engines including motorcycles, snowmobiles, personal watercraft, boats, ATV’s, edgers, tillers, mowers, snow blowers, chain saws, generators and farm and construction equipment.

Click here for more information

AMSOIL has been the recognized leader in synthetic lubrication since 1972. For more information about AMSOIL synthetic motor oils and performance products go to CompetitionSynthetics.com or call 208.413.8323

Other Articles:

SEMA 2010 - New Products Showcase Features More Than 2,000 Entries—Here Are the Winners - link

Snowmobile.com - AMSOIL Quickshot SE picks up top award at SEMA - link

ATV/SXS Illustrated - AMSOIL Quickshot SE Awarded Best New Powersports Product by SEMA Judges - link

Reformulated, Repackaged XL Synthetic Motor Oils

2010-11-07T15:41:00.000-08:00

AMSOIL XL Synthetic Motor Oils have been reformulated to last longer in service and meet the more stringent ILSAC GF-5 and API SN service categories. Available in four different viscosities, XL Synthetic Motor Oils are recommended for up to 10,000 miles or six months of service, whichever comes first, or longer when recommended in owners’ manuals or indicated by electronic oil life monitoring systems.

Amsoil SAE 5W-20 XL Extended Life Synthetic Motor Oil

Click here for more information

Amsoil SAE 5W-30 XL Extended Life Synthetic Motor Oil

Click here for more information

Amsoil SAE 10W-30 XL Extended Life Synthetic Motor Oil

Click here for more information

Amsoil SAE 10W-40 XL Extended Life Synthetic Motor Oil

Click here for more information

Business Owners

Business owners, do you operate a quick lube, tire store, or service shop? Click HERE and register today to carry Amsoil at your business.

Consider, Amsoil XL:

XL is the next step up from Amsoil's fully synthetic OE motor oil line.
Oil change recommendation is set by Amsoil at 10,000-miles or 6-months.
Fully licensed by the American Petroleum Institute as API SN/GF-5
XL is compatible with petroleum and synthetic motor oils.
The 5W-30 version is compliant with the GM dexos1 specification.
Available in quarts, 30-gallon drums, 55-gallon drums and 275-gallon totes.

Introducing: Amsoil OE

2010-11-07T03:34:00.001-08:00

AMSOIL is introducing its latest line of synthetic motor oils. AMSOIL OE Synthetic Motor Oils are specially formulated for the longer oil change intervals recommended by vehicle manufacturers today. Available in three viscosities, this advanced synthetic technology resists chemical breakdown for maximum wear protection (and peace of mind) well beyond the traditional 3,000-mile oil change interval.

Amsoil OE, a premium performing full synthetic motor oil without the premium price. Move up to Amsoil!

Amsoil OE is available in three viscosities, 5W-20, 5W-30 and 10W-30

Click here for more information

Business Owners

Business owners, do you operate a quick lube, tire store, or service shop? Click HERE and register today to carry Amsoil at your business.

Consider, Amsoil OE:

Competitive pricing when compared to other commonly available fully synthetic motor oils.
Oil change recommendation based on the recommendations of the Original Equipment Manufacturer.
Fully licensed by the American Petroleum Institute as API SN/GF-5
OE is compatible with petroleum and synthetic motor oils.
The 5W-30 version is compliant with the GM dexos1 specification.
Available in quarts, 30-gallon drums, 55-gallon drums and 275-gallon totes.

Muscle Car Tech

2010-10-25T03:21:00.000-07:00

Objective:

Provide facts outlining lubrication requirements of flat tappet camshaft engines and the importance of higher levels of zinc and phosphorus.

Issues:

Flat tappet camshafts undergo extreme pressure and loads, thus requiring an engine oil that is fortified with anti-wear additives to provide premium protection. The severity of higher spring pressure in racing engines also creates the need for additional wear protection.

Click on image to enlarge

Technical Discussion:

The most commonly used anti-wear additive in motor oils is zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). ZDDP contains both zinc and phosphorus components working together to provide anti-wear protection, and is most important during cam “break-in” procedures. Proper break-in lubes should be used during the break-in phase for all new or rebuilt engines with flat tappets. These lubricants provide the extra protection required to reduce wear at the point of contact during break-in and help the flat tappet face properly mate with the cam lobe. Once the break-in phase is completed, AMSOIL motor oils, which are formulated with high levels of zinc and phosphorus, will provide premium protection to flat tappet cams.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and International Lubricants Standards Approval Committee (ILSAC) have mandated the reduction of phosphorus to extend catalytic converter life. However, reducing the level of ZDDP can compromise protection to engine components, most notably in flat tappet camshafts. Current API SM and ILSAC GF-4 specifications for gasoline engines have maximum and minimum phosphorus levels of 800 ppm and 600 ppm, respectively, for SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30 and SAE 10W-30 motor oils. All other gasoline SAE grades do not have a mandated phosphorus limit.

All engines, especially high-performance modified engines, benefit from oils with superior film strength and anti-wear properties. The flat tappet/camshaft lobe interface is the one area in an engine that has extreme contact load. Since this load increases significantly when non-stock, high-pressure valve springs are employed, the use of properly formulated motor oils is extremely important to reduce wear and extend flat tappet/ camshaft life.

Recommendation:

AMSOIL recommends motor oils containing high levels of zinc/phosphorus for superior protection. The table below lists many of the AMSOIL synthetic motor oils that are formulated with high levels of anti-wear additives:

Click on image to enlarge

AMSOIL AMO, ARO, HDD, AME, RD20, RD30, RD50 and AHR all contain high levels of zinc/phosphorus, maximizing flat tappet/camshaft life in stock modified and high-performance applications.

AMSOIL 10W-40 (AMO) is a premium synthetic formulation which is recommended for API SL (gasoline)/CI-4 Plus (heavy-duty, on-road diesel) specified applications. It is an outstanding choice where high zinc containing protection is required in late model hot rods requiring extra camshaft protection.

*AMSOIL 10W-40 (AMO) is the offical motor oil used in the Amsoil/Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge*

Tech Article: Choosing The Best Oils For Your Mopar Engine - Lifeblood Picking The Right Oil For Your Mopar Muscle Car

AMSOIL 20W-50 (ARO) is a premium synthetic formulation which is recommended for API SL (gasoline)/CI-4 Plus (heavy-duty, on-road diesel) specified applications. It is an outstanding choice where high zinc containing protection is required in late model hot rods requiring extra camshaft protection.

AMSOIL (HDD) is a 5W-30 weight combination diesel/gasoline oil with a higher starting TBN to handle the significant stresses from high soot loading and acid generation in modern diesel engines. HDD contains the high phosphorus and zinc required for long life.

AMSOIL 15W-40 Synthetic Heavy Duty Diesel and Marine Motor Oil (AME) is engineered for use in a wide variety of light and heavy-duty applications. AME is formulated with high levels of zinc and phosphorus to ensure protection of flat tappet camshaft lobes in high performance diesel engines.

AMSOIL Dominator Synthetic 5W-20, 10W-30 and 15W-50 Racing Oils (RD20, RD30, RD50) are all formulated with the same robust additive package. These oils are heavily fortified with zinc and phosphorus to protect flat tappet cams in the most extreme racing conditions.

AMSOIL (AHR) is a super heavy SAE 60 weight racing oil de-signed for alcohol and nitro burning race engines where viscosity loss associated with fuel dilution is a concern. AHR includes a high dose of zinc containing anti-wear chemistry that race engines require.

Buying high zinc motor oil? Pick up an oil or air filter for your vintage vehicle and save yourself a trip to the parts store.

Click on image for look-up guide

At the Performance Racing Industry trade show in Orlando, Fla. in December 2006 AMSOIL announced its new affiliation with Mopar Muscle magazine to become “Official Oil” of the MOPAR Muscle Engine Challenge.

All engines that compete in the challenge must use Amsoil 10W-40 (ARO) 100% Synthetic motor oil and no engine has ever experienced an oil related failure.

2010 Mopar Muscle Magazine Videos:

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge Intro

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge Schurbon Time Lapse

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - MRL Performance

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Promax

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - B&G Speed And Machine

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Mid America

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Chenoweth Speed And Machine

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Schurbon Engine And Machine

2010 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Wrapup

2009 Mopar Muscle Magazine Videos:

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Wrap Up Video

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Chenoweth Speed and Machine

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - JD Engines

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - La Roy Engines

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - RM Competition Engines

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Mid-America Engines

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Schurbon Engine and Machine and Mo-Par City

2009 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Challenge - ProMax Carbs and Performance Parts

2008 Mopar Muscle Magazine Videos:

Indy Cylinder Head at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

Promax Carbs and Performance Parts at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

JD Engine And Machine at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

Indy Cylinder Head at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

Scott Schurbon Engine and Machine at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

JMS Engines at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

Cedarstrand Engines at the 2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

2008 AMSOIL Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge Wrap-Up Video

The '07 Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Small-Block Shootout
An Update On The Not-So-Small Small-Blocks

The '07 AMSOIL/Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Tech
What Does It Take To Win?

The '07 Amsoil/Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Tech
The Results Are In!

The '07 Amsoil/Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge - Tech

Mopar Stroker Small Block - The 2007 AMSOIL/Mopar Muscle Engine Challenge

Mopar Stroker Small Block Engine Challenge 2007 - The Mopar Muscle /Amsoil Engine Challenge - Tech

Ford Debunks 3,000-Mile Myth

2010-04-07T03:09:00.000-07:00

Ford Motor Company issued an “automotive maintenance myths” statement last month that both debunked the traditional 3,000-mile oil change and promoted the use of synthetic motor oil.

MYTH: Cars need oil changes every three months or 3,000 miles.

False: That used to be true, but not with newer cars. Because of synthetic oils that don’t break down as quickly, consumers actually don’t need oil changes as often – more like every 5,000 to 7,500 miles – or even 10,000 on the new 2011 Mustang depending on your driving habits. (There may be two recommendations for oil-change intervals: one for normal driving and one for hard use. Check your maintenance guide to be sure.)

SAVE: Either way, there’s a considerable savings here: Let’s say you’re an average consumer who drives 12,000 miles a year, which means you would need about four oil changes a year under the old formula. With the new extended mileage, consumers need only about two oil changes a year, cutting their bill for oil changes in half – you could pocket upward of $50 a year or $650 in the lifetime of your car and do something to help the environment by saving oil.

Quote Cited: Don’t Waste Money On Outdated Advice; Ford Takes A Look At Longstanding Maintenance Myths, Media.Ford.com - link

General Motors has previously stated that traditional 3,000-mile oil change recommendations are outdated. In June 2008, the company teamed with the California Environmental Protection Agency and its Integrated Waste Management board to promote the state’s “3,000 Mile Myth” campaign encouraging drivers to follow auto manufacturers’ recommended drain intervals.

AMSOIL developed the first extended drain motor oil and is the leader in extended drain technology. As an increasing number of automotive manufacturers follow that lead, drain interval recommendations will continue to climb.

Source Cited:

Ford Debunks 3,000-Mile Myth, Amsoil: The Hotwire, Thursday, April 1, 2010 - link

Lube Report - Ford Knocks 3,000-mile Intervals, Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - link

Related Articles:

3,000-Mile Oil Change Comes Under Fire -link

Amsoil Dealer info:

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

Your Next Diesel Engine Oil

2010-03-08T05:22:00.000-08:00

Provided below is information provided by Amsoil, Inc., regarding inherent late model Ford, GM and Dodge diesel engine issues.

Issues:

AMSOIL has documented increasing levels of fuel contamination (fuel dilution) in the engine oil of 2007-2008 light-duty Ford, GM and Dodge diesel pickups, and indications are that 2009-2010 models are also affected. Research indicates fuel dilution is intensifying due to the use of in-cylinder post-fuel injection during the engine’s exhaust stroke to regenerate the diesel particulate filter (DPF). Fuel in the oil reduces the oil’s life expectancy and effectiveness. Because diesel fuel is a natural solvent, fuel dilution in motor oil causes a decrease in viscosity which may lead to an increase in engine wear rates.

Solution:

Click here to view full field study

Hard-working diesel engines present a serious challenge to the lubricants that protect them. Tight clearances and intense pressures can generate enough force to tear apart the molecular structure of the oil, causing permanent viscosity loss. Permanent viscosity loss is termed “shear” and leads to accelerated equipment wear, oil consumption and deposit formation.

Shear stability measures a lubricant’s ability to withstand shearing forces without degrading to a lower viscosity. To meet CJ-4 requirements for shear stability, the American Petroleum Institute (API) requires diesel oils to pass the Kurt Orbahn 90-Cycle Shear Stability Test. Resisting shear and maintaining protective viscosity in the harsh operating conditions of diesel engines is challenge enough for many diesel oils, but maintaining viscosity in the face of fuel dilution is another challenge altogether. Factors such as frequent starts, excessive engine idling, short trips and cold weather have contributed to moderate levels of fuel dilution in diesel applications for years, while recent issues with emission systems have brought the fuel dilution problem to a whole new level.

For example, AMSOIL has documented increasing fuel dilution levels in 2007-2009 Caterpillar C13 and C15 on-highway engines. There are many possible causes, including problems with a unit injector or leaking seals. Another cause of fuel dilution is new emission systems using in-cylinder post-fuel injection, a process most 2007-2010 light-duty GM, Ford and Dodge diesel pickups use to regenerate the diesel particulate filter.

Because diesel fuel is a natural solvent, it causes a multitude of problems when it contaminates the oil, including reduced oil viscosity, reduced oil fi lm strength, increased engine wear (particularly in the cylinder/ring area), increased volatility, weakened lubricant detergency, accelerated lubricant oxidation, varnish formation, acid formation/corrosion and low oil pressure.

The most notable problem associated with increased fuel contamination is reduced viscosity and the corresponding effect it has on oil performance. When combined with shearing conditions, as little as 4 percent fuel dilution is generally enough to reduce an oil’s viscosity to less than the specified viscosity grade.

AMSOIL sent five competitive synthetic CJ-4 5W-40 diesel oils to an independent laboratory for shear stability testing. Knowing the tough environment that diesels present to lubricating oils, AMSOIL doubled the standard Kurt Orbahn 90-cycle test and had the oils tested for 180 cycles. Samples were then contaminated with 2 and 4 percent ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. As the graph shows, even after being shear tested for twice the industry standard and contaminated with 4 percent fuel dilution, AMSOIL maintained viscosity and was the only oil to stay within an SAE 40 viscosity rating. As other oils lost viscosity due to shearing forces and fuel dilution, their ability to protect against wear was jeopardized.

Click on image to enlarge

AMSOIL Premium Diesel Oils are formulated with an ultra shear stable polymer system that maintains viscosity better than inferior products. Testing proves that AMSOIL provides unsurpassed shear stability, offering better viscosity control than competitive oils.

Recommendations:

Although AMSOIL Premium Diesel Oils have shown the ability to maintain integrity under fuel dilution conditions, the abnormally high rate and unknown long-term effects have forced AMSOIL to adjust its drain interval recommendations as a precautionary measure in 2007-2010 Dodge 6.7L, Ford 6.4L and GM 6.6L LMM light-duty turbo-diesel pickups. In these applications, AMSOIL recommends changing AMSOIL Premium API CJ-4 Synthetic Diesel Oils (DEO, DME) at the manufacturer-recommended drain interval. Drain intervals may be extended further with oil analysis.

Amsoil DEO - link / Amsoil DME - link

AMSOIL previously announced a fuel dilution issue in 2007-2009 on-highway Caterpillar C13 and C15 engines that forced the company to adjust its drain interval recommendation in those applications to the manufacturer-recommended drain interval.

In all other applications, AMSOIL full synthetic diesel oils are recommended for three times (3X) the OEM recommendation, not to exceed 50,000 miles/600 hours or one year, whichever comes first, while Synthetic Blend 15W-40 Heavy Duty Diesel and Gasoline Motor Oil (PCO) is recommended for the longest OEM recommended drain interval. Drain intervals may be extended further with oil analysis.

Amsoil PCO - link

Related article: Does Syn Oil Lead to Salvation? - link

Manufacture & Dealer Information

AMSOIL INC., headquartered in Superior, Wisconsin., is a recognized leader in synthetic lubricant and filtration products since 1972 producing the first 100% synthetic motor oil to be recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

Fuel Economy and Synthetics

2010-01-31T23:47:00.000-08:00

By Tom Schaefer

"The largest effect motor oils have on fuel economy is through viscosity, followed by friction modification. Lower viscosity oils can save a few percent in fuel consumption when measured by industry standard engine tests, regardless of whether the base oil is synthetic or mineral. Friction modifiers will kick in a little more, but the combined effect is rarely more than 3% compared to 10W-30s or 40s.

Synthetics can play a role in fuel economy in three ways:

1. Synthetics are generally less volatile and have higher VIs than mineral oils, so you can make thinner oils without sacrificing oil consumption, catalyst damage, and HTHS viscosity. In other words, you can make better low viscosity motor oils from synthetic base oils than from mineral base oils.

2. Synthetics are generally more oxidatively stable than mineral oils, so the oil can retain its lower viscosity longer. This means the favorable effect from lower viscosity may last longer and therefore save more fuel over time.

3. Some synthetics utilize polar base oils that can lower friction and improve lubricity. This makes them behave like a friction modifier, although they may compete to some extent with friction modifier additives and therefore not add much.

As for measuring the fuel efficiency, only carefully controlled engines tests such as those used for GF-4 certification are sensitive and repeatable enough to see the small contribution oils provide. The average consumer has far too many variables to reliably measure or even see oil related fuel savings, such as city/highway mix, road conditions, tire pressure, driving style, engine condition, fuel brand and dispensing accuracy, sensor condition, temperature, wind, humidity, etc. I plotted my MPG for 13 years on the same car and same gas, and the results varied from 16 to 29 MPG, with 95% of the data being +-15% from the mean. Imagine trying to see a 2% improvement in a plot that swings that wildly. I have to giggle when I hear people report a 5 or 10% improvement after one tank of gas. Such testimonials are worthless.

Bottom line, you will never know exactly how much gas you are saving from your motor oil, nonetheless the contribution from synthetics, but you can be sure that lower viscosity oils will save some fuel and a good synthetic a little more." - Work Cited: Tom Schaefer

Your Next Air Filter?

2009-12-30T11:49:00.000-08:00

With many choices of automotive air filters on the market today it can sometimes become daunting for the consumer to select a filter that represents the best protection and flow characteristics for their dollar.

But why do we really need to be concerned about air filtration in the first place? The answer is quite simple. It's been said that many of the contaminates found in a vehicles motor oil gets there through the air filtration system. It's also been commonly held by lubricant experts that dirt is the number one cause of premature engine failure. With this in mind, it should be of high importance to research air filters and determine what the differences are and if anything can be gained by using one type of air filter over another.

In this thread, we will mainly focus on three popular types of air filters available today; paper - otherwise known as cellulose, wet gauze, and nanofiber.

Air Filter Construction

Paper: Cellulose media

Wet Gauze: Cotton media with wire screen reinforcement

Nanofiber: Glass media and wire screen reinforcement depending on application

The Paper Filter

The paper air filter is the most universally used air filter available on the market today and has been standard issue on cars and trucks since the early 1960s . A paper filter filters and flows relatively well, are cost effective, and are found at every auto parts store. The down side to paper is that they have to be replaced as much as every 3-months or 12,000-miles whichever comes first.

The Wet Gauze Filter

The wet gauze filter has been available for over 35-years and has become a popular choice among automotive and power sport enthusiasts. This style of air filter is marketed as a better flowing alternative to paper air filters and are commonly thought to increase a vehicles horsepower. Some manufactures back these filters with a million mile limited warranty and recommend filter cleaning every 30,000-to-50,000-miles. These filters are serviceable with a recommended cleaning and oil tackifier reapplication kit which are purchased additionally to the filter. Some find that a downside to these filters are the additional cost of a cleaning and re-oiling kit.

The Nanofiber Filter

While products containing microfibers have been available since the 1950s, the ultra-fine nanofiber technology didn't become available to the commercial market until 1981 by the Donaldson Company, Inc. Nano or Nano-technology refers to extremely small technology at the nano-meter scale. A nanometer is equal to one billionth of a meter. Donalson Company, Inc,. produces both stock replacement paper type air filters and their patented Ultra-Web and Synteq air and oil filters which utilize the nanofiber technology the company perfected. These top grade nanofiber filtration products have benefited such industries as transportation, construction, agriculture, mining, military and gas turbine. Up until recently, nanofiber technology was not widely available to the automotive market until Amsoil, Inc. gained exclusive licensing rights in 2004 to utilize Donaldson's proprietary nanofiber technology marketing both motor oil and air filtration products under their Ea filter line.

Watch Your Next Air Filter In Action

Click on image to enlarge - Cited: Donaldson Company, Inc.

M1 Abrams tank with pulse-jet air cleaner and Donaldson Nanofiber filter system for filtration of the turbine combustion air.

Article: Donaldson Company Selected to Develop Filtration System for U.S. Army Abrams-Crusader Common Engine Program - link

Paper and Wet Gauze now have a tough new competitor to contend with after the introduction new Amsoil/Donaldson agreement. Availability of nanofiber air filters to the automotive market is now a reality.

AMSOIL Ea Air Filter media removes 5 times more dust than traditional cellulose filters and 50 times more dust than wet gauze. Cited: Amsoil, Inc.

Amsoil, Inc., produce air filters utilizing Donaldson Nanofiber media for a wide verity of domestic and foreign cars and light trucks.

AMSOIL Ea Stock Replacment Air Filters

AMSOIL Ea Universal Air Induction Filters

Amsoil Ea Induction Filter/K&N Cross Referance - Click on image to enlarge

AMSOIL Carbureted Racing Filters

Amsoil Racing Filter specifications and photos - pdf. link

AMSOIL/Injen Cold Air Intake Kits

Image: Injen/Acura Cold Air Intake (CAI)

"During the 2007 SEMA show an official announcement was made launching the Co/Branded Injen/AMSOIL Power-Flow Diesel air intake systems.

Injen Technology and AMSOIL Inc. officially signed an agreement to cooperatively brand an all new diesel air intake system. Both Injen Technology and AMSOIL are established leaders within the performance industry and are known for innovation, quality and high performance products. These two highly acclaimed and successful companies came together and Co/Branded an advanced line of performance air intake systems called Diesel Power-Flow.

Representatives from both Injen and AMSOIL announced during the SEMA show, that the Power-Flow system is the only air intake system that incorporates an all new patent pending Injen Variable Induction Technology and an AMSOIL dry media Ea Nano-Fiber absolute efficiency air filter

Some of the top features and benefits will include:

Vi Technology (variable induction) will provide additional airflow and power on demand based upon the draw of the engine. There are four internal and totally independent valves designed to open and allow more air for those crucial moments when that extra power is required; passing, towing, climbing hills or track and off road racing.

AMSOIL Ea Nano-Fiber absolute efficiency custom designed air filter will filter out the finer dirt and dust particles up to 99.53% efficiency. For Diesel engines the Ea –filter removes 5 times more dust then traditional (paper) filter media and 50 times more dust then a wet gauze air filter. Injen Dyno tests show equivalent gains in horse power and torque. Incorporating the dry media allows for a simple cleaning by using a standard shop Vac.

Stainless steel pre-filters which will deflect the larger dirt particles commonly associated with immediate loss of air flow and power.

For added styling, proper air flow and that macho look, an all cast aluminum tube is included

You can anticipate seeing significant Co/Branding efforts to launch this powerful partnership in a wide variety of media and marketing materials along with a significant amount of race events, trade and consumer shows. The Injen/AMSOIL Diesel Power-Flow air intake systems will be available through all AMSOIL Dealers, most major automotive aftermarket retailers and wholesale distributors.

Injen/AMSOIL; The beginning of a New Era!" - Cited: Injen Technology

To select the correct Amsoil Ea Air Filter product for your vehicle, contact Anthony Garner via e-mail: compsyn@live.com

Below, the comments of Certified Lubrication Specialist, George Morrison regarding air filtration.

Introduction: The late George Morrison, was a Certified Lubrication Specialist by the Society of Trobologists and Lubrication Engineers as well as the founder and CEO of AV Lubricants, one of the largest Exxon/Mobil distributors in the United States. During his 35 years in the lubricant industry, He worked with such industries as Aviation and Coal Mining assisting with their specific lubricant needs in which hundreds of Used Oil Analysis reports went through his hands a week. As a result, Mr. Morrison was an expert in lubricant and lubricant filtration.

Quotes by Mr. Morrison:

"From a lube engineer's perspective that looks at a hundred or so oil analysis results a day, I would highly recommend you or anyone running a K&N or other aftermarket air filter do an engine oil analysis to determine that the filter is indeed doing its job. I can easily spot a K&N equipped vehicle oil analysis results as in 90% of cases the filter keeps out bricks and birds very effectively but little else. The #1 cause of reduced engine life is dirt. The #1 engine oil alert I look at is dirt. One teaspoon of dirt will destroy a large V-16 CAT engine.. i.e. we need to make sure we have the best filter media, tightest induction system possible to ensure maximum engine life. If you look at a K&N filter you can see through the medium very easily. Supposedly the 'tackifier' grabs the incoming dirt particles. Visualize a dirt particle approaching the filter medium at 100+ MPH: there is NO oil, no tackifier that is going to reach out and capture that particle. Filter face impact velocity is just too great." Cited: George Morrison - link

"Regarding the "easy 10 hp increase", I would be wary of the claim. A recent VW TDI dyno day revealed that the highest horsepower developed at the rear wheels was for a TDI equipped a paper, OEM equipped VW vs. the foam/paper/K&N, snorkled VW's." Cited: George Morrison - link

"If you have single digit silicon and low wear metals with your oil analysis results, you are about as good as it gets! That is a general target for dirt: i.e. single digits. If you have this with spectro, you have excellent air filtration with no induction leaks. As for recommendations, I suggest name brand/OEM paper. If a person wants to try another, do an oil analysis with quality paper, then another oil analysis, with particle count, for the aftermarket. This will give a complete picture of exactly how the aftermarket is doing." Cited: George Morrison - link

Summary: As stated above, Used Oil Analysis is the real world test which proves OR disproves the as advertised filter efficiency claims.

Below, a picture of a K&N brand wet gauze type air filter. If you click on the image to enlarge, look closely and notice the small pin holes of light in the cotton gauze filter media:

Click on the image to enlarge

Below, a picture of an Amsoil Ea Air filter, a optional replacement of the K&N wet gauze filter as shown above. Note the solid construction of the nanofiber media.

Click on the image to enlarge

Additional Reading

Technical Paper: CUMMINS - DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH DUST CAPACITY, HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINE AIR FILTER WITH NANOFIBERS

Technical Paper: Donaldson Company Selected to Develop Filtration System for U.S. Army Abrams-Crusader Common Engine Program - link

Blog Post: Air and Oil Filters With Nanofiber Technology - link

Manufacturer & Dealer Information

Donaldson Company, Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota., is a leading worldwide provider of filtration systems and replacement parts. Founded in 1915, Donaldson is a technology-driven company committed to satisfying customer needs for filtration solutions through innovative research and development. Our 10,000 employees contribute to the company's success at over 30 manufacturing locations around the world. Donaldson is a member of the S&P MidCap 400 Index and Donaldson shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DCI.

AMSOIL INC., headquartered in Superior, Wisconsin., is a recognized leader in synthetic lubricant and filtration products since 1972 producing the first 100% synthetic motor oil to be recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

Really! How Good Are Amsoil Oil Filters?

2009-11-21T05:19:00.000-08:00

As we have seen previously in this blog, the charts, graphs and marketing data supplied by Amsoil, Inc., the Amsoil Absolute Efficiency Oil Filter is compelling, but how does it really perform in a real world environment? And is there any data or tests independent of Amsoil that support their claims? Read on and be the judge!

Introduction: The late George Morrison, was a Certified Lubrication Specialist by the Society of Trobologists and Lubrication Engineers as well as the founder and CEO of AV Lubricants, one of the largest Exxon/Mobil distributors in the United States. During his 35 years in the lubricant industry, He worked with such industries as Aviation and Coal Mining assisting with their specific lubricant needs in which hundreds of Used Oil Analysis reports went through his hands a week. As a result, Mr. Morrison was an expert in lubricant and lubricant filtration.

While the accomplishments of his career are highly notable, his enthusiasm and devotion to the lubricants industry was further demonstrated through his regular posts at a popular motor oil forum, Bob Is The Oil Guy. There, Mr. Morrison supplied valuable motor oil and filter information most of which were based off of his personal experience and testing.

Provided below are Mr. Morrison’s findings regarding the filtering efficiency of the Amsoil Absoilute Effecentcy oil filter. Again, Mr. Morrison was in the business of selling Exxon/Mobil products, so he had no financial gain by reporting his findings of the Amsoil filter.

The Summary: Amsoil Nanofiber oil filters versus traditional paper oil filters:

1) Removes up to 93% more contaminates
2) Lower pressure drop across filter surface
3) Lasts 2 to 4 times longer
4) Filter media does not freeze in cold weather
5) Proven to increase equipment life

Seem to good to be true? Below, the in depth analysis of Mr. Morrison’s oil filter test.

1) The Test Vehicle: 2001 Toyota Sequoia 4.7L V8
2) The Motor Oil: Mobil 1 Racing 0W-30
3) Oil Filter Test (1): Toyota #90915-YZZB5
4) Oil Filter Test (2): Amsoil #EaO57

Laboratory tests were conducted on the used oil samples taken from Mr. Morrison's Sequoia via spectrographic as well as particle count through both laser and pore blockage methods.

Spectrographic Analysis

(Image provided by Polaris Laboratories)

Spectrographic Analysis ASTM D5185 Description:

Elemental Analysis by ICP (inductively-coupled plasma) detects up to 24 metals, measuring less than 5μ in size, that can be present in used oil due to wear, contamination or additives. Wear Metals include iron, chromium, nickel, aluminum, copper, lead, tin, cadmium, silver, titanium and vanadium. Contaminant Metals include silicon, sodium, and potassium. Multi-Source Metals include molybdenum, antimony, manganese, and lithium. Additive Metals include boron magnesium, calcium, barium, phosphorous and zinc. Elemental Analysis is instrumental in determining the type and severity of wear occurring within a unit. (Cited: Polaris Laboratories)

Pore Blockage Particle Counting

Pore Blockage (Image provided by Machinery Lubrication)

Pore Blockage Particle Counting (BS3406) Description:

The pore blockage method is a widely used method of obtaining an automatic particle count. In this method, a volume of fluid is passed through a mesh screen with a clearly defined pore size, commonly 10 microns. There are two instrument-types that use this method. One instrument measures the flow decay across the membrane as it becomes plugged while pressure is held constant, first with particles greater than 10 microns, and later by smaller particles as the larger particles plug the screen. The second measures the rise in differential pressure across the screen while the flow rate is held constant as it becomes plugged with particles. Both instruments are tied to a software algorithm, which turns the time-dependent flow decay or pressure rise into an ISO cleanliness rating according to ISO 4406:99.

While pore block particle counters do not suffer the same problems as optical particle counters with respect to false positive caused by air, water, dark fluid, etc., they do not have the same dynamic range as an optical particle counter, and because the particle size distribution is roughly estimated, are dependent on the accuracy of the algorithm to accurately report ISO fluid cleanliness codes according to ISO 4406:99. Nevertheless, they accurately report the aggregate concentration of particulates in the oil, and in certain situations, particularly dark fluids such as diesel engine oils and other heavily contaminated oils, pore block particle counting does offer advantages. (Cited: George Morrison)

Laser Light Particle Counting

(Image provided by Noria)

Laser Light Particle Counting Description:

Automated light blockage particle counting technology was first introduced in the 1960s. The basic function of a light blockage APC is simple; a beam of light is projected through the sample fluid, if a particle blocks the light, it results in a measurable energy drop that is roughly the proportional to the size of the particle.
A more modern type of particle counter is the light scattering APC. As with the light blockage method, particles produce a measurable interference in the transmission of light through the sample in the light scattering cell. However, instead of simple white light, this method employs a laser. The highly focused light emitted is interrupted by a particle, producing a scattering effect. The increase in energy across the sampling area is measured with this type of particle counter, just the opposite of the light blockage method. (Cited: Noria)

Oil Filter Test Sequence

1) 1/17/07: At 155,876 total vehicle miles (10,000-miles on oil/filter), got spectrographic and Pore Blockage base line of Toyota Oil filter and Mobil 1 oil. Then changed oil and oil filter. The ISO cleanliness for this base line reading was 20/19/17 , a level consistent with previous ISO readings for the oil and filter at the 10k Oil Change interval as noted by Mr. Morrison.

2) 2/5/07: At 157,550 total vehicle miles (1,574-miles on oil/filter), got second spectrographic and Pore Blockage result of Toyota Oil filter and Mobil 1 oil. Then changed the oil filter only from the Toyota to the Amsoil. The ISO cleanliness level for the second reading with OEM filter was 18/17/15.

3) 2/27/07: At 159,000 total vehicle miles (3,124-miles on oil/ 1,550-miles on filter), got third spectrographic and Pore Blockage result of Amsoil Oil filter and Mobil 1 oil. The ISO cleanliness level for the third reading with Amsoil filter was 14/13/11. Keep in mind the Amsoil filter was exposed to 3,124-miles of oil service while the the Toyota filter was exposed to 1,574-miles of oil service; a ratio of 2-to-1.

4) 2/28/07: The third spectrographic and Pore Blockage results were so good that the sample was retested with a Laser Particle Count to verify the initial test results. After test results were verified and both pore blockage and laser particle counts were found to be consistent with each other, the real world Amsoil EaO Oil Filter Test Results were posted on Bob Is The Oil Guy as follows:

OEM oil filter PC vs. Amsoil EaO57 Oil filter PC
>4 Microns = 1,817 particles, 128 particles
>6 microns = 990 particles, 70 particles
>14 microns = 168 particles, 12 particles
>25 microns = 34 particles, 2 particles
>50 microns = 3 particles, 0 particles
>100 microns = 0 particles, 0 particles

George Morrison; a few of his comments regarding Amsoil EaO Oil Filter:

"The ISO cleanliness is reduced from 18/17/15 to 14/13/11 with the Amsoil EaO oil filter." Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy(2/28/07)

"This level of cleanliness *will* provide meaningful, long term wear reduction and attendant increase in component life" Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy(2/28/07)

"My used engine oil is cleaner than the oil which came out of the quart bottle" Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy(2/28/07)

"The EaO is simply the highest quality automotive filter on the market today, from my testing and experience" Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy(3/1/07)

"I had seen Amsoils graphs, etc. but there is nothing quite like real world testing, especially when it comes to filtration. A lab test of constant flow, perfect conditions is far removed from our vibrating, pulsing, real world engines.. Again, to achieve robotic level ISO cleanliness in an engine with 160,000 miles on it... Wow......" Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy (3/4/07)

"The last AC Gold I cut open had a cellulose/glass blend, same as the Mobil 1 medium...... That is the only medium I have seen produced for mass sale: no full synthetics, as in the Amsoil EaO, to the best of my knowledge and cut filters too numerous to mention! :-) And yes, had run particle counts on AC Gold and they were not in the same world as the EaO oil filter....."Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy (3/6/07)

"Yes, I did test the EaO oil filter under varying pressure conditions: on my Toyota Sequoia used oil analysis/particle count which I published the results on this thread some months ago. The EaO turned in "real world" filtration performance (not laboratory constant flow) to a level of cleanliness cleaner than the Mobil 1 coming out of the bottle!!

And I would also agree that the Amsoil EaO, Mobil 1 and Pure One are superb filters with the EaO superior in every performance aspect simply due to its 100% microglass medium construction vs. the glass/cellulose blend used in the Mobil 1 and Pure 1 filters." Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy (2/28/08)

"The major component was the extraordinary filtering capabilities of the Amsoil EaO filter vs. "the rest".. For those of us who indeed understand the long term life extension of incredibly clean engine oil, the use of the EaO is of great value.. When I can use an oil filter which provides cleaner used engine oil than the oil coming out of the bottle AND understand the premise that the #1 cause of mechanical wear are dirt/particulates carried in the oil, it is your essential "no brainer".. That coupled with significant engine oil drain interval extension is a win/win..

And then, to each his own.. The information was presented was for someone to make the informed decision of whether to go orange or utilize the highest level of filtration.."Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy(4/28/08)

"(NOT an Amsoil dealer ever, nor now: no affiliation)"Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy(3/4/07)

In Memory: George Edward Morrison 1944 - 2008
He is missed

See also:

Link - A Look Inside Your Next Oil Filter

Link - AMSOIL Introduces Donaldson Endurance Air and Oil Filters with Nanofiber Technology

Link - Superior Filtration Leads to Reduced Costs, Extended Equipment Life

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

3,000-Mile Oil Change Comes Under Fire

2009-10-30T18:20:00.000-07:00

Do you hold the view that it is important to change your vehicles motor oil every 3,000-miles?

Read on and consider how the antiquated 3000-mile oil change recommendation is based on old technology and is outdated by many of today’s standards.

Compiled below is information provided by General Motors, California Integrated Waste Management Board, and Amsoil, Inc.

The standard 3,000-mile oil change interval is under attack. Promoted for years by most motor oil companies and quick lube businesses as an essential part of proper vehicle maintenance, the public has become much more skeptical in recent years. In fact, searches for “3,000 mile oil change” in top Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo! primarily yield articles and blog postings that challenge the practice and refer to it as a “scam” or “myth.”

Note: The video below is helpful in the debate because it demonstrates how it is impossible to tell when motor oil needs to be changed based on the color of the oil alone.

AMSOIL synthetic motor oil was introduced in 1972 as the only motor oil on the market recommended for 25,000-mile/one year drain intervals, and the company has spent much of the last 37 years as the lone voice promoting the benefits of extended drain intervals. However, AMSOIL has recently welcomed an increasing number of companies and organizations to the party. Although they still don’t recommend drain intervals as long as AMSOIL recommendations, the momentum is growing.

Vehicle manufacturers have mostly recommended oil change intervals exceeding 3,000 miles in recent years. In fact, most recommend intervals of 5,000 miles or more. Ford Motor Company recommends drain intervals of 7,500 miles in its model year 2007 and newer vehicles, while other manufacturers incorporate oil monitoring systems in their newer vehicles that allow motorists to extend drain intervals even further.

In its December 2006 issue, Consumer Reports encourages drivers to follow the longer oil change recommendations of vehicle manufacturers, saying, “Although oil companies and quick-lube shops like to promote this idea [that engine oil should be changed every 3,000 miles], it's usually not necessary. Go by the recommended oil-change schedule in your vehicle's owner's manual. Most vehicles driven under normal conditions can go 7,500 miles or more between oil changes. Some models now come with a monitoring system that alerts the driver when the oil needs changing. Depending on driving conditions, these can extend change intervals to 10,000 or 15,000 miles.”

Steve Ritter, senior editor of Chemical & Engineering News, writes, “Conventional wisdom has held that the oil should be changed about every 3,000 miles. This notion has been ingrained into people's heads for decades, in part as a marketing ploy by oil companies. The 3,000-mile interval made sense when engines used single-grade nondetergent oils. But with the latest oils and car designs, it's no longer necessary to change oil that often under normal driving conditions.”

Concerned about the effects of used oil on the environment and responding to research that indicates 73 percent of California drivers change motor oil more often than their vehicle’s manufacturer recommends, the California Environmental Protection Agency and its Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) have emerged as another strong opponent of the 3,000-mile oil change. The group recently launched a public information program and website (www.3000milemyth.org) designed to “bust the 3,000-mile myth” and encourage drivers to reduce used oil volume by following the longer oil drain recommendations of vehicle manufacturers.

“Used motor oil poses a great risk to the environment,” said CIWMB Chair Margo Reid Brown. “With better made cars and the rise of synthetic oils, the 3,000-mile standard is not always recommended.”

Most recently, General Motors announced its support of the CIWMB program to educate drivers about oil change intervals. According to GM, standard 3,000-mile oil change recommendations are based on outdated engine and oil technology, and the company instead recommends changing oil based on its Oil Life System. Currently included on over 97 percent of all GM vehicles sold in the U.S., the GM Oil Life System typically allows drivers to extend drain intervals up to 10,000 miles through use of a computer-based software algorhythm that measures vehicle operating conditions. With 31 million vehicles on the road equipped with the Oil Life System, GM spokesman Tom Henderson claims following its recommendations rather than the 3,000-mile rule could save 100 million gallons of oil annually.

In addition to the environmental benefits associated with less waste oil, extended drain intervals save consumers money. For example, customers who purchase conventional oil at $3 or more per quart, drive 25,000 miles per year and follow 3,000-mile oil change recommendations spend at least $120 per year on oil alone (assuming a five-quart sump capacity). AMSOIL customers who pay $9.15 per quart under the same conditions pay only $61.75 per year.

“When it comes to oil changes, less is more,” claims the CIWMB. “You’ll have more money in your wallet by changing your oil less, and fewer oil changes mean less oil that needs to be safely managed and recycled.”

Premium AMSOIL synthetic motor oils offer the longest drain intervals on the market, unsurpassed protection and performance that effectively extends equipment life and improved fuel economy, saving customers money at the pump and reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

Work Cited: https://www.amsoil.com/news/2008_aug_3000mileoilchange.pdf

See also: Lube Report, GM, California to Bust '3,000 Mile Myth', Nancy DeMarco, Volume 8, Issue 24, Wednesday, June 11 2008

Yahoo Autos: The 3,000 Mile Oil Change Myth

Amsoil Dealer info:

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

A Look Inside Your Next Oil Filter

2009-10-19T02:03:00.000-07:00

A look inside popular motor oil filters. Do you have the best protection and value for your engine?

Note that all filters listed below serve the same application.

Oil Filters Made by Purolator: Bosch, Motorcraft, Mopar, PowerFlo, ProLine, Purolator Premium Plus, Purolator Pure One, Quaker State, MicroGard

Retail Price for Purolator Premium Plus #L14670: $3.99 Auto Zone(1/30/07)

Retail Price for Mopar #MO-090: $4.97 Wal-Mart(1/30/07)

Retail Price for MicroGard #GL14670: $3.48 O"Reilly Auto Parts (10/19/09)

Oil Filters made by Honeywell: Fram Extra Guard, Fram Tough Guard, Fram Double Guard, Fram High Mileage, Pennzoil, Quaker State.

Retail Price for Fram Extra Guard #PH16: $3.99 O"Reilly Auto Parts (10/19/09)

Manufacturer recommended change interval: 5,000-miles

Retail Price for Fram Tough Guard #TG16: $6.29 Auto Zone (1/30/07)

Manufacturer recommended change interval: 7,500-miles

Oil Filters made by WIX: Carquest, NAPA, WIX

Retail Price for WIX #51085: $5.69 O"Reilly Auto Parts (10/19/09)

Oil Filters made byChampion labs: AC Delco, Car and Driver, Champ, Deutsch, STP, K&N, Mobil 1, Royal Purple

Retail Price for Bosch #3402: $5.99 Auto Zone (1/30/07)

Retail Price for STP #S16: $3.19 Auto Zone (1/30/07)

Retail Price for Mobil 1 #M1-204: $12.99 O"Reilly Auto Parts (10/19/09)

Oil Filters made by AMSOIL: Amsoil EaO

Retail Price for Amsoil EAO42: $18.10 Amsoil.com (10/19/09)

Amsoil EAO 42 Service Life

AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters are guaranteed for 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first, when used in conjunction with AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil. AMSOIL recommends changing the oil filter at the time of oil change.

If used in conjunction with AMSOIL Motor Oil that is being changed at intervals less than 25,000 miles, the EaO Filter should be changed at the same time. AMSOIL EaO Filters are not guaranteed for 25,000 miles when used with any oil other than AMSOIL Motor Oil and should be changed according to vehicle OEM recommendations.

For more on Amsoil EaO oil filters click on the links below:

Superior Filtration Leads to Reduced Costs, Extended Equipment Life

AMSOIL Introduces Donaldson Endurance Air and Oil Filters with Nanofiber Technology

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

The YouTube videos posted here are produced by YouTube user ckermit8, who is not affiliated with Your Next Oil Change or Competition Synthetics

Synthetic Lubricants

2009-10-18T20:12:00.000-07:00

By Tom Schaefer

For most products, the word “Synthetic” is often a negative term, implying cheap, imitation, or artificial - just not up to the “real thing”. In the world of lubrication, however, just the opposite is true. Synthetic lubricants by virtually all measures are distinctly superior to their petroleum counterparts. And while they may be more expensive to buy, their cost saving performance benefits make them less expensive to use. In this market, Synthetic clearly means Premium.

Some definitions

Defining the term “synthetic lubricant” is becoming more controversial these days, but in general it refers to a lubricant or grease whose basestock has been manufactured by chemical synthesis or organic reaction, as opposed to being extracted or refined from naturally occurring oils. In many respects synthetics represent a different approach altogether from conventional petroleum based oils in that their molecular structures are custom designed and tailored to meet specific performance targets. To appreciate this concept better, we need to understand something about the composition of lubricants and how they work.

Most lubricants consist of a basestock and various additives selected to improve or supplement the basestocks’ performance. The basestock is the primary component, usually 70 to 99% of the finished oil or grease, and its properties play a vital role. To a great degree the structure and stability of the basestock dictate the flow characteristics of the oil and the temperature range in which it can operate, as well as many other vital properties such as volatility, lubricity, and cleanliness. Additives enhance these properties or impart new ones, such as improving stability at both high and low temperatures, modifying the flow properties, and reducing wear, friction, rust and corrosion. The basestocks and additives work together and must be carefully selected and balanced to allow the finished oil to do its intended job, which includes protecting moving parts from wear, removing heat and dirt, preventing rust and corrosion, and improving energy efficiency. Since the basestock is the dominate component with the most important role, one obvious way to make a better oil is to start with a better basestock. That is exactly what synthetic oils endeavor to accomplish.

Conventional petroleum basestocks or mineral oils begin with crude oil, a mixture of literally hundreds of different molecules derived from the decomposition of prehistoric plant and animal life. The lighter more volatile components of crude oil are stripped away to make gasoline and other fuels, and the heaviest components are used in asphalt and tar. It’s the middle cuts that have the right thickness or viscosity for lubricants, but first they must be cleaned up; undesirable components such as waxes, unsaturated hydrocarbons, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds must be removed. Modern processing techniques do a pretty good job of removing these undesirable components, good enough for well over 90% of the world’s lubricant applications, but they cannot remove all of the bad actors. And it’s these residual “weak links” that limit the capabilities of mineral oils, usually by triggering breakdown reactions at high temperatures or freezing up when cold. These inherent weaknesses limit the temperature range in which mineral oils can be used and shorten the useful life of the finished lubricant.

Synthetic basestocks, on the other hand, start from relatively pure and simple chemical building blocks which are then reacted together or synthesized into new, larger molecules. The resulting synthetic basestock consists only of the pre-selected molecules and has no undesirable weak links that inhibit performance. This ability to pre-select or design specific ideal molecules tailored for a given job, and then create those molecules and only those molecules, opens a whole new world for making superior basestocks for lubricants. In fact, the entire formulation approach is different: instead of trying to clean up a naturally occurring chemical soup to acceptable levels with a constant eye on cost, the synthetic molecular engineer is able to focus on optimum performance in a specific application with the knowledge that he can build the necessary molecules to achieve it. Since synthetics cost considerably more than petroleum based basestocks, they are generally reserved for problem applications where conventional oils fail, or where the efficiency benefits of synthetics recoup the initial cost.

A bit of history

The use of synthetic basestocks to solve lubrication problems is not new. Various synthetics were developed and used extensively during the second world war to prevent the oil from freezing in the army tanks during winter combat. After the war, synthetics were found to be essential for the new jet engines which ran too hot for mineral oils, causing them to burn off rapidly and leave deposits. These jet engines also had to be able to restart at high altitudes where temperatures were often -50°F, so the oil had to be pumpable at very low temperatures as well as surviving the searing temperatures within the engine. Indeed the modern jet engine would not exist today if not for the simultaneous development of synthetic basestock technology in the 1950s, and today virtually every jet engine in the world operates exclusively on synthetic lubricants.

During the 1960s and 70s, synthetics moved steadily into severe industrial applications where they solved high temperature deposit problems with air compressors and oven conveyor chains, and low temperature flow problems in arctic climates. New synthetic chemistries emerged to meet and match every problem industrial users could create, and there were many! Gradually these expensive high-tech synthetic lubricants were entering the mainstream and taken seriously as they proved their ability to save money through reduced downtime, less maintenance costs, extended equipment life, lower energy consumption, and higher productivity. Focus shifted to the total cost of lubrication, not just the cost of the lubricant, and synthetics were often the winners.

Synthetic automobile motor oils were introduced in the early 1970s with such fantastic performance claims that they initially turned the auto manufacturers and oil companies against the new unproven products. While most claims were directionally valid, the level of improvements were often exaggerated to the point of fostering a “snake oil” reputation. Over the ensuing years, the true benefits of synthetic motor oils were identified and quantified to industry satisfaction and include better high temperature stability, improved low temperature flow characteristics, lower volatility, increased fuel efficiency, and extended life capability. Today car manufacturers and oil companies alike readily acknowledge the superior performance of synthetic motor and gear oils, especially in fleet or severe duty usage. For the average car owner, however, driving conditions are mild enough for conventional mineral oils to work satisfactorily, which raises the question of whether synthetic benefits are really needed for passenger cars and worth the higher price tag. In most cases the combined improvements will repay the higher initial cost, especially in severe duty applications, but since these improvements are not readily perceived by the driver, market penetration remains only a few percent after more than thirty-five years of active marketing. Synthetic motor oil usage will likely accelerate in future years as engine builders exploit the benefits in new engine design and ratchet up oil performance through tighter specifications.

In summary

Today the use of synthetic lubricants is accepted, widespread, and rapidly growing as their capability and cost efficiency benefits become better known worldwide. Jet aircraft use synthetic oils in the engines, hydraulic systems, instruments and landing gears; compressors use synthetics in the crankcase and cylinders; refrigeration systems use synthetics with the new environmentally friendly refrigerants; truck fleets use synthetics in the engine, transmission, and gear box; and the list goes on and on. Wherever a problem exists with mineral oils or a potential for improved cost efficiency uncovered, there is a synthetic lubricant ready and able to step in and lower the cost of total lubrication.

ESTERS IN SYNTHETIC LUBRICANTS

2009-10-18T20:00:00.000-07:00

By Tom Schaefer

In the simplest terms, esters can be defined as the reaction products of acids and alcohols. Thousands of different kinds of esters are commercially produced for a broad range of applications. Within the realm of synthetic lubrication, a relatively small but still substantial family of esters have been found to be very useful in severe environment applications. This paper shall provide a general overview of the more common esters used in synthetic lubricants and discuss their important benefits and utilities.

Esters have been used successfully in lubrication for more than 60 years and are the preferred stock in many severe applications where their benefits solve problems or bring value. For example, esters have been used exclusively in jet engine lubricants worldwide for over 50 years due to their unique combination of low temperature flowability with clean high temperature operation. Esters are also the preferred stock in the new synthetic refrigeration lubricants used with CFC replacement refrigerants. Here the combination of branching and polarity make the esters miscible with the HFC refrigerants and improves both low and high temperature performance characteristics. In automotive applications, the first qualified synthetic crankcase motor oils were based entirely on ester formulations and these products were quite successful when properly formulated. Esters have given way to PAOs in this application due to PAOs lower cost and their formulating similarities to mineral oil. Nevertheless, esters are often used in combination with PAOs in full synthetic motor oils in order to balance the effect on seals, solubilize additives, reduce volatility, and improve energy efficiency through higher lubricity. The percentage of ester used can vary anywhere from 5 to 25% depending upon the desired properties and the type of ester employed.

The new frontier for esters is the industrial marketplace where the number of products, applications, and operating conditions is enormous. In many cases, the very same equipment which operates satisfactorily on mineral oil in one plant could benefit greatly from the use of an ester lubricant in another plant where the equipment is operated under more severe conditions. This is a marketplace where old problems or new challenges can arise at any time or any location. The high performance properties and custom design versatility of esters is ideally suited to solve these problems. Ester lubricants have already captured certain niches in the industrial market such as reciprocating air compressors and high temperature industrial oven chain lubricants. When one focuses on temperature extremes and their telltale signs such as smoking and deposits, the potential applications for the problem solving ester lubricants are
virtually endless.

Ester Chemistry

In many ways esters are very similar to the more commonly known and used synthetic hydrocarbons or PAOs. Like PAOs, esters are synthesized from relatively pure and simple starting materials to produce predetermined molecular structures designed specifically for high performance lubrication. Both types of synthetic basestocks are primarily branched hydrocarbons which are thermally stable, have high viscosity indices, and lack the undesirable and unstable impurities found in conventional petroleum based oils. The primary structural difference between esters and PAOs is the presence of multiple ester linkages (COOR) in esters which impart polarity to the molecules. This polarity affects the way esters behave as lubricants in the following ways:

1) Volatility: The polarity of the ester molecules causes them to be attracted to one another and this intermolecular attraction requires more energy (heat) for the esters to transfer from a liquid to a gaseous state. Therefore, at a given molecular weight or viscosity, the esters will exhibit a lower vapor pressure which translates into a higher flash point and a lower rate of evaporation for the lubricant. Generally speaking, the more ester linkages in a specific ester, the higher its flash point and the lower its volatility.

2) Lubricity: Polarity also causes the ester molecules to be attracted to positively charged metal surfaces. As a result, the molecules tend to line up on the metal surface creating a film which requires additional energy (load) to wipe them off. The result is a stronger film which translates into higher lubricity and lower energy consumption in lubricant applications.

3) Detergency/Dispersency: The polar nature of esters also makes them good solvents and dispersants. This allows the esters to solubilize or disperse oil degradation by-products which might otherwise be deposited as varnish or sludge, and translates into cleaner operation and improved additive solubility in the final lubricant.

4) Biodegradability: While stable against oxidative and thermal breakdown, the ester linkage provides a vulnerable site for microbes to begin their work of biodegrading the ester molecule. This translates into very high biodegradability rates for ester lubricants and allows more environmentally friendly products to be formulated.

Another important difference between esters and PAOs is the incredible versatility in the design of ester molecules due to the high number of commercially available acids and alcohols from which to choose. For example, if one is seeking a 6 cSt synthetic basestock, the choices available with PAOs are a straight cut 6 cSt or a “dumbbell” blend of a lighter and heavier PAO. In either case, the properties of the resulting basestock are essentially the same. With esters, literally dozens of 6 cSt products can be designed each with a different chemical structure selected for the specific desired property. This allows the “ester engineer” to custom design the structure of the ester molecules to an optimized set of properties determined by the end customer or application. The performance properties that can be varied in ester design include viscosity, viscosity index, volatility, high temperature coking tendencies, biodegradability, lubricity, hydrolytic stability, additive solubility, and seal compatibility.

As with any product, there are also downsides to esters. The most common concern when formulating with ester basestocks is compatibility with the elastomer material used in the seals. All esters will tend to swell and soften most elastomer seals however, the degree to which they do so can be controlled through proper selection. When seal swell is desirable, such as in balancing the seal shrinkage and hardening characteristics of PAOs, more polar esters should be used such as those with lower molecular weight and/or higher number of ester linkages. When used as the exclusive basestock, the ester should be designed for compatibility with seals or the seals should be changed to those types which are more compatible with esters.

Another potential disadvantage with esters is their ability to react with water or hydrolyze under certain conditions. Generally this hydrolysis reaction requires the presence of water and heat with a relatively strong acid or base to catalyze the reaction. Since esters are usually used in very high temperature applications, high amounts of water are usually not present and hydrolysis is rarely a problem in actual use. Where the application environment may lead to hydrolysis, the ester structure can be altered to greatly improve its hydrolytic stability and additives can be selected to minimize any effects.

The following is a discussion of the structures and features of the more common ester families used in synthetic lubrication.

Diesters

Diesters were the original ester structures introduced to synthetic lubricants during the second World War. These products are made by reacting monohydric alcohols with dibasic acids creating a molecule which may be linear, branched, or aromatic and with two ester groups. Diesters which are often abbreviated DBE (dibasic acid esters) are named after the type of dibasic acid used and are often abbreviated with letters. For example, a diester made by reacting isodecyl alcohol with adipic acid would be known as an “adipate” type diester and would be abbreviated “DIDA” (Diisodecyl Adipate).

Adipates are the most widely used diesters due to their low relative cost and good balance of properties. They generally range from about 2.3 to 5.3 cSt at 100°C and exhibit pour points below -60°C. The viscosity indices of adipates usually run from about 130 to 150 and their oxidative stability, like most of the diesters, are comparable to PAOs. The primary difference between adipate diesters and PAOs is the presence of two ester linkages and the associated polarity benefits outlined previously. The most common use of adipate diesters is in combination with PAOs in numerous applications such as screw compressor oils, gear and transmission oils, automotive crankcase oils, and hydraulic fluids. Adipates are also used as the sole basestock where biodegradability is desired or high temperature cleanliness is critical such as in textile lubricants and oven chain oils.

Azelates, sebacates, and dodecanedioates are similar to adipates except that in each case the carbon chain length (backbone) of the dibasic acid is longer. This “backbone stretching” significantly increases viscosity index and improves the lubricity characteristics of the ester while retaining all the desirable properties of the adipates. The only downside to these types of diesters is price which tends to run about 50 - 100+% higher than adipates at the wholesale level. This group of linear DBEs are mainly used in older military specifications and where the lubricity factor becomes an important parameter.

Phthalates are aromatic diesters and this ring structure greatly reduces the viscosity index (usually well below 100) and eliminates most of the biodegradability benefit. In all other respects, phthalates behave similar to other diesters and are about 20 - 30% lower in cost. Phthalates are used extensively in air compressor lubricants (especially the reciprocating type) where low viscosity index is the norm and low cost clean operation is desirable.

Dimer acid is made by combining two oleic acids which creates a large branched dibasic acid from which interesting diesters are made. Dimerates exhibit high viscosity and high viscosity indices while retaining excellent low temperature flow. Compared to adipates, dimerates are higher in price (30 - 40%), have marginal biodegradability, and are not as clean in high temperature operations. Their lubricity is good and they are often used in synthetic gear oils and 2-cycle oils.

The alcohols used to make diesters will also affect the properties of the finished esters and thus are important factors in the design process. The alcohols may be reacted alone or blended with other alcohols to form coesters with their own unique properties. The first three alcohols in the table above all contain eight carbons, and when reacted with adipic acid, all create a dioctyl adipate. However, the properties are entirely different. The n-octyl adipate would have the highest viscosity and the highest viscosity index (about 50% higher then the 2-ethylhexyl adipate) but would exhibit a relatively high freeze point making their use in low temperature applications virtually impossible. By branching the octyl alcohol, the other two DOAs exhibit no freeze point tendencies and have pour points well below -60°C. The isooctyl adipate offers the best balance of properties combining a high viscosity index with a wide temperature range. The 2-ethylhexyl adipate has a VI about 45 units lower and a somewhat higher volatility. These examples demonstrate the importance of combining the right alcohols with the right acids when designing diester structures and allows the ester engineer a great deal of flexibility in his work.

Polyol esters

The term “polyol esters” is short for neopentyl polyol esters which are made by reacting monobasic acids with polyhedric alcohols having a neopentyl structure. The unique feature of the structure of polyol ester molecules is the fact that there are no hydrogens on the beta-carbon. Since this “beta-hydrogen” is the first site of thermal attack on diesters, eliminating this site substantially elevates the thermal stability of polyol esters and allows them to be used at much higher temperatures. In addition, polyol esters usually have more ester groups than the diesters and this added polarity further reduces volatility and enhances the lubricity characteristics while retaining all the other desirable properties inherent with diesters. This makes polyol esters ideally suited for the higher temperature applications where the performance of diesters and PAOs begin to fade.

Like diesters, many different acids and alcohols are available for manufacturing polyol esters and indeed an even greater number of permutations are possible due to the multiple ester linkages. Unlike diesters, polyol esters (POEs) are named after the alcohol instead of the acid and the acids are often represented by their carbon chain length. For example, a polyol ester made by reacting a mixture of nC8 and nC10 fatty acids with trimethylolpropane would be referred to as a “TMP” ester and represented as TMP C8C10.

Each of the alcohols shown above have no beta-hydrogens and differ primarily in the number of hydroxyl groups they contain for reaction with the fatty acids. The difference in ester properties as they relate to the alcohols are primarily those related to molecular weight such as viscosity, pour point, flash point, and volatility. The versatility in designing these fluids is primarily related to the selection and mix of the acids esterified onto the alcohols.

The normal or linear acids all contribute similar performance properties with the physicals being influenced by their carbon chain length or molecular weight. For example, lighter acids such as valeric may be desirable for reducing low temperature viscosity on the higher alcohols, or the same purpose can be achieved by esterifying longer acids onto the shorter alcohols. While the properties of the normal acids are mainly related to the chain length, there are some more subtle differences among them which can allow the formulator to vary such properties as thermal stability and lubricity.

Branched acids add a new dimension since the length, location, and number of branches all impact the performance of the final ester. For example, a branch incorporated near the acid group may help to hinder hydrolysis while multiple branches may be useful for building viscosity, improving low temperature flow, and enhancing thermal stability and cleanliness. The versatility of this family is best understood when one considers that multiple acids are usually co-esterified with the polyol alcohol allowing the ester engineer to control multiple properties in a single ester. Indeed single acids are rarely used in polyol esters because of the enchanced properties that can be obtained through co-esterification.

Polyol esters can extend the high temperature operating range of a lubricant by as much as 50 - 100°C due to their superior stability and low volatility. They are also renowned for their film strength and increased lubricity which is useful in reducing energy consumption in many applications. The only downside of polyol esters compared to diesters is their higher price tag, generally 20 - 70+% higher on a wholesale basis.

The major application for polyol esters is jet engine lubricants where they have been used exclusively for more than 40 years. In this application, the oil is expected to flow at -65°C, pump readily at -40°C, and withstand sump temperature over 200°C with drain intervals measured in years. Only polyol esters have been found to satisfy this demanding application and incorporating even small amounts of diesters or PAOs will cause the lubricant to fail vital specifications.

Polyol esters are also the ester of choice for blending with PAOs in passenger car motor oils. This change from lower cost diesters to polyols was driven primarily by the need for reduced fuel consumption and lower volatility in modern specifications. They are sometimes used in 2-cycle oils as well for the same reasons.

In industrial markets polyol esters are used extensively in synthetic refrigeration lubricants due to their miscibility with non-chlorine refrigerants. They are also widely used in very high temperature operations such as industrial oven chains, tenter frames, stationary turbine engines, high temperature grease, fire resistant transformer coolants, fire resistant hydraulic fluids, and textile lubricants.

In general, polyol esters represent the highest performance level available for high temperature applications at a reasonable price. Although they cost more than many other types of synthetics, the benefits often combine to make this chemistry the most cost effective in severe environment applications. The primary benefits include extended life, higher temperature operation, reduced maintenance and downtime, lower energy consumption, reduced smoke and disposal, and biodegradability.

Other esters

While diesters and polyol esters represent the most widely used ester families in synthetic lubrication, two other families are worth mentioning. These are monoesters and trimellitates.

Monoesters are made by reacting monohydric alcohols with monobasic fatty acids creating a molecule with a single ester linkage and linear or branched alkyl groups. These products are generally very low in viscosity (usually under 2 cSt at 100°C) and exhibit extremely low pour points and high VIs. The presence of the ester linkage imparts polarity which helps to offset the high volatility expected with such small molecules. Hence, when compared to a hydrocarbon of equal molecular weight, a monoester will have a significantly higher flash point giving it a broader temperature range in use. Monoesters are used primarily for extremely cold applications such as in Arctic hydraulic oils and deep sea drilling. They can also be used in formulating automotive aftermarket additives to improve cold starting.

Trimellitates are aromatic triesters which are similar to the phthalates described under diesters but with a third ester linkage. By taking on three alcohols, the trimellitates are significantly more viscous then the linear adipates or phthalates. Viscosities range from about 9 to 20 cSt at 100°C. Like phthalates, trimellitates have a low viscosity index and poor biodegradability with a price range between adipates and polyols. Trimellitates are generally used where high viscosity is needed as in gear lubricants, chain lubricants, and grease.

Summary

Esters are a broad and diverse family of synthetic lubricant basestocks which can be custom designed to meet specific physical and performance properties. The inherent polarity of esters improves their performance in lubrication by reducing volatility, increasing lubricity, providing cleaner operation, and making the products biodegradable. A wide range of available raw materials allow an ester designer the ability to optimize a product over a wide range of variables in order to maximize the performance and value to the client. They may be used alone in very high temperature applications for optimum performance or blended with PAOs or other synthetic basestocks where their complementary properties improve the balance of the finished lubricant. Esters have been used in synthetic lubricants for more than 60 years and continue to grow as the drive for efficiency make operating environments more severe. Because of the complexity involved in the designing, selecting, and blending of an ester basestock, the choice of the optimum ester should be left to a qualified ester engineer who can better balance the desired properties.

Base Oils & Lubricant Performance

2009-10-17T06:01:00.000-07:00

By Anthony Garner

Introduction

The purpose of this thread is to open up productive conversation into the various kinds of base oils used in motor oil finished products. We will also look at how automotive lubricants are marketed as well as theory into lubricant heat control and friction reduction. This thread is not intended to be the final word, but rather an ongoing discussion where all are encouraged to contribute. Please provide links and or cited sources whenever possible.

Motor Oil Base Stocks

Base Stock: A motor oil base stock is usually refined from petroleum or a selected synthetic material. It is the main foundational component of the oil into which additives are blended to create a finished lubricant. Currently, the American Petroleum Institute (API) divides motor oil base stocks up into five separate group categories listed below.

Theory: Conventional Motor Oil

"Conventional lubricants are refined from crude oil. Refining is a process of physically separating light from heavy oil fractions. Crude oil is a natural substance. It contains millions of different kinds of molecules. Many are similar in weight but dissimilar in structure. Because refining separates products by weight, it groups molecules of similar weight and dissimilar structure, so refined lubricants contain a wide assortment of molecules.

However, not all of those molecules are beneficial to the lubrication process. Some of the molecules found in refined lubricants are detrimental to the lubricated system or to the lubricant itself. For example, paraffin, a common refined lubricant component, causes refined lubricants to thicken and flow poorly in cold temperatures. Some refined lubricant molecules also may contain sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, which act as contaminants and invite the formation of sludge and other by-products of lubricant breakdown." - Amsoil, Inc.

Theory: Synthetic Motor Oil

"Synthetic lubricants are not refined. They are chemically engineered from pure chemicals.

Pure – Because they are derived from pure chemicals. Synthetic lubricants contain no contaminants or molecules that “don’t pull their own weight.”

Uniform – Because synthetics contain only smooth lubricating molecules, they slip easily across one another. On the other hand, the potpourri of jagged, irregular and odd-shaped molecules of refined lubricants don’t slip quite so easily. The case with which lubricant molecules slip over one another affects the lube’s ability to reduce friction, which in turn, affects wear control, heat control and fuel efficiency.

Heat Control – Because uniformly smooth synthetic lubricant molecules slip easily over one another, they are superior friction-reducers to conventional lubricants. (Technically, because they slip more easily over one another, synthetics are said to have a lower “coefficient of friction” than conventional lubricants.) The less friction in a system, the less heat in it, too. Friction and heat are two major contributors to component failure and wear. By controlling friction and heat more effectively, synthetics significantly reduce the incidence of component failure and significantly reduce the rate of component wear." Amsoil, Inc.

The “Synthetic” Controversy

The topic of base oils and their perspective level of performance is generally a controversial topic among motor oil enthusiasts and on up through oil industry experts. Even defining what “synthetic” means results in controversy. Evidence of this can be seen by the conflicting comments made by oil industry experts after the much famed 1999 National Advertising Division (NAD) cases which defined the way synthetic lubricants would be labeled in the United States. In short, the result of the case ruled in favor of Castrol North America Inc. against the claim made by Mobil Oil Corp., that Castrol was not truthful in their advertising. The NAD ruling ultimately changed the way synthetic lubricants would be marketed in the United States setting the stage for what are known as group III lubricants to be labeled as synthetic. See the full two part article, A Defining Moment For Synthetics. Many would agree that the implication of the ruling blurs the lines of what a true synthetic lubricant really is and the levels of performance potential among the various base oil categories. In addition, some argue that this ultimately gives oil industry marketing the upper hand and leaves consumers at a disadvantage. A trip the local auto parts store reveals a dizzying array of synthetic motor oil choices. Terms like Full Synthetic, 100% Synthetic, Semi-Synthetic, Synthetic Blend and Synthetic Plus all grace the covers of motor oil bottles. Without further research, this often leaves one to wonder which version of synthetic motor oil best suites their specific application. Research into synthetic motor oils may also lead one to decide that top tier synthetic lubricants are not the best value for their dollar, while others may draw the conclusion that they will use nothing but top tier synthetics. The reality is that when considering such variables as driving habits, climate conditions, and equipment design, some motor oils fit some applications better than others, having their own proprietary blend of base oils and additives which make for a unique finished product.

For comparison, we will use three different motor oils as examples to help illustrate how motor oils are formulated using the various base stocks, how they are marketed, their associated cost, and discuss the perceived levels of performance each lubricant has.

Lubricant #1: Conventional Motor Oil

Chevron Supreme SAE 5W-30 API (SM)
Base stock – API Group II
Retail price per quart $2.99

Base Stock Origin: Refined from crude oil.

Today, conventional motor oils are formulated with Group II base stocks.

Other examples of Group II motor oils include but are not limited to Pennzoil (Yellow Bottle), Castrol GTX, Quaker State Peak Performance, Valvoline Conventional, Schaeffer Supreme 7000 Synthetic Plus, Brad Penn, and Shell Rotella T.

Note A: Advancements in oil technology like those pioneered by the Chevron Corporation have greatly improved the quality of conventional motor oils and have given way to group III synthetic motor oils. Read more on group II and III oil technologies at Chevron U.S.A Inc. and Shell Oil Company. Some have argued that this type of technology has closed the gap in performance between conventional motor oil and top tier synthetic lubricants.

Note B: Retail pricing provided by CSK Auto, Inc., and Amsoil, Inc., as of 10/18/09

Lubricant #2: Full Synthetic Motor Oil

Pennzoil Platinum SAE 5W-30
Base stock - API Group III
Retail price per quart $6.99

Base Stock Origin: Refined from crude oil.

Group III oils are refined from crude oil and are commonly marketed as “Full Synthetic” motor oil.

Other examples of Group III motor oils include Castrol Syntec, Amsoil Extended Life Synthetic Motor Oil, Schaeffer Supreme 9000 Full Synthetic, Shell Rotella T Synthetic, and Royal Purple High Performance Motor Oil.

Refer to notes A and B

Lubricant #3: 100% Synthetic Motor Oil

AMSOIL 100% Synthetic SAE 5W-30 Motor Oil
Base stock - API Group IV/V
Retail price per quart $8.75

Base Stock Origin: Pure chemicals derived from Crude Oil or Natural Gas.

Other examples of Group IV/V motor oils include Red Line, Royal Purple eXtreme Performance (XPR) Racing Oil, and Mobil 1.

Refer to note B.

100% Synthetic motor oils are often referred to as Top Tier Synthetics or Polyalpholefin (PAO) group IV based lubricants. Although PAO Group IV base stocks are not refined from crude oil like Group II and III oils are, there can still be some basis in crude oil. Ethylene is a colorless gas that is commonly derived from crude oil or natural gas. In addition to being a building block for Group IV synthetic base stocks, other products made from the ethylene family can also include plastics and rubber. Group V Ester oils are commonly used as additives in PAO based synthetic motor oils to improve various aspects of the finished product. See also Esters In Synthetic Lubricants. Finally, while many companies utilize PAOs in their finished products either as the main base stock or as an additive, there are only four companies currently in the United States that produce PAOs. According to the October 29, 2008 edition of Lube Report, producers of PAOs in the US include Chevron Phillips Chemical, ExxonMobil Chemical, Ineos Oligomers, and Chemtura. See also, Synthetic Lubricants.

Debate: Friction and Heat

Another area of debate among the oil industry experts is how the various base stocks perform with respect to coefficient of friction and heat reduction. For some, the conclusion has been made that with the advancements in base stock technology, there is little or no difference with respect to coefficient of friction and heat reduction between Group II/Group III and Group IV oils. However, this argument does not hold true for others. Some experts have indicated that PAO oils, or PAO oils blended with Ester oils both offer friction reducing abilities. Further, the purported added benefits of using a motor oil with friction reducing abilities include increased horsepower , higher rpm range, improved fuel economy, and lengthened engine component life. Provided below is responses from oil industry experts Tom Schaefer, formerly of the Hatco Corporation, and Ed Kellerman, manager of Oil Analyzers Inc., a subsidiary of Amsoil, Inc. Also provided is a related experience from an automotive Internet forum member.

Below, Ed Kellerman and Tom Schaefer comment about base oil characteristics with regards to Group IV Synthetic motor oils and friction reduction when compared to modern day Group II conventional motor oils.

"If we are talking just straight base stock, with no other additives, then group IV basestocks reduce friction far greater than groups II or III. You are correct: it’s a function of even molecular structure vs. molecules of all different shapes and sizes. The base stock argument, however, is for the most part irrelevant, in that there is so much more to a finished engine oil than just the base stock. It is possible to take a lesser base stock and improve anti-frictional characteristics by using high quality additives such as viscosity index improvers, anti-wear additives, friction modifiers, etc... Conversely, you can have a super high quality group IV base stock that if formulated with inferior additives and not formulated correctly, may not offer higher performance than a properly formulated group III finished engine oil. This is what makes the basestock argument irrelevant when it comes to the performance of a finished oil. AMSOIL engine oils are made from the finest base stocks and additives and there is no way any finished group II or III engine oil could come close." - Ed Kellerman

"A good group IV formulation will run cooler. This is not as important, however, as the fact that a group IV are far more resistant to thermal breakdown in high heat conditions, thereby offering far superior protection compared to groups II and III.

An oil's effect on engine temperature is a function of viscosity, coefficient of friction, and heat transfer properties. I don't doubt that these properties are similar among group I - IV hydrocarbons as they are all in the same chemical family, that is, there would be some differences based on such factors as aromatic content and molecular weight distribution, but the differences should be relatively small. Between different chemical families, however, the differences can be significant. Esters, for example, have significantly lower coefficients of friction and better heat transfer rates than most hydrocarbons, and much lower engine oil temperatures were frequently reported from the original all ester formulations back in the 1970s.

Since modern synthetic oils today are based almost entirely on hydrocarbon base oils, I wouldn't expect to see much difference in engine temperatures when viscosities are equal, especially since friction modifier additives are more potent than the base oils. That being said, those formulations with larger quantities of esters or ANs may indeed show some lowering of friction and temperatures." - Tom Schaefer

An automotive Internet forum member describes his experiences with lower engine operating temperatures when comparing conventional and synthetic motor oils.

"I work on an off-road race truck and we run oil temp gauges and found the following: During a fifteen minute race our oil temps would get up to 300+ if using any non synthetic oils. Mobil 1 dropped the oil temps by about twenty degrees to 280 and switching to Amsoil we dropped it to about 250-260 .......this is not representative of everyday usage but keep in mind that the water temp stays always in between 180-200 at all times no matter which oil.....so all in all it is kind of an accepted opinion that Mobil 1 is the cheapest and least effective of the synthetics but all of the higher end oils.......Amsoil, Royal Purple, etc. work better under extreme conditions. I guess it all depends on what your uses are. I just have my own opinions formed because of the info stated above." - LS1.com, Liquifire

Kellerman and Schaefer’s statements show slightly differing views with respect to the coefficient of friction of oil base stocks in their own right. However, both men seem to agree that a properly formulated lubricant with a quality additive package will provide improved anti-friction capabilities when compared to other lubricants using lower-grade additives. The exact rate to which friction reduction occurs between dissimilar finished lubricants is currently unknown. Further, a request was made for any relevant test data or studies on this subject, but none have been provided or located as of this writing. Mr. Kellerman did offer to review any information that would indicate no difference in friction reducing performance between GroupII/GroupIII and Group IV oils.

Further Discussion

While using cost effective Group II/III refined crude oil lubricants in mild-to-mid range performance applications can provide satisfactory results, other more demanding applications may gain additional benefits from utilizing Group IV based oils. Some example include, cooler engine operating temperatures, increased power and rpm ranges through friction reduction, lengthened oil change intervals, and better volatility and cold flow properties. Hopefully, after reading this post, one will come away with greater understanding and appreciation of what goes into producing a balanced lubricant, why some are cost effective, and why costly alternatives may offer a degree of increased performance potential.

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

A Defining Moment For Synthetics

2009-10-17T05:17:00.000-07:00

By Katherine Bui

Published October 1999 Lubricants World

Part 1

While the field is not wide open, a new ruling confirms that the definition of "synthetic" is still largely in the hands of marketers.

Synthetic. The word has become almost a proscription in the industry, especially among scientific and technical organizations, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Ask a marketer of motor oil products formulated with hydroprocessed mineral oils, and you might get a definition that involves cost-efficiencies and consumer choices. Ask an engineer involved in manufacturing polyalphaolefins (PAOs) or esters, and composition might be the determining factor. Despite the intense debate over the origins of synthetics, an absolute definition has remained in limbo for many years, with much of the responsibility placed on base oil manufacturers and lubricant marketers.

It was only recently, in a decision by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, that the first basic action and ruling in the United States set a strong precedence for a broader description in the marketing of synthetics. In this first installment of a two-part story, Lubricants World takes a look at the NAD's ruling and explores the revived debate surrounding the definition of "synthetic."

The Ruling
In a ruling released April 1999, the NAD addressed complaints filed by Mobil Oil Corp. regarding the truthfulness of Castrol North America Inc.'s claim that its Syntec® provides "superior engine protection" to all other motor oils, both synthetic and conventional, and that Syntec's esters provide "unique molecular bonding." Mobil charged that the advertisements inaccurately represented that the current formulation of Syntec is synthetic. The challenge was filed based on statements Castrol made in a series of television commercials, Web site publications, package labels, and brochures.

The NAD divided its decision to address three issues raised in the complaint. Is the reformulated Syntec synthetic motor oil? Has Castrol substantiated its superiority claims? Has Syntec been degraded?

Synthetic?
The NAD determined that the evidence presented by the advertiser constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil. NAD noted that Mobil markets hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere. NAD noted that the action taken by the SAE to delete any reference to "synthetic" in its description of basestocks in section J354 and API's consequent removal of any mention of "synthetic" in API1509 were decisions by the industry not to restrict use of the term "synthetic" to the definition now proffered by Mobil. Further, the SAE Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, an extensively peer-reviewed publication, states base oils made through the processes used to create Shell's hydroisomerized basestock, severe cracking, and reforming processes may be marketed as "synthetic."

Superior?
Despite its prior ruling, the NAD advised that Syntec could not advertise a superior protection claim.

Degraded?
The NAD determined that though Mobil presented clear evidence that Castrol has made a major change to Syntec's formulation, it was not sufficient to demonstrate that Syntec has been "degraded."

Industry Reaction
In a statement to Lubricants World, Castrol's legal counsel said, "The NAD's decision was clearly correct. In accepting Castrol's position on the appropriate definition of synthetic basestock and concluding that Castrol Syntec is a fully synthetic oil, the NAD accepted the overwhelming evidence Castrol presented, which included the opinions of leading scientists . . .and statements from Shell, Exxon, and other industry sources. The NAD also relied on the SAE's rejection of a restrictive definition of the type advanced by Mobil. In fact, although it had the right to do so, Mobil did not attempt to appeal the NADS's decision."

Mark Sztenderowicz, a senior research engineer from Chevron Products Co.'s Base Oil Technology Team, stated his company agreed with the NAD's decision. "We feel strongly," he said, "that 'synthetic' is a fairly broad term and a number of basestocks besides PAOs fit the description. To the extent that the NAD came to a similar conclusion and was unwilling to limit 'synthetic' to a narrow definition, we agree. We further agree with what we consider to be a commonsense interpretation that consumers perceive the word 'synthetic' to mean something man-made, but not made necessarily from a particular compound or component."

The Complaint

Mobil's Position
Mobil contended that Castrol misleads consumers that Syntec is a fully synthetic motor oil despite the fact that Syntec is no longer synthetic. The challenger alleged that after years of manufacturing Syntec with PAO, Castrol replaced the PAO, which had constituted nearly 70% of the volume of the product, with hydroprocessed mineral oil in approximately December 1997. As a result of an independent laboratory test conducted by Savant Inc., Mobil maintained that samples of Syntec purchased in June and December 1997 contained 93% and 80% PAO. Other samples of Syntec, one purchased in December 1997 and four purchased in 1998, contained no PAO, and instead contained 100% mineral oil.

Furthermore, Mobil alleged that Castrol degraded Syntec by substituting hydroprocessed mineral oil for PAO to the detriment of the consumer. Even though Syntec was able to meet the minimum industry standards, Mobil contended that in no way does it prove the current Syntec is as good as it was when it was made with PAO.

Castrol's Position
Castrol defended its claim that Castrol Syntec is synthetic based on the nature of the basestocks used in the formulation (Shell's hydroisomerized basestocks). This is substantiated by the opinions of chemistry experts; authorities from Shell and Exxon; the SAE's Automotive Lubricants Reference Book; a paper by Dr. Martin Voltz, a Mobil scientist; and an independent motor oil expert. Castrol also contends that its data show the current formulation of Syntec provides more protection than the old formulation and is, in fact, superior to Mobil 1®, Mobil's synthetic oil.

In response to Mobil's contention that Castrol deceived its consumers by not informing them of the change in the formulation, the advertiser submitted a statement by Richard Kabel, a motor oil expert. Kabel asserted that motor oil manufacturers, including Mobil, regularly make changes in their formulations without disclosing these changes to consumers. He stated that the industry certification and licensing program is designed to provide motor oil manufacturers with the flexibility to modify their formulations as long as the oil continues to meet industry standards.

The Definition of "Synthetic"
The debate regarding the use of the word "synthetic" created a tumult in the early 1990s when a push by the lubricants industry urged the API and the SAE to set a standard or official definition for the material. The argument centered on the development of very high viscosity index (VHVI) base oils that some argued provided properties similar to PAOs but cost only half as much. VHVIs or hydroisomerized basestocks are created by chemically converting the molecules of a selected feedstock to a different set of molecules, predominantly through chemical rearrangement or decomposition of the structure of the feed molecules. PAOs are derived from a chemical process that combines small molecules to make larger complex molecules of a desired type.

SAE, unable to resolve the debate, stripped references to the word "synthetics" from its terminology books and guides (J357) in 1995 and 1996, respectively. The API eliminated references to "synthetic" from its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (API1509).

Mobil's Definition
In the complaint filed by Mobil against Castrol's Syntec, the PAO manufacturer contended true synthetics had to be formulated from small molecules subject to a chemical reaction, not built from natural petroleum.

Mobil submitted testimony from Professor J.M. Perez, a lubrication and technology expert from Pennsylvania State University, who told the NAD that true synthetics require "the formation of chemical products from simple well-defined molecules by synthesis or chemical reaction." Perez cited isomerization, reforming, hydrotreating, and hydrocracking as some of the many chemical and physical processing steps applied to petroleum to produce a variety of useful products, but said that they do not produce synthetic products. He argued that hydroisomerization does not create synthetic material because it does not create or build molecules, but merely rearranges the same molecules that were present in the original petroleum fraction.

Professor O.L. Chapman, an expert in synthetic chemistry from the University of California, also testified that synthetic materials are constructed from pure compounds that are themselves not natural and that the resulting synthetic material has well-defined properties. PAO and ester, he said, are built from pure small molecules that have already been subject to a chemical reaction, and are not built from natural petroleum.

Mobil also asserted that the definition of synthetic propounded by Castrol is contrary to the definition used by other motor oil manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the EPA's 40CFR435.11(x), "the term 'synthetic' material. . . means material produced by the reaction of a specific purified chemical feedstock, as opposed to the traditional base fluids such as diesel and mineral oil, which are derived from crude oil solely through physical separation processes."

The challenger also noted that Exxon, on its Web site, stated that a synthetic lubricant is a "lubricating fluid made by chemically reacting materials of a specific chemical composition to produce a compound with planned and predictable properties. . . ." Similarly, Mobil contended Chevron, Lubrizol, Mobil, Valvoline, and Quaker State all disseminated definitions of synthetic that did not include hydroisomerized oil.

The challenger argued that Castrol does not even meet the definition of synthetic oil that it disseminates on its own Web site. Castrol's definition reads, "synthetic lubricants are manufactured chemicals . . . created in the laboratory by combining molecules" and "a lubricant produced by synthesis rather than by extraction and refinement." Mobil asserted that, in fact, Syntec meets Castrol's own Web-posted definition of mineral oil: "oil that is manufactured from crude oil by a series of refinery processes."

Despite the fact that the label does not contain the claim that Syntec is a fully synthetic motor oil, Mobil contended that Castrol's television commercials, brochures, labels, Web sites have created an automatic association for consumers that any Syntec product is a synthetic oil. In response to Castrol's assertions that SAE changed its definition of synthetics to include mineral oils, Mobil asserted that SAE's legal administrator, Steven P. Daum, has stated, "SAE has neither issued an official definition of, nor adopted a Society position on, what does or does not constitute such materials. SAE does not render opinions on what products may be marketed or advertised as synthetic motor oil."

Furthermore, Mobil contested Castrol's claim that Section J357 of SAE's "Physical and Chemical Properties of Engine Oils," described the basestocks used in manufacturing motor oils, recognizes Shell's hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic. The challenger claimed the section is a general guide to engine oil properties and that the current version does not define or even use the word "synthetic." Mobil also argued that Castrol's assertion that SAE's Automotive Lubricants Reference Book supports hydroisomerized oil as synthetic is misleading. Mobil contended the book expresses the views of the authors and not that of SAE.

Castrol's Definition
Castrol distinguished "synthetic" from "conventional" oil in its definition. Conventional oils, according to Castrol, are taken from the ground, purified, and refined without reforming through chemical reactions. Castrol described synthetic oils as made with stocks in which the molecular structure of a substance, such as wax, has been broken apart and transformed through a chemical reaction to create a new molecule that is different from naturally occurring substances.

Castrol called Nobel Laureate Roald Hoffman and Frank H.T. Rhodes, professor of chemistry at Cornell University, who defined synthetic material as "the product of an intended chemical reaction." Hoffman also defined at least one major chemical transformation (reaction) in its manufacture of processing, but a simple "physical separation, purification, or transformation (e.g., freezing or boiling) does not constitute a synthesis."

Sir John Meurig Thomas of the Royal Institute of Great Britain reached a similar conclusion, stating that although there is no net increase in the size of the molecule in hydroisomerization, this does not prevent the process from creating a synthetic substance. Furthermore, he noted the act of isomerizing a linear paraffin into a branched-chain paraffin makes the process of producing Shell's hydroisomerized basestock as much of a synthesis as the buildup of larger hydrocarbons from smaller ones.

J.G Helpinstill, who works for Exxon in basestock and finished-product research and development, stated that it is appropriate to classify as synthetic materials that are not found in the earth's naturally occurring resources in commercial quantities, but instead are made by substantive chemical modifications of other naturally occurring or physically recoverable substances.

In 1993, Castrol asserted SAE was asked to exclude hydroisomerized products from the definition of synthetic basestocks by defining synthesis as involving the buildup of larger molecules from smaller components. The SAE, according to Castrol, decided in 1995, as did the API, to revise its guidelines to eliminate any definition of synthetic. The advertiser contended Mobil's challenge before the NAD is really an effort to reopen a debate previously lost in these industry organizations. Furthermore, Castrol contended the SAE's Automotive Lubricants Reference Book states that base oils made through severe cracking and reforming processes may be marketed as synthetic.

Castrol also maintained that basestocks like shell's hydroisomerized basestock are marketed as synthetic in 37 countries, including the United States, and that Mobil's real interest is in protecting its market dominance. The advertiser argued that Mobil, through its alliance with British Petroleum, has also marketed hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere.

In a private interview with Lubricants World, Castrol's legal counsel from Paul Weiss said, "As the NAD recognized, the scientific and industry consensus view is that synthetic basestocks are manufactured through an intended chemical reaction in which the molecular structure of a substance has been transformed. Synthetic basestocks are used to produce engine oils that meet high performance specifications." Furthermore, he contended the NAD's decision confirmed that the use of judiciously chosen synthetic basestocks is essential to the formulation of a fully synthetic engine oil that meets the exacting performance standards consumers have come to expect from synthetic engine oils.

He said, "The NAD recognized, therefore, that both composition and performance are important characteristics of synthetic lubricants. Castrol requires that its Syntec full-synthetic engine oils meet those exacting performance specifications and surpass the performance of conventional products."

Industry Reaction
In Lubricant World's discussions with several lubricant companies, the case raised a diversity of opinions.

An industry expert from a major oil company prefers a description of synthetic used by the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers (STLE), which defines synthetics as man-made compounds, not naturally occurring, and that combining low-molecular-weight materials via chemical reaction into higher-molecular-weight structures makes these products. The spokesperson said, "In our opinion, that responsibility [of placing the accountability of defining synthetics in the hands of manufacturers or lubricant marketers] will yield an inconsistent application of the basestock, and inconsistencies in finished-product quality will result."

He also argued that based on PAO synthetic products, the emphasis should be based on performance rather than composition. "This is not to imply," he suggested, "that the only way to achieve enhanced performance is through the use of PAO. In Europe, for example, oil is formulated on various quality tiers, where the consumer is informed about what each tier will accomplish in his automobile (extended drains, high-RPM engines, etc.). The North American lubricant market has a long way to go to develop this type of market."

Sztenderowicz, however, applies the definition in Webster's Dictionary in the chemical context. The dictionary defines synthetic to mean, "of, relating to, or produced by chemical or biochemical synthesis, especially produced artificially," with synthesis defined as "the production of substance by the union on chemical elements, groups, or simpler compounds or by the degradation of a complex compound."

Chevron Products Co. manufactures a VHVI line of unconventional base oils (UCBOs) at its Richmond base oil plant. Based on these definitions, Sztenderowicz said, "Both Chevron PAOs and UCBOs fit this description." He noted the definition clearly links synthetics to composition or origin, but not to a specific composition, origin, or manufacturing route. "We think that a basestock in which the molecules largely are altered in some way from those appearing in the raw materials might be classified as synthetic," Sztenderowicz explained. "Performance is an issue separate from whether or not the base fluid is considered synthetic. The association is based entirely upon marketing claims. In the real world, the performance of a lubricant is a function of both the base fluid and the additives which make up the product. Although most synthetic basestocks offer certain advantages relative to conventional stocks, superior performance is not guaranteed by their use."

Henkel Lubricant Technologies refers to the traditional definition described by ASTM D 4175 from the American Society for Testing and Materials. In this case, synthetic is defined as originating from the chemical synthesis of relatively pure organic compounds from one or more of a wide variety of raw materials. Henkel produces ester basestocks used in the manufacture of synthetic or synthesized lubricants, including polyolesters, diesters, and dimer acid esters. A spokesperson for the company said, "we feel the definition of synthetics should include a combination of performance and composition."

Motiva Enterprises LLC defines synthetics as "man-made, not naturally occurring." Motiva manufactures Group III base oils known as TEXHVI 3 and 4. A representative of the company said "The definition of synthetics should be based on how it is derived."

None of the independent manufacturers contacted by Lubricants World said they had heard of the case or judgment. Denny Madden of Amalie Oil Co., which buys and manufacturers finished goods using both PAOs and VHVI basestocks, said "Personally, I have always ad a strange feeling about calling one slice of crude oil synthetic when the very nature of refining is a synthesizing process. I understand that there needs to be a way of differentiating between basestock types and that more mechanical, physical, and chemical activity takes place when one makes PAOs and other so-called synthetic stocks, but all crude is synthesized to make any number of very different products, lubricating or otherwise. So, how do I feel about the subject? Confused!"

Outcome
Castrol North America Inc. has agreed to modify its superior engine protect and "unique molecular bonding" claims in advertising for its Syntec motor oils, but continues to advertise the product as a synthetic. Castrol says it is in the process of further upgrading and reformulating Syntec. Castrol's legal counsel added separately to Lubricants World, "The NAD's decision does not make any changes. Instead, it confirms a preexisting consensus reached by industry groups, experts, and scientists."

A Mobil spokesperson told Lubricants World that "Mobil is disappointed with the NAD's decision that, in its judgment, Castrol Syntec can be advertised and marketed as synthetic motor oil. Mobil filed the challenge in order to protect consumers and the integrity of fully synthetic motor oils. Mobil 1, the top-selling fully synthetic motor oil in the world, provides several important benefits not offered by conventional blended or hydroprocessed motor oils -- benefits that can significantly improve engine performance, even under extreme conditions." Mobil currently does not have any plans to appeal the ruling.

Industry experts had mixed reactions to the impact of the decision on developing an industry-accepted definition for synthetics. A Henkel spokesperson said, "If the technical societies adopt the broader definition of synthetics, it will force more performance-driven specifications in the market and the term 'synthetic' will become meaningless." One industry expert described, "The market will move in a direction that it has historically and support synthetics as they presently are defined. PAOs will continue to thrive and support the demands of niche markets that require the highest quality basestock available.

Joe Geagea, Chevron base oils products team manager, suggested, "Currently, there is no strict definition in North America of what constitutes synthetic, and we don't expect this to change. What we really think will come out of this decision is an awareness that several types of stocks, particularly some newer UCNOs, justifiably can be considered synthetic and are viable basestocks for the formulation of top-quality synthetic lubricants. In other words, the decision sends a message that 'synthetic' is not synonymous with 'PAO'".

Part 2

As reported in Part 1 of this story (October 1999 Lubricants World), the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ruled in April 1999 that Castrol Syntec motor oil can be marketed as a synthetic. The decision followed a complaint filed by Mobil that as of December 1997, Castrol no longer used polyalphaolefins (PAOs) but hydroprocessed base oils to formulate the product. The decision is final, but the impact it might have on the lubricants industry could open the floodgates on how synthetics are marketed.

The PAO commercial market can be traced as far back as the early 1970s, when specialized products were formulated from PAOs. However, it was not until Mobil Oil commercially marketed its Mobil 1 products 25 years ago that PAOs became a major consumer-sought lubricant product.

Since that time, the PAO market has traveled a long and winding road, enjoying slow but steady growth while fending off criticisms of high cost compared to conventional oils. In the last 10 years, the PAO market took off significantly, first in Europe and then in North America, expecting as much as double-digit growth. In part, the growth might be attributed to the stricter specifications in Europe that created a market niche for synthetic and semi-synthetic products. The demand has since extended to North America and other continents.

It was the invention of the hydrockracking process in the late 1950s, followed by Chevron’s development of hydrodewaxing or hydroisomerizing in the late 1980s, that created the process for the development of the hydrorocessed market.

The 1990s brought a change to the hydrodewaxing technology, making large volumes of high-quality basestocks available at lower cost. Much of this capacity is used to produce Group II base oils. The introduction of Group III basestocks made solely through hydroprocessing in 1996 by Chevron, Petro-Canada, and a few other base oil companies created a second generation of very high viscosity index (VHVI) oils in terms of both quality and potential capacity—that is, high-performance basestocks had gone mainstream. These base oils, which cost more than the Group IIs yet less than PAOs, do not usa a solvent-refining process and some say they may have a much higher performance level than conventional oils, almost approaching that of PAOs.
Increased severity of lubricant specifications has been the driving force in both the need and availability of PAOs and VHVIs, but it is still too early to tell in which niche these types of basestocks fall in the marketplace. Nevertheless, the NAD ruling has raised several issues regarding the marketing and application of the word “synthetic” that arguably would resolve some of these discrepancies. In this second of out two-part series, Lubricants World posed the question of the market impact of the NAD decision to a sample of representatives from a variety of segments in the lubricants industry.

Impact on Individual Companies
When asked how the NAD decision might impact individual companies, the answers were as diverse as the products each company markets. Castrol, whose formulation of Syntec utilizing hydroisomerized base oils instead of PAOs initiated Mobil’s complaint, stated it is “gratified” by the outcome of the decision.

“Castrol is proud to be a major worldwide provider of synthetic formulated lubricants, and looks forward to continued participation in this exiting market,” said a company spokesperson. “Castrol is committed to upgrading its products and producing the highest quality synthetic engine oils. We will continue to explore ways to ensure that Syntec remains a leading performer in the synthetic category.”

Mark Pernik from Chevron Chemical said, “To this point, most lubricant manufacturers are taking a conservative approach to the decision and continue to use a PAO in their synthetic formulations. In fact, Mobil has already raised the quality bar by developing a new Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic PAO formulation. For the past 5 years, Chevron Chemical has produced a new generation of PAOs that enhance performance for longer drain intervals. These products improve on important properties such as VI, oxidative stability, and volatility from traditionally available PAOs.

Joe C. Costa, manager of specialty/niche lubricants at Conoco Lubricants, said, “This decision will have a minimal impact on our company as we are poised to provide the optimum lubricants to meet our customers’ needs, regardless of the marketing definition of ‘synthetic base oil.’ Conoco has made a major decision to commit to heavily hydroprocessed/hydroisomerized basestocks. And yet, we also supply lubricants based on ‘chemically synthesized’ base oils, such as PAOs…We continue to provide a complete offering to our customers so that they always have the highest value product to meet their needs.”

Chevron, which produces both unconventional base oils (UCBOs) and PAOs, believes the impact on its market will depend on customers’ needs and preferences. Joe Geagea, manager of the Chevron Base Oils Products Team, argued, “overall, we expect significant growth in the UBCO segment at some short-term expense of the PAO segment, followed by growth of both segments in the long term.” Brent Lok, Chevron Base Oils Product Development manager, added, “In addition to the expected growth in UCBO sales, our finished-oils colleagues are looking at options for the use of UCBOs in Chevron’s synthetic product lines.”

Henkel, which produces ester basestocks used in the manufacturing of synthetic or synthesized lubricants, could see little impact on the company based on the NAD’s ruling. A Henkel spokesperson said, “Henkel’s products are performance driven and customer focused.”

Ed Newman of added, "AMSOIL has been the recognized leader in the development of synthetic motor oils, and we always strive to maintain the highest performance criteria for our products. For this reason, we do not foresee any negative impact because [our] customers tend to focus more on performance criteria rather than name tags.”

Valvoline’s official position regarding the decision was stated as follows: “Valvoline will not comment on rulings or decisions which impact our competitors. Our own product formulations are confidential for competitive reasons.”

Like many of the independent manufacturers Lubricants World surveyed, Amalie Oil Co., an independent blender and packager for motor oil companies that purchases and manufacturers finished goods using both PAOs and VHVIs, said it had not heard enough about the case to make a judgment. However, Denny Madden of Amalie described the decision as shocking and confusing for the market.

George Crow, president of Cross Oil Refining and Marketing Co., responded to the NAD decisions as follows: “Let’s start off with one very important premise, that motor oil is, after all, mainly a marketing-driven event. We are not talking [about] whether these oils meet the requirements for which they were blended; rather, we are talking about the attack on Mobil’s long-held dominance in the synthetic market. And they built this position around PAOs. If another product actually can give equal performance to PAOs, then Mobil is at a cost disadvantage. It will definitely affect Mobil, being a producer of PAOs…It will enhance the standing of the VHVI producers, which are becoming more numerous. In this case Petro-Canada, Chevron, Shell Europe, Exxon, Texaco, and soon Sun will be able to compete, economically, with Mobil. In the past, this was not the case.”

Crow continued, “Now, after saying all of this, and if Mobil is able to keep their brand image and advertising strong, they will be able to continue to maintain their number one position in synthetics. They may have to reduce their price on PAOs, or have to revert to using all or some VHVI material to economically compete. Or just not make as much money as their competitors will on the sale of a quart of synthetic product. I think this will make PAOs become more competitive with VHVIs and enhance the demand for VHVIs in the future. I think it is a good move for the industry, a good move for Castrol, and an unfortunate event for Mobil. For Cross Oil, it will not have an immediate impact at all. But down the road a bit, if we want to get into the finished-oil package business, it will allow Cross to make more money on the sale of synthetic or semi-synthetic products, assuming PAOs stay at a higher price than VHVIs.”

Impact on the Synthetic Base Oil Market
In the past 7 or 8 years, synthetics, in general, have seen increased activity. One brand that exemplifies this trend has been Castrol’s Syntec, whose market share in the last 5 years has climbed from virtually nothing to 20%. Nearly every major oil company currently has a synthetic product line. Based on this trend, the NAD decision has set a tone that may significantly impact the “synthetic” base oil market, specifically the supply and demand of PAOs and VHVIs.

A Castrol spokesperson assessed, “As the NAD’s decision reflects, synthetic engine oils formulated with high-quality hydroisomerized basestocks—like the basestock used in Castrol Syntec—clearly match the performance specifications of synthetic engine oils formulated with PAO basestocks. For that reason, such stocks have been, and will continue to be, competitive with PAO basestocks. Castrol believes that consumers will continue to benefit from that competition.”

An expert familiar with PAOs disagrees. He said, “The market is reading too much into the decision and trying to cast a broader net for other mineral oil basestocks. It is very important to note that Castrol’s claim was made for a very specific product from a very specific feedstock. Castrol argued that Shell’s XHVI from a slack wax stream is synthetic. The spokesperson indicated this is the part of the decision that has the largest potential impact. The quality of Group III products in inconsistent, and their physical properties are different from one manufacturer to the next. If these products were to be classified as synthetic, and suppliers use some of the poorer quality Group IIIs in the synthetic market, consumers will be misled and the high-margin niche that has been developed by present-day synthetics will erode.”

Costa of Conoco Lubricants suggested, “Presently, the supply and demand for PAOs as lubricant basestocks are generally in balance. Thus, a decision or ruling allowing the use of another (particularly less expensive) oil into the segment of the market now occupied by PAOs will obviously create a temporary softness in the PAO market.”

Lok of Chevron contended the jury is still out on the impact of the NAD’s decision. “Many of our customers are still studying this ruling and deciding what course of action to take. In the immediate future, high-performance Group III base oils will probably gain some volume at the expense of PAOs. But the enhanced competition can very likely expand the total size of the synthetic market, allowing for continued growth of both PAO and Group III UCBOs.” Lok said he believes the PAO market will always be a niche market because of the limited availability of PAO feedstocks.

“The availability of new fully hydroprocessed Group III base oils, whose capacities are measured in thousands of barrels per day, will allow manufacturers to specify high performance in mainstream applications,” said Lok. He further suggested, “We think that this development can further increase the already healthy growth rate of the synthetic market, to the point that both PAO and Group III UCBOs can co-exist in the market place.”
A Henkel spokesperson said, “We believe that the market would begin to differentiate products by performance rather than by a definition that may have been ompromised.”

Newman of AMSOIL suggested, “We’re concerned about the message to consumers. The NAD decision will result in increased confusion in the marketplace among consumers. Even the experts aren’t entirely in agreement on this matter. If a Group III basestock is acceptable as ‘synthetic,’ it helps all Group III products and weakens the meaning of the word ‘synthetic.’ Not all Group III lubricants are created equal.” He added, “True synthetics will continue to offer significant performance advantages, including high- and low-temperature performance under extreme conditions, oxidative stability, and lower volatility, to name a few.”

What’s Ahead?
The synthetic market faces many challenges other than those directly related to the NAD ruling. Consolidations, mergers, and acquisitions are changing the key players in the industry. Driven by demand and increasing specification hurdles, both base oil manufacturers and aftermarket formulators may have to address the performance, composition and supply of synthetics. Economics will also play an important role in driving the market.

However, these factors are all uncertain. What is certain is that “synthetics,” a component of higher performance, will remain a strong presence in the marketplace. At its current precarious state, any ruling -- whether it is through the court system or the NAD – may tip the scales in determining the outgrowth and market of synthetics, whether they are PAOs or hydroisomerized basestocks.

Article brought to you by http://competitionsynthetics.com

AMSOIL® Introduces Donaldson Endurance™ Air and Oil Filters with Nanofiber Technology

2009-10-17T01:04:00.000-07:00

By Ed Newman, Amsoil Marketing and Advertising Manager

Press Release 01/11/2005 - link

AMSOIL INC.® of Superior, WI now represents the Donaldson Endurance™ lube and air filters filters with nanofiber technology. Donaldson filters are specially designed for GVW Class 6, 7 and 8 over-the-road commercial vehicles including vans, beverage trucks, school buses, box trucks, tow trucks, city transports, fuel trucks, cement mixers, heavy construction cabs, refrigerated vans, and more.

Air Filters

This unique nanofiber technology traps sub micron containment below 1 micron in size (a human hair is 50-80 microns in diameter). Donaldson Endurance air filters utilize a sub micron, ultra-fine web that captures these fine contaminants at a very high efficiency level. Donaldson Endurance air filters from AMSOIL® provide the following cost saving benefits:

* Extends service intervals through increased Capacity
* Better Capacity than wet cotton gauze or cellulose
* Offers a high level of engine protection though Efficiency
* Better Efficiency than wet cotton gauze or cellulose
* Highest Efficiency rating in the industry
* Maintains high permeability or Flow through it life cycle
* Advanced “Cleanable” properties and attributes (reusable)
* 100,000 mile AMSOIL guarantee / Extended Service Intervals
* Cost effective / Reduced operation costs
* OEM Certified Fitment
* Elimination of potential OEM warranty issues

In lab testing Ea media with nanofibers removed 2.5 times more dust than the average cellulose filter and 50 times more dust than the average wet gauze media. Ea media also has 3 times the airflow of cellulose filters and is equal to wet gauze filters at the very low 0.5 inches of restriction. The proprietary Ea media held 15 times more dust than the average wet gauze type filter. In short, AMSOIL Ea Filters offer superior performance in the three critical performance benchmarks of efficiency, flow and capacity.

Nanofiber Filter Media

* Traps sub-micron size particles on the nanofiber surface
* Prevents particles from lodging in the filter media depth

Fast Fact: A nanofiber is less than one micron in diameter. A human hair is 80 microns.

Cleaning

EaA filters should be cleaned every year or 25,000 miles, whichever comes first. Carefully remove the filter from the housing. Clean the housing with a shop towel, being careful not to knock contaminants into the air inlet. Filters can be cleaned by carefully vacuuming the filter media on the dirty side, or by holding the filter with one hand and carefully blowing the filter media at a 45 degree angle on the clean side using low-pressure shop air (15-20 lbs. psi).

Service Life

AMSOIL Ea Air Filters are guaranteed for four years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. The guarantee applies only if the filter has been serviced according to AMSOIL recommendations. In off-road, frequently dusty or other severe duty applications, clean and change more often as determined by operating conditions or as indicated by restriction gauge.

Lube Filters

Donaldson Endurance lube filters are made with premium advanced synthetic media that incorporates sub micron fibers in size, shape and fiber diameter. The Donaldson Endurance lube filters from AMSOIL® provide the following cost saving benefits:

* 25,000 miles or one year service life in cars and light trucks
* Higher capacity than competing filter lines
* Excellent flow characteristics
* Reduced engine wear
* Certified OEM fitment

The filters also feature fully tucked seams, a molded element seal, roll-formed threads and a long-lasting premium grade silicone anti-drain valve.

Amsoil Nanofiber Oil Filter Real World Test

TEST: Really! How Good Are Amsoil Oil Filters - link

Service Life

AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters are guaranteed for 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first, when used in conjunction with AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil. AMSOIL recommends changing the oil filter at the time of oil change.

If used in conjunction with AMSOIL Motor Oil that is being changed at intervals less than 25,000 miles, the EaO Filter should be changed at the same time. AMSOIL EaO Filters are not guaranteed for 25,000 miles when used with any oil other than AMSOIL Motor Oil and should be changed according to vehicle OEM recommendations.

Manufacturer & Dealer Information

Donaldson Company, Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., is a leading worldwide provider of filtration systems and replacement parts. Founded in 1915, Donaldson is a technology-driven company committed to satisfying customer needs for filtration solutions through innovative research and development. Our 10,000 employees contribute to the company's success at over 30 manufacturing locations around the world. Donaldson is a member of the S&P MidCap 400 Index and Donaldson shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DCI.

Article: Donaldson Company Selected to Develop Filtration System for U.S. Army Abrams-Crusader Common Engine Program - link

AMSOIL INC. has been the recognized leader in synthetic lubricant and filtration products since 1972 producing the first 100% synthetic motor oil to be recognized by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Article: Amsoil’s Strategic relationship with Donaldson Filters pdf - link

For more information about AMSOIL synthetic lubricants and performance filtration products contact Anthony Garner at Competition Synthetics. Anthony is an Amsoil T-1 Certified Independent Dealer. E-mail Anthony at compsyn@live.com, or visit http://competitionsynthetics.com

Superior Filtration Leads to Reduced Costs, Extended Equipment Life

2009-10-16T04:16:00.000-07:00

SAE study proved direct correlation between particle size and engine wear.

A great deal of emphasis is placed on the importance of using of the most advanced high-quality lubricants, but superior filtration is often taken for granted. The general attitude displayed by many consumers is to use whatever is cheapest, even when they’ve invested in superior lubrication. While AMSOIL synthetic motor oils provide unbeatable protection, performance and economy, they require the assistance of filtration. Without filtration, by-products from the combustion process and abrasive materials ingested from the air will ultimately destroy an engine.

Some Contaminants Cause More Damage

The level of damage particles cause to an engine is directly related to the size of the particles. The oil stream within the engine flows between wear-sensitive surfaces that usually have clearances between 2 and 22 microns. It is contaminants in this size range that pose the greatest threat as they can slip between moving components, causing a great deal of wear.

To appreciate how small these particles are, one must first understand the measurements involved in their classification.

A micron, or micrometer (μ), is a very small unit of linear measurement. One micron is equal to one millionth of a meter, and 25 microns is equal to 0.001 inch. To better put this in perspective, consider that the diameter of a human hair is 50 - 70 microns.

Large particles are particles measuring 1/2” or larger. They pose little threat to engines because they are easily removed by the air filter.

Medium particles are particles measuring 25μ to 1/2”. While they are of greater concern than large particles because they are more difficult to remove, the threat they pose is diminished since they are still larger than many of the clearances within an engine. Their size will not allow them to enter the contact areas between many components to promote accelerated wear.

Small particles are particles measuring between 5 and 25μ. Small particles are of greatest concern because they can penetrate the clearances between wear-sensitive components and promote accelerated wear.And, because they are so small, they are difficult to remove from the oil stream.

SAE Testing

In the 1988 Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies With Engine Wear technical paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the relationship between filtration
levels and abrasive engine wear was established. Testing determined that wear was reduced by as much as 70 percent by switching from a 40μ filter to a 15μ filter. The SAE conducted tests on a heavy-duty diesel engine and an automotive gasoline engine, and both provided consistent
results.

New Technology Provides New Options

The SAE paper on filtration discusses the introduction of synthetic fibers into the oil filter market, which offer “the capability of achieving high levels of filtration without the traditional
sacrifice of dirt holding capacity and increased flow restriction.” Today, a new pinnacle has been reached with synthetic nanofiber technology and AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters. While today’s filters offer even greater performance, the message then was the same as it is now; removal of particles
measuring 2 to 25μ is the key to controlling engine wear, and there is a direct correlation between oil filter efficiency and engine wear.

Test Results

To establish a relationship between levels of filtration and engine wear rates, the SAE used a variety of oil filter types in its tests. Three glass filters and one traditional cellulose media filter were used in the diesel tests, while one cellulose, one glass and two glass/cellulose-blend filters were used in the gasoline engine tests. The micron rating of each oil filter was determined, and testing was conducted according to SAE guidelines. The Filter Particle Retention Curves chart on the next page shows the particle retention for each filter tested. The filters were tested at their 98 percent efficiency point and their single pass efficiency curves were determined by comparing
the number of particles upstream from the filter with the number of particles downstream. The Engine Wear Rates charts demonstrate the correlation between superior filtration and reduced engine wear. The filters that provided superior efficiency also provided superior engine protection.

Filter / Micron Rating Media@ 98% Efficiency / Composition

Diesel
(A)___40____Cellulose
(B)___15____Glass
(C)___8.5____Glass
(D)___7_____Glass

Gasoline
(E)___40___Cellulose
(F) __ 30___Glass/Cellulose
(G)___25___Glass/Cellulose
(H)___15___Glass

Conclusions

The SAE paper summarizes the test results with the following conclusions:

“Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter single pass efficiency. Compared to a 40μ filter, engine wear was reduced by 50% with 30μ filtration. Likewise, wear was reduced by 70% with 15μ filtration. “Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the range of 2 to 22μ in the lube oil is necessary for controlling engine wear.
“The micron rating of a filter, as established in a single pass efficiency type test, does an excellent job in indicating the filter’s ability to remove abrasive particles in the engine lube oil
system.”

Today’s Most Advanced Filtration Product

Ea Oil Filters have been evaluated using today’s benchmark test, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test. AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters provide 98.7 percent efficiency at 15μ and up to 70 percent efficiency at 7μ. Competitive filters range from approximately 85 to 92 percent efficiency at 15μ.

When it comes to removing contaminants in the most critical size range (2 to 22μ), AMSOIL Ea Filters greatly outperform competitive filters.

Summary

Even with all of the advances in lubrication and engine technology, filtration is as important today as it ever was. The combustion process produces by-products that slip into the oil
stream, and external contaminants are introduced into the engine in a variety of ways. The challenge for filter manufacturers is balancing flow, efficiency and filter life. In order to stop
particles in the 2 to 22μ range, the pores in the cellulose media used in many filters are too small to allow adequate oil flow.

Only AMSOIL Ea Oil and Air Filters feature full-synthetic nanofiber technology. It is the nanofibers that allow Ea Filters to provide greater efficiency than any other filter available. Ea
Filters stop more particles, stop smaller particles and last longer than any other oil filter available for auto/light truck applications.

Works Cited: Amsoil, Inc., http://www.amsoil.com/comparison/oil-filters.pdf

Service Life

AMSOIL Ea Oil Filters are guaranteed for 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first, when used in conjunction with AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil. AMSOIL recommends changing the oil filter at the time of oil change.

If used in conjunction with AMSOIL Motor Oil that is being changed at intervals less than 25,000 miles, the EaO Filter should be changed at the same time. AMSOIL EaO Filters are not guaranteed for 25,000 miles when used with any oil other than AMSOIL Motor Oil and should be changed according to vehicle OEM recommendations.

What's In Your Motor Oil

2009-10-15T04:00:00.000-07:00

By Tom Schaefer

To a formulator, a motor oil is a complex blend of 10-15 ingredients carefully balanced and tested to meet the industry specifications and market claims. To a blender it can be as simple as mixing three liquids together and filling it into bottles. And to the consumer it is, for the most part, a mysterious golden fluid with confusing numbers and letters that all make the same claims about being the best product possible for your car. In reality, it is all of these things.

While some oil producers blend many individual components to make their motor oils, most oils are made by simply blending three fluids; a DI package, a VI improver, and a base oil. These fluids, however, are the complex products of extensive research and technology. Following is a brief summary of each:

DI Package

An acronym for Detergent Inhibitor package, this thick dark fluid is a concentrated cocktail containing most of the performance additives needed to formulate an oil. DI packs are generally made by additive companies, the largest of which are Lubrizol (independent), Oronite (a Chevron Texaco company), and Infineum (ExxonMobil/Shell joint venture). These companies have extensive R&D facilities with numerous engine test stands for developing and qualifying motor oil formulations against various global standards. The development and testing costs are so high that they are beyond the reach of many oil blenders and marketers, so the work is usually left to these experts to concoct the formulation and give it to their customers. Naturally the approvals (SM, CF etc.) are only valid if one follows the formula, which requires that you use their DI pack in approved base oils. Some majors develop their own proprietary additive systems and buy the components instead of the complete package.

The DI pack for an SM/CF passenger car motor oil is jam packed full of goodies as follows:

Dispersants: These are chemicals that can disperse and suspend solid particles formed in the combustion of fuel that might otherwise be deposited in your engine as sludge. Consisting mainly of polyamine chemistry, these molecules have “polar heads” that attach to acidic molecules and solids such as soot, and a hydrocarbon tail that keeps it all in suspension until removed by the filter or oil change. Think of them as pollywogs who surround a particle – the fat heads bite the particle and the tails keeps them swimming. Dispersants are the largest component in the DI pack, especially in diesel formulations where there are a lot more soot particles to deal with.

Detergents: Also polar in nature, these “organometalic” products made from organic chemicals and metals are responsible for neutralizing acids formed during the combustion process, and cleaning the engine from high temperature deposits by removing and preventing the adherence of deposit precursors. Some detergents are “overbased”, that is, forced to contain more metal atoms than they really want to, and are best at neutralizing acid by-products. Others are “neutral” detergents which are somewhat more effective at the cleaning process. The most common metal atoms used are Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Sodium (Na), and these are all measurable in the UOA and VOA analysis. The organic portions are usually sulfonates, phenates, and salicylates.

Friction Modifiers: Often esters or partial esters, these additives are very polar, thus attaching to metal surfaces to improve lubricity. FMs are used to improve fuel economy, as opposed to reducing wear, and are additive to the effects of lower viscosity.

Seal Conditioners: Also often esters, seal conditioners are potent additives used in small dosages and designed to keep seals pliable. These are especially important for highly paraffinic base oils such as Group IIIs or PAOs due to the tendency of these base oils to shrink and harden seals.

Zinc Dialkyldithiophosphate: Affectionately known as “ZDDP”, this miracle multi-purpose chemical and has been the chief anti-wear (AW), extreme pressure (EP), and anti-oxidant (AO) additive for decades. It is so effective and low cost that it is virtually irreplaceable, which is why it survives all efforts to remove phosphorus (P) from oils to protect the catalyst. With modern oils putting caps on the maximum P allowed, other additives are now being used to supplement this old standard, such as Molybdenum anti-wear compounds and ashless anti-oxidants. There are different types of ZDDPs including primaries, secondaries, and aryls, each with its own strengths & weaknesses, and the mix is balanced to the type of service the oil will see.

Anti-Oxidants: These sacrificial molecules react preferentially with oxygen to protect the other components from the degrading effects of oxidation. While oxygen is 21% of the air we breath, most people don’t realize that in its pure form it is so reactive it is considered a flammable gas! Even diluted in air, it is everywhere and wants to react with just about everything if conditions are right, such as high temperatures. Oxidation, the reaction with oxygen, is the main cause of oil thickening and left unchecked will lead to varnish and carbon deposits as well. With the ZDDP being reduced, supplemental AOs are more critical in modern oils and usually more than one kind is used to capitalize on the common synergistic properties they possess. The most common types are phenolics and amines.

Rust & Corrosion Inhibitors: These additives are smaller in dosage and are designed to protect iron alloys and yellow metals from corrosion induced by oxygen, acids and water. They work by attaching to metal surfaces and therefore compete with some other additives and base oils, so balance is critical.

Pour Point Depressants: These polymeric molecules interfere with the formation and growth of wax crystals from residual paraffins. They are generally not needed in full PAO and ester based oils since they contain no wax.

Anti-Foams: Often silicone products, these molecules are not soluble and work by suspending tiny micron sized droplets that prevent foam from forming or help the foam break faster.

Diluent Oil: Also called carrier oil, this component is usually mineral oil and is present at about 5-20% in the DI pack to solubilize all the additives and adjust the package to a consistent and manageable viscosity for pumping and blending.

Finished DI packages will vary in chemistry, balance, and dosage according to what kind of oil you are making. For example heavy duty diesel DIs will have more dispersants and be used at dosages up to about 15% of the finished oil. Passenger car/light truck DIs have less ZDDP and more anti-oxidants and are generally dosed at about 8-12%.

Viscosity Index Improvers

Abbreviated VIIs, these are huge polymeric molecules, often with molecular weights in the millions. Their purpose is to improve the viscosity index of the finished oil so that multi-grades can be made.

All organic liquids will thin out when heated and thicken up when cooled, but they don't all do so at the same rate. Viscosity Index is simply a scale to compare the rate of viscosity change with temperature among different fluids. A fluid that thins more upon heating (and therefore thickens more upon cooling) has a lower VI than one that thins less and thickens less. Or put another way, higher VI oils change their viscosity less when the temperature changes. This can be a good property for lubricants that are used in a wide temperature range.

The VI scale was originally established by assigning a value of "0" (zero) to the worse known base oil at the time, and "100" to the best. The theory was that all other base oils would then fall between these end points. Apparently they didn't anticipate synthetics or hydrocracked mineral oils back then.

The way VI Improvers work is that the huge molecules tend to coil up into balls when cold, thus having little effect on the oil’s flow (viscosity). When hot, however, the molecules uncoil and stretch out, thus interfering with the flow of the oil and causing an increase in viscosity (actually a reduction in thinning, but let’s not get technical). If you put these molecules into a light 5W base oil, the low temperature viscosity is little affected, i.e. remains a 5W, but the high temperature viscosity rises, giving for example a 5W-30 multi-grade. By reducing the thinning effect of heat, the Viscosity Index of the finished oil is increased.

VI Improvers are available an various chemistries and forms. Some are solids that need to be dissolved in the oil, but most are pre-dissolved in a carrier oil to give a thick, honey-like liquid that is easier to handle and faster to blend. Dosages are usually under 10% and vary with the VII chemistry, target oil grade, and base oil type.

People tend to think that the less VI Improver the better, but that depends on the type of VI Improver used. Some are much more shear stable than others, and a higher quantity of a shear stable VII may be better than a lower quantity of a non-shear stable VII. In addition to permanent viscosity loss cause by breaking (shearing) the large VII molecules, they also exhibit temporary viscosity losses under high shear, and this lowers the HTHS viscosity and improves fuel economy.

Base Oils

Constituting 80-90% of the finished motor oil, the base oil(s) play a very important role. The structure and stability of the base oils dictate the flow characteristics of the oil and the temperature range in which it can operate, as well as many other vital properties such as volatility, lubricity, and cleanliness. The two major categories of base oils are Mineral Oils and Synthetics.

Mineral oils begin with crude oil, a mixture of literally hundreds of different molecules derived from the decomposition of prehistoric plant and animal life. The lighter more volatile components of crude oil are stripped away to make gasoline and other fuels, and the heaviest components are used in asphalt and tar. It’s the middle cuts that have the right thickness or viscosity for lubricants, but first they must be cleaned up; undesirable components such as waxes, unsaturated hydrocarbons, and nitrogen and sulfur compounds must be removed. Modern processing techniques do a pretty good job of removing these undesirable components, good enough for well over 90% of the world’s lubricant applications, but they cannot remove all of the bad actors. And it’s these residual “weak links” that limit the capabilities of mineral oils, usually by triggering breakdown reactions at high temperatures or freezing up when cold. These inherent weaknesses limit the temperature range in which mineral oils can be used and shorten the useful life of the finished lubricant.

Mineral oils are further subdivided into three subgroups (Group I, Group II, Group III) that differ by the degree of processing they undergo. Higher groups have been subjected to hydrotreating or cracking to open aromatic (ringed) molecules, eliminate unstable double bonds, and remove other undesirables. This extra treating yields water-white clear liquid with higher VIs, enhanced oxidative stability, and lower volatility.

Group IIIs are a somewhat controversial class as they are derived from crude oil like Groups I & II, but their molecules have been so changed by severe processing that they are marketed as Synthetics. Most people now accept Group IIIs as synthetic, but the discussion remains heated among purists, and I’m going to duck by not taking a side here.

Synthetic base oils are manufactured by man from relatively pure and simple chemical building blocks, which are then reacted together or synthesized into new, larger molecules. The resulting synthetic basestock consists only of the preselected molecules and has no undesirable weak links that inhibit performance. This ability to preselect or design specific ideal molecules tailored for a given job, and then create those molecules and only those molecules, opens a whole new world for making superior basestocks for lubricants. In fact, the entire formulation approach is different: instead of trying to clean up a naturally occurring chemical soup to acceptable levels with a constant eye on cost, the synthetic chemist is able to focus on optimum performance in a specific application with the knowledge that he can build the necessary molecules to achieve it. And since full synthetic oils are generally a company’s premier offering, their best foot forward so to speak, the additives are often better and in higher doses as performance trumps cost.

In general, synthetic base oils offer higher oxidative and thermal stability, lower pour points, lower volatility, higher VI, higher flash points, higher lubricity, better fuel economy, and better engine cleanliness. The amount and balance of these improvements vary by synthetic type, and can be quite significant for the engine and user.

There are many types of synthetic base oils, the most common being Polyalphaolefins (PAOs), Esters, Alkylated Naphthenes (ANs), and more recently Group IIIs. These different types of synthetic base oils are often blended together (or even with mineral oils), to give the balance of properties desired. All offer improved performance, but at a higher price, which brings up the question of value - how much performance to you need, and how much should you pay for it?

For the average car owner, driving conditions are mild enough for conventional mineral oils to work satisfactorily, provided they are changed relatively frequently (3,000-5,000 miles). For those users with high performance engines, severe climates, hard driving, or utilizing long drain intervals, synthetics can offer good value and may even be required. And then there are those who so love their cars that nothing but the very best will do for their baby.

So, as you can see, modern motor oils are very simple mixtures of very complex ingredients. Choosing the right components of the right chemistry in the right dosages is a real balancing act, as each of the components have their own pluses and minuses and can interact or compete with each other. Don’t try this at home - leave it to companies you trust who have the technology, R&D, and resources to achieve the necessary balance so critical to performance.Choosing the right components of the right chemistry in the right dosages is a real balancing act, as each of the components have their own pluses and minuses and can interact or compete with each other. Don’t try this at home - leave it to companies you trust who have the technology, R&D, and resources to achieve the necessary balance so critical to performance.

Works Cited: Bob Is The Oil Guy.com, Article of the Month – February 2009

Ten Myths About Synthetic Lubrication

2009-10-04T20:56:00.000-07:00

First Published in National Oil and Lube News by Ed Newman

It's a fact of life that behavior is strongly influenced by what people believe, whether true or not. Numerous examples from history bear this out. For example, sailors were once fearful of sailing outside the sight of land lest they would fall off the edge of the world. In the early 19th century, the train was considered dangerous because it was believed that if you moved faster than 25 miles per hour, you would be travelling too fast to breathe. At a later date, the New York Times warned that electric light may cause blindness. Microwave ovens, automobiles and airplanes have had equally vociferous opponents.

Looking back, it's easy to laugh at some of the things people so firmly believed. But these people were not stupid. They were simply misinformed. In many instances they had simply drawn conclusions before all the facts were in. How easy it is to make the same mistake today. In our own time, synthetic motor oils have been the object of numerous misconceptions held by the general public. Many people, including some mechanics who ought to know better, have been misled by persistent myths that need to be addressed.

PARAMETERS OF THE DEBATE
Synthetic lubricants are fuel efficient, extended life lubricants manufactured from select basestocks and special purpose additives. In contrast to petroleum oils which are pumped from the earth and refined, synthetics are custom-designed in the laboratory, with each phase of their molecular construction programmed to produce, in effect, the ideal lubricant.

In responding to the objections most commonly raised against synthetics it is important to establish the parameters of the debate. When speaking of synthetic motor oils, this article is defending the synthetic lubricants which have been formulated to meet the performance standards set by the American Petroleum Institute (API). (The first such synthetic motor oil to meet these industry-accepted tests for defining engine oil properties and performance characteristics was AMSOIL 100% Synthetic 10W-40 in 1972.)

Many people with questions about synthetics haven't known where to turn to get correct information. Is it super oil or snake oil? Some enthusiasts will swear that synthetics are capable of raising your specialty car from the dead. On the other hand, the next fellow asserts that synthetics will send your beloved car to an early grave. Where's the truth in all this?

In an effort to set the record straight, we've assembled here ten of the more persistent myths about synthetic motor oils to see how they stack up against the facts.

Myth #1: Synthetic motor oils damage seals.

Untrue. It would be foolhardy for lubricant manufacturers to build a product that is incompatible with seals. The composition of seals presents problems that both petroleum oils and synthetics must overcome. Made from elastomers, seals are inherently difficult to standardize.

Ultimately it is the additive mix in oil that counts. Additives to control seal swell, shrinkage and hardening are required, whether it be a synthetic or petroleum product that is being produced.

Myth #2: Synthetics are too thin to stay in the engine.

Untrue. In order for a lubricant to be classified in any SAE grade (10W-30, 10W-40, etc.) it has to meet certain guidelines with regard to viscosity ("thickness").

For example, it makes no difference whether it's 10W-40 petroleum or 10W-40 synthetic, at -25 degrees centigrade (-13F) and 100 degrees centigrade (212 degrees F) the oil has to maintain a standardized viscosity or it can't be rated a 10W-40.

Myth #3: Synthetics cause cars to use more oil.

Untrue. Synthetic motor oils are intended for use in mechanically sound engines, that is, engines that don't leak. In such engines, oil consumption will actually be reduced. First, because of the lower volatility of synlubes. Second, because of the better sealing characteristics between piston rings and cylinder walls. And finally, because of the superior oxidation stability (i.e. resistance of synthetics against reacting with oxygen at high temperatures.)

Myth #4: Synthetic lubricants are not compatible with petroleum.

Untrue. The synthesized hydrocarbons, polyalphaolefins (PAO), diesters and other materials that form the base stocks of high-quality name brand synthetics are fully compatible with petroleum oils. In the old days, some companies used untested ingredients that were not compatible, causing quality synlubes to suffer a bum rap. Fortunately, those days are long gone.

Compatibility is something to keep in mind, however, whether using petroleum oils or synthetics. It is usually best to use the same oil for topping off that you have been running in the engine. That is, it is preferable to not mix your oils, even if it is Valvoline or Quaker State you are using. The reason is this: the functions of additives blended for specific characteristics can be offset when oils with different additive packages are put together. For optimal performance, it is better to use the same oil throughout.

Myth #5: Synthetic lubricants are not readily available.

Untrue. This may have been the case two decades ago when AMSOIL and Mobil 1 were the only real choices, but today nearly every major oil company has added a synthetic product to their lines. This in itself is a testament to the value synthetics offer.

Myth #6: Synthetic lubricants produce sludge.

Untrue. In point of fact, synthetic motor oils are more sludge resistant than their petroleum counterparts, resisting the effects of high temperature and oxidation. In the presence of high temperatures, two things happen. First, an oil's lighter ingredients boil off, making the oil thicker. Second, many of the complex chemicals found naturally in petroleum basestocks begin to react with each other, forming sludges, gums and varnishes. One result is a loss of fluidity at low temperatures, slowing the timely flow of oil to the engine for vital component protection. Further negative effects of thickened oil include the restriction of oil flow into critical areas, greater wear and loss of fuel economy.

Because of their higher flash points, and their ability to withstand evaporation loss and oxidation, synthetics are much more resistant to sludge development.

Two other causes of sludge -- ingested dirt and water dilution -- can be a problem in any kind of oil, whether petroleum or synthetic. These are problems with the air filtration system and the cooling system respectively, not the oil.

Myth #7: Synthetics can't be used with catalytic converters or oxygen sensors.

Untrue. There is no difference between synthetic and petroleum oils in regards to these components. Both synthetic and petroleum motor oils are similar compounds and neither is damaging to catalytic converters or oxygen sensors.

Myth#8: Synthetics void warranties.

Untrue. No major manufacturer of automobiles specifically bans the use of synthetic lubricants. In point of fact, increasing numbers of high performance cars are arriving on showroom floors with synthetic motor oils as factory fill.

New vehicle warranties are based upon the use of oils meeting specific API Service Classifications (for example, SG/CE). Synthetic lubricants which meet current API Service requirements are perfectly suited for use in any vehicle without affecting the validity of the new car warranty. In point of fact, in the twenty-five years that AMSOIL Synthetic Lubricants have been used in extended service situations, over billions of miles of actual driving, these oils have not been faulted once for voiding an automaker's warranty.

Myth #9: Synthetics last forever.

Untrue. Although some experts feel that synthetic basestocks themselves can be used forever, it is well known that eventually the additives will falter and cause the oil to require changing. Moisture, fuel dilution and acids (the by-products of combustion) tend to use up additives in an oil, allowing degradation to occur.

However, by "topping off", additives can be replenished. Through good filtration and periodic oil analysis, synthetic engine oils protect an engine for lengths of time far beyond the capability of non-synthetics.

Myth #10: Synthetics are too expensive.

Untrue. Tests and experience have proven that synthetics can greatly extend drain intervals, provide better fuel economy, reduce engine wear and enable vehicles to operate with greater reliability. All these elements combine to make synthetic engine oils more economical than conventional non-synthetics.

In Europe, synthetics have enjoyed increasing acceptance as car buyers look first to performance and long term value rather than initial price. As more sophisticated technology places greater demands on today's motor oils, we will no doubt see an increasing re-evaluation of oil buying habits in this country as well.

CONCLUSIONS
Since their inception, manufacturers of synthetic motor oils have sought to educate the public about the facts regarding synthetics, and the need for consumers to make their lubrication purchasing decisions based on quality rather than price. As was the case with microwave ovens or electric lights, a highly technological improvement must often overcome a fair amount of public skepticism and consumer inertia before it is embraced by the general population.

But the word is getting out as a growing number of motorists worldwide experience the benefits of synthetic lubrication. The wave of the future, in auto lubes, is well under way.

Works Cited: AMSOIL News Article, Ten Myths About Synthetic Lubrication, December 1999

http://competitionsynthetics.com

Amsoil: A Historical Account

2009-10-04T20:16:00.000-07:00

As a result of studying various aspects of the lubricants industry, I came into contact with Tom Schaefer, former vice president of sales and marketing for the Hatco Corporation. Schaefer, now retired, periodically contributes helpful tidbits of information with respect to the motor oil industry.

In securing correspondence with Mr. Schaefer, I didn’t hesitate to ask him a few questions about Amsoil. I had recalled that Al Amatuzio utilized the Hatco Corporation to some degree in sixties for the development of Amsoil’s first synthetic motor oil. Compiled below is Mr. Schaefer’s recollection in regards to the Hatco/Amsoil historical account he personally witnessed.

"I joined Hatco in 1969, so I was there (in the lab at the time) when the Hatco/Amsoil relation began. Al Amatuzio was the driving force behind the motor oil development as it was his concept and he was developing the marketing structure to sell it. The formulating was done by Hatco and an additive company, and Hatco did the ester manufacturing and oil blending while Amsoil arranged the packaging & distribution, so it was a joint effort. I don't recall there were any formal R&D agreements, just a close working relationship, and the oils developed for Al were to his specifications and sold exclusively to Amsoil.

While others were selling synthetic motor oils before Amsoil, none were API certified oils and many failed. Amsoil was definitely the first company to market an API certified oil - 10W-40 SE/CC based on a diester. Yes the oil was formulated and manufactured by Hatco, but the concept, requirements, and marketing came from Al Amatuzio. Hatco had the technology but no means to market, while Al had the marketing capability but lacked the technology and manufacturing capability. It was a joint effort and neither could have succeeded without the other.

There was no API certification program back then, but yes the oil was fully tested in all of the API engine sequence tests and passed all of the SAE specifications for SE/CC. In addition, it was reviewed by a military review board and approved under MIL-L-46152. It was the real deal.

For the ancient history buffs, the oil was called Hatcol 2250 and contained Ditridecyl Adipate (diester), an Oronite DI package, a Rohm & Haas dispersant PMA type VII, and a supplemental anti-oxidant. It ran from 1972 to about 1976, at which point Hatco developed an improved version that later passed SF/CC.

Hatco and Amsoil departed company in the late 70s as Amsoil's volume grew to a point where it made sense for them to develop and blend their own products. I retired last year (2007) so I do not know what relationship they may have today." - Tom Schaefer

As an Amsoil Independent Dealer, having the distinct opportunity to converse with Mr. Schaefer and discover the actual historical facts about the early years of Amsoil, Inc. was a shear delight. Getting this data straight from such a credible source is greatly appreciated. Special thanks to to Tom Schaefer for his willingness to shed new light on this topic.

Tom Schaefer can be contacted at the Internet forum, http://www.bobistheoilguy.com under user name Tom NJ

http://competitionsynthetics.com

Competition Synthetics

2009-10-03T20:44:00.000-07:00

Our Mission

To assist you in finding the best AMSOIL products for your application at the best possible price. Whether you’re looking to extract more performance out of your weekend cruiser, would like to increases fuel economy with your family hauler, or are looking for ways to cut maintenance costs on your commercial fleet, we have solutions for you.

http://competitionsynthetics.com/

Is Synthetic Oil Better?

2009-10-03T20:18:00.001-07:00

Is Synthetic Oil Better?

Shared via AddThis

Welcome to Competition Synthetics

2009-10-03T19:59:00.000-07:00

This is a blog about the 101 Answers to your most popular motor oil and oil filter questions.

See http://competitionsynthetics.com

Anthony Garner

Technorati claim token XRKVGKMFJQR4