no help here bro; i use either mobil 1 or royal purple
BTW; last night at the strip FINALLY got my first .500 RT (dont ask what the ET was, i was on street tires and had a passenger, LOL)
it was a big three day car show event all 4 and 6 cylinder buggies so i just went to chekc out some rice and shit but when i got there it was like the entire damn show stopped for the viper, the techs told me to go ahead and race and do burnouts, it was a blast. one transam had a plate that said v10eatr; he wouldnt race even though i was only pulling mid 12's on these lousy street tires
There are a lot of tests they only picked a few that they came out on top. I have used nothing but mobile one in my cars including trans,wheel bearings and any other fluid except brake and power stearing.
Ill take mobile one over any other brand out there. it the load rating is to high it has to much ash content in it. Mobile one or nothing for me.
Marketing loves nothing so much as it loves carefully chosen statistics. As you review that site, in addition to Brian's observation that they only came up superior in five areas, ask yourself, what information is NOT provided, and how are the tests relevant to driving/racing conditions, if at all?
The NOACK test doesn't tell you what temperature ranges we're talking about, nor does it actually say that Mobil 1's 9% loss is bad or problematic, just that Amsoil shows slightly less loss.
How does the four ball wear test (conducted at 150 C, which is 302 F) relate to real-world conditions? If my motor oil is subjected to 300 degrees for an hour, I'm probably not driving my car.
Same goes for the flash/fire point. They're talking about temperatures in excess of 400 degrees. For automotive applications, I just don't care about that. Safer to transport and use? Does anybody buy motor oil on the basis of that kind of decision?
Pour point... again, who cares? Not many people are doing a lot of racing at -60 degrees F, which happens to be the point at which your skin freezes solid on contact with the air.
The TBN test is well and good, but again, we aren't told what the numbers mean. What kind of scale are we talking about? If the difference is 12:8 and the scale is 1000, who cares?
Not only does this not convince me, but the presentation makes me sufficiently suspicious to sway my opinion against them.
The NOACK was meant to predict how much oil consumption there might be due to volatility alone (i.e. heating the oil to evaporate it.) It was so Ford could require SAE 5W-30 and now SAE 5W-20 oils.
The four ball wear test has repeatedly been proven not to predict engine wear. If it did, oils companies would not run the Sequence V or Sequence III engine tests... which are used to measure wear.
To insinuate that an oil that has a few degrees lower flash point is safer to use is totally misusing the intent of this test.
Pour point has been shown not to correlate to cold engine starting. That is why the D2602 Cold Cranking Simulator and D4684 Mini Rotary Viscometer are required instead. This technical determination was made years ago.
TBN is a measure of Total Base Number, which is the chemistry that negates the acidic product build up in an oil. If all else were equal, higher TBN would say that oil could be used for a longer drain interval. Most passenger car oils are around 8TBN, most diesel oils are around 11 or higher. This is actually a good thing.
But sorry, only one of five claims are worthwhile? It should make you wonder.