Synthetic *Marine* Engine Oils?
AMSOILL
This is in response to someone who posted a question
about syntheticc oils used in a marine application and if any studies or
tests have been done. Yes, there has and the following long-term test was
from Yachting magazine a while back.
It should be noted though, that the synthetic oil tested, (AMSOIL), to
my knowledge, is the only synthetic oil available that is formulated for
the special environment and needs of a marine engine. AMSOIL Synthetic
Marine Engine Oil contains special rust and corrosion-inhibiting additives
to prevent the rusting of critical parts. Does the oil you currently use
contain special rust and corrosion inhibitors? Can it pass the tough rust
prevention military spec. MIL-L-21260D test and is it so certified right
on the bottle? In other words, is it *really* a "marine oil", or does it
just say that on the label?
Here are the test results from Yachting magazine on AMSOIL Synthetic
Marine Oil v.s. petroleum oil. If you would like more information, feel
free to e-mail me. I hope this has been of help to all in answering the
synthetic oil used in a marine application question.
Yachting Magazine Test
What better way to test the protective strengths of a motor oil
than
by installing it in an engine directly opposite an engine using another
oil,
where both engines run at the same time under identical conditions?
RATIONALE
A marine engine must take a lot of punishment. Unlike a car, a boat is
*not* gliding along a semi-frictionless surface; it constantly battles
drag.
This means the engine must work harder at all times and is under a
constant
load. Additionally, cooler engine temperatures, excessive idling, and
"loading up" can adversely affect the life of a marine engine. It stands
to
reason that a good oil may substantially increase a boat's service life
and
reduce maintenance time and costs.
THE TEST
Yachting Magazine installed AMSOIL Synthetic 15W-40 Marine Oil, an 8"
By-Pass Oil Filter, and an ASF-25 Full-Flow Oil Filter on the port engine
of
their Tiara 2700 "Pursuit" Sports Fisherman Boat. The starboard engine
used
its usual conventional brand of 15W-40 oil and filter. Both engine were
265
HP Volvo gas motors.
The test used periodic oil analysis as a gauge for how much wear the
two engines experienced. Experts often call oil "the lifeblood of an
engine"; if this is true, oil analysis is a *blood-test* for an engine
oil.
Oil analysis measures the amount of "erosion" engine parts undergo over a
period of time by pinpointing the quantities of certain elements present
in
the oil. Generally speaking, the greater the amount of metals, the
greater
the wear.
The test ran from April 1,1985 to September 8, 1986, (17 months), for
a
total of 880 operation hours. Initial samples were taken prior to the
test
to detemine the engines' conditions. These samples showed both engines
had
similar wear-patterns and histories. Oil analysis samples in this test
were
drawn at the same time from each engine and analyzed by an independent
lab,
(Analysis Maintenance Labs, Inc., Illinois).
THE RESULTS
The test emphatically demonstrates that AMSOIL Products extend the
service
life of an engine and its oil. During the 17 months of the test, the
AMSOIL
Marine Oil was changed only *once* after its first year and two months of
service, (at test's end, AMSOIL was still well-suited for use); the pet-
roleum oil was changed *three times*. Despite this fact, AMSOIL consis-
tently outperformed its conventional competition in wear-metal reduction.
Percentage Total Solids (%TS): The measure of total solids in the oil,
including metal fragments, intake dirt, deposits, and other particles
typic-
ally associated with engine wear. Smaller figures indicate reduced wear.
Results during the summer of '86 showed **AMSOIL reduced total solids by
66%**
Iron Wear Paticles (Fe): One of the most important "indicator" wear
metals.
Iron particles in oil come from such sources as cylinders, liners,
pistons,
rings, valves, valve guides, and anti-friction bearings. Smaller figures
indicate less wear. **AMSOIL reduced iron particles in the oil by a total
of
53% overall**.
Copper Wear Particles (Cu): Copper particles in the oil come from such
sources as bearings, bushings, thrust washers, valve guides, and oil
cooler
tubes. Results show **AMSOIL reduced copper particle levels by a total of
79% overall**.
Aluminum Wear Particles (Al): Aluminum particles in oil come from
pistons,
bearings, pump vanes, and thrust washers. **AMSOIL reduced aluminum
particle
levels by a total of 68% overall**.
CONCLUSIONS
1. In most cases, AMSOIL reduced engine wear by *at least* a factor of
two
over the competitor's petroleum lubricant and conventional filter. The
use
of AMSOIL would significantly reduce maintenance and upkeep costs.
2. AMSOIL Marine Oil lasted much longer and was in much better condition
than the competition throughout the test.
3. AMSOIL was changed once during the test; the petroleum was changed
three times. AMSOIL was deemed still suitable for use after the test
period;
the petroleum oil required changing. This indicates AMSOIL provides fewer
oil changes, less waste oil, (economically and environmentally friendly),
and less time wasted changing oil.
acss...@acs.eku.edu
I do beleive that synthetics are superior to standard oil, but I have a
problem with this test... if it was really designed to compare
a synthetic oil to a standard oil.
> THE TEST
>
> Yachting Magazine installed AMSOIL Synthetic 15W-40 Marine Oil, an 8"
> By-Pass Oil Filter, and an ASF-25 Full-Flow Oil Filter on the port engine
> of
> their Tiara 2700 "Pursuit" Sports Fisherman Boat. The starboard engine
> used
> its usual conventional brand of 15W-40 oil and filter. Both engine were
> 265
> HP Volvo gas motors.
If they were only testing to compare synthetic to standard...
why did they install a special filter on the Amsoil engine? This would
seem to distort the findings. It's an extra... totally unneeded
variable.
>
> The test used periodic oil analysis as a gauge for how much wear the
> two engines experienced. Experts often call oil "the lifeblood of an
> engine"; if this is true, oil analysis is a *blood-test* for an engine
> oil.
> Oil analysis measures the amount of "erosion" engine parts undergo over a
> period of time by pinpointing the quantities of certain elements present
> in
> the oil. Generally speaking, the greater the amount of metals, the
> greater
> the wear.
>
> The test ran from April 1,1985 to September 8, 1986, (17 months), for
> a
> total of 880 operation hours. Initial samples were taken prior to the
> test
> to detemine the engines' conditions. These samples showed both engines
> had
> similar wear-patterns and histories. Oil analysis samples in this test
> were
> drawn at the same time from each engine and analyzed by an independent
> lab,
> (Analysis Maintenance Labs, Inc., Illinois).
>
> THE RESULTS
>
> The test emphatically demonstrates that AMSOIL Products extend the
> service
This statement... indicates that they were not trying to prove that
synthetics are superior to standard oil, but that Amsoil products are
superior... reads like an infomercial.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, this wasn't part of the test (according to the poster). Now we
don't really know for sure if the oil was better or the filter was
better. I assume it may be that both were better. But how can I tell
from a test like this one?
Dudley Cornman
Systems Programmer
Academic Computing Services - EKU
ACSS...@ACS.EKU.EDU
********************************************************************
*** When it comes to boats... ***
*** I'd rather have a new boat than a used boat... ***
*** I'd rather have a Baja than a Bayliner... ***
*** I'd rather have a used Bayliner than no boat at all... ***
********************************************************************
pa...@kahuna.nrl.navy.mil
(probably 8) years ago. Synthetics had less start-up wear, and much better
property retention at high temperatures (high loads). I've used nothing
but synthetic since in all my cars and boat (including a couple of turbo
motors and my 400 HP Street Rod motor). I use the same change interval as
had prior with petro oils (who notices an extra $20 per oil change two or
three times a year). Personally I use Mobil 1, but expect all synthetics
are better than petrolium, Mobil 1 was the best of the synthetics in the
Consumer Reports study (severl newer ones weren't out then, so can't draw
any conclusions on them).
At about the same time they did an oil filter test, and FRAM was the hands
down winner in that test.
-Greg
Chris Dinallo
> >
> > Yachting Magazine installed AMSOIL Synthetic 15W-40 Marine Oil, an 8"
> > By-Pass Oil Filter, and an ASF-25 Full-Flow Oil Filter on the port engine
> > of
> > their Tiara 2700 "Pursuit" Sports Fisherman Boat. The starboard engine
> > used
> > its usual conventional brand of 15W-40 oil and filter. Both engine were
> > 265
> > HP Volvo gas motors.
> >
> > The test ran from April 1,1985 to September 8, 1986, (17 months), for
> > a
> > total of 880 operation hours. Initial samples were taken prior to the
> > test
> > to detemine the engines' conditions. These samples showed both engines
> > had
> > similar wear-patterns and histories. Oil analysis samples in this test
> > were
> > drawn at the same time from each engine and analyzed by an independent
> > lab,
> > (Analysis Maintenance Labs, Inc., Illinois).
> >
> > THE RESULTS
> >
> > During the 17 months of the test, the
> > AMSOIL
> > Marine Oil was changed only *once* after its first year and two months of
> > service, (at test's end, AMSOIL was still well-suited for use); the pet-
> > roleum oil was changed *three times*. Despite this fact, AMSOIL consis-
> > tently outperformed its conventional competition in wear-metal reduction.
> >
I too believe that synthetics are superior, but let's get real you got to be pretty dumb
to only change your oil THREE times over 880 hours of operation for a period of 17
months!
I think a more realistic test would be to do the anaylsis while performing oil changes
every 100 hours. I personally use Mobil 1 and change oil every 75 hrs. Afterall, what's
another 100 bucks or so in oil for a $100,000 boat.
---------------------
Capt. D "I/OPENER"
Mark Mathys
> > > THE TEST
> > >
> > > Yachting Magazine installed AMSOIL Synthetic 15W-40 Marine Oil, an 8"
> > > By-Pass Oil Filter, and an ASF-25 Full-Flow Oil Filter on the port engine
> > > of their Tiara 2700 "Pursuit" Sports Fisherman Boat. The starboard engine
> > > used its usual conventional brand of 15W-40 oil and filter. Both
engine > > > were 265 HP Volvo gas motors.
> > > The test ran from April 1,1985 to September 8, 1986, (17 months), for
> > > a total of 880 operation hours. Initial samples were taken prior to the
> > > test to detemine the engines' conditions. These samples showed both
> > > engines had similar wear-patterns and histories. Oil analysis
samples in > > > this test were drawn at the same time from each engine
and analyzed by an > > > independent lab, (Analysis Maintenance Labs,
Inc., Illinois).
> > >
> > > THE RESULTS
> > > During the 17 months of the test, the AMSOIL Marine Oil was changed
only > > > *once* after its first year and two months of service, (at
test's end,
> > > AMSOIL was still well-suited for use); the petroleum oil was changed
> > > *three times*. Despite this fact, AMSOIL consistently outperformed its
> > > conventional competition in wear-metal reduction.
> > >
>
>
> I too believe that synthetics are superior, but let's get real you got to be
> pretty dumb to only change your oil THREE times over 880 hours of operation
> for a period of 17 months!
I agree! I don't know if I would use the word "dumb" (well maybe) but 290
hour oil change intervals are equivilant 14400 mile oil change intervals,
clearly much higher than the recommended change interval.
> I think a more realistic test would be to do the anaylsis while
performing oil changes every 100 hours.
Ditto!
Although this experiment does show that synthetic oils last longer that
conventional lubes, the results are questionable because the oil change
interval (dino oil) was serveral times the recommended length. Any excess
wear could be explained by the poor condition of the oil. Apparently the
oil analysis did not detect the oil breakdown. Also I would also like to
see the actual ppm readings on the wear metals. A 50% reduction may sound
like a lot but going from 2 ppm to 1 ppm is insignificant.
It would be interesting to see this experiment repeated with "modern" oils
used according to the manufacture's guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I use
Mobil 1 in my own car and change every now and then, but let's compare
apples to apples.
------------------------------------
not responsible for my own spelling errors!
st...@delphi.com
>If they were only testing to compare synthetic to standard...
>why did they install a special filter on the Amsoil engine? This would
>seem to distort the findings. It's an extra... totally unneeded
>variable.
>This statement... indicates that they were not trying to prove that
>synthetics are superior to standard oil, but that Amsoil products are
>superior... reads like an infomercial.
accurate. Synthetic oils are very different from brand to brand. Are you
suggesting
that the statement should have been worded, "Synthetic oils are superior to
petroleum oils"? This would not seem to be accurate to what this test is
saying.
>Again, this wasn't part of the test (according to the poster). Now we
>don't really know for sure if the oil was better or the filter was
>better. I assume it may be that both were better. But how can I tell
>from a test like this one?
This would not have anything to do with the lubricating ability of the oil or
not, right?
Again, did you e-mail him to get the answer?
Cheers.
AMSOILL
<< If they were only testing to compare synthetic to
standard...
why did they install a special filter on the Amsoil engine? This would
seem to distort the findings. It's an extra... totally unneeded
variable. >>
It is what Yachting magazine wanted to do. I suspect they wanted to
show that using a high quality synthetic oil combined with good filtration
was superior in performance and cost efficiency to using petroleum oils,
standard filtration and conventional oil drain intervals.
<< Again, this wasn't part of the test (according to the poster). Now we
don't really know for sure if the oil was better or the filter was
better. I assume it may be that both were better. But how can I tell
from a test like this one? >>
It is part of the test, as it reads and was posted. Better filtration
in and by itself does not provide superior lubrication.
Cheers,
Steve
AMSOILL
<< I too believe that synthetics are superior, but let's get
real you got to be pretty dumb to only change your oil THREE times over
880 hours of operation for a period of 17 months! >>
If you do periodic oil analysis, (a very smart thing to do with a
$100,000 boat, whether you use extended drain intervals or not), and the
oil checks out to be in fine shape, then their is no need to change it, as
the test conclusively showed.
The test showed that using AMSOIL products and extended oil drain
intervals is superior in wear reduction and cost efficiency to using
petroleum oils and standard drain intervals. Not to mention that changing
oil in a boat is typically a big pain in the neck, so it saved a lot of
hassle too.
Cheers,
Steve
AMSOILL
<< Consumer Reports did a (car) synthetic -vs- conventional oil
test several
(probably 8) years ago. Synthetics had less start-up wear, and much
better
property retention at high temperatures (high loads). I've used nothing
but synthetic since in all my cars and boat (including a couple of turbo
motors and my 400 HP Street Rod motor). I use the same change interval as
had prior with petro oils (who notices an extra $20 per oil change two or
three times a year). Personally I use Mobil 1, but expect all synthetics
are better than petrolium, Mobil 1 was the best of the synthetics in the
Consumer Reports study (severl newer ones weren't out then, so can't draw
any conclusions on them). >>
Mobil 1 is an excellent oil, (although it is not specifically
formulated with rust and corrosion inhibitors as AMSOIL is, that can be of
such value in a marine engine), but the Consumer Reports test did not
include all the synthetic oils available. But in my opinion, Mobil 1
should prove to be better than any other synthetic oil available, except
for AMSOIL.
Cheers,
Steve
AMSOILL
<< I too believe that synthetics are superior, but let's get real
you got to be pretty dumb
to only change your oil THREE times over 880 hours of operation for a
period of 17
months! >>
<< I agree! I don't know if I would use the word "dumb" (well maybe)
but 290
hour oil change intervals are equivilant 14400 mile oil change intervals,
clearly much higher than the recommended change interval. >>
The purpose of the test was to see if AMSOIL products in extended
drain intervals would significantly reduce engine wear over a petroleum
product using standard drain intervals. The oil analysis lab results
found this to be the case. If the oil checks out to be in fine shape,
then there is no need to change it.
<< > I think a more realistic test would be to do the anaylsis while
performing oil changes every 100 hours.
Ditto! >>
This would not show the capability of AMSOIL in extended drain
intervals to outperform a petroleum oil using standard drain intervals.
<< It would be interesting to see this experiment repeated with
"modern" oils
used according to the manufacture's guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I use
Mobil 1 in my own car and change every now and then, but let's compare
apples to apples. >>
The test was conducted with "modern oils" that were state of the
art. No "antiques" here. <g>
Cheers,
Steve
Mark Mathys
> The purpose of the test was to see if AMSOIL products in extended
> drain intervals would significantly reduce engine wear over a petroleum
> product using standard drain intervals.
I don't think 3 changes in 880 hour or an average of 290 hours (14400
miles) is a standard oil change.
> The oil analysis lab results found this to be the case. If the oil
checks out > to be in fine shape, then there is no need to change it.
I can't help but wonder which tests were done to determine condition of
the oil. There was mention of "total solids" (a test of questionable value
in my book) which usually indicates that infrared analysis was not done.
IR is probably the best test for oil condition but it does not work well
on many synthetic oils.
> << > I think a more realistic test would be to do the anaylsis while
> performing oil changes every 100 hours.
>
>
> This would not show the capability of AMSOIL in extended drain
> intervals to outperform a petroleum oil using standard drain intervals.
>
>
> << It would be interesting to see this experiment repeated with
> "modern" oils
> used according to the manufacture's guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I use
> Mobil 1 in my own car and change it every now and then, but let's compare
> apples to apples. >>
>
> The test was conducted with "modern oils" that were state of the
> art. No "antiques" here. <g>
Yes but a lot has changed since the early 80's when this test was conducted.
I think syn oil are good, but just don't get carried away with the change
intervals.
Mark
Dan Hogan
This is from curiosity. It's been years since I have been
in a position to need regular oil analysis . But what
does a test cost now? We analyzed the oil not for it's
condition, but to look for impending sources of trouble.
Oil changes were on a regularly scheduled basis antway.
Dan Hogan
dhh...@lightside.com
Catalina 27 "Gacha"
San Pedro, CA
Mark Mathys
(Dan Hogan) wrote:
Dan
The going rate is usually around $10. Modern tests include FT-IR which
gives information about the condition of the oil: ICP, DCP, or AA which is
the traditional wear and contamination elements, particle count
(non-engines), fuel, water, and glycol. In addition to detecting wear and
problems we try to prevent it from happening and at the same time reduce
operating cost. Many time oil is changed before it need to be changed.
Mark
George E. Norkus
In a previous article, acss...@acs.eku.edu () says:
>> THE TEST
>>
>> Yachting Magazine installed AMSOIL Synthetic 15W-40 Marine Oil, an 8"
>> By-Pass Oil Filter, and an ASF-25 Full-Flow Oil Filter on the port engine
>> of
>> their Tiara 2700 "Pursuit" Sports Fisherman Boat. The starboard engine
>> used
>> its usual conventional brand of 15W-40 oil and filter. Both engine were
>> 265
>> HP Volvo gas motors.
>
>If they were only testing to compare synthetic to standard...
>why did they install a special filter on the Amsoil engine? This would
>seem to distort the findings. It's an extra... totally unneeded
>variable.
>
Your thoughts are the same as mine. My friend used a hydraulic 3 micron
filter in his auto and reported that the regular oil was as clean as the
day he installed it. It may have been that the filter container added
about two quarts to his system (a 50% increase from the norm.) aiding to
the dultion factor. He since, has gone to Mobil 1. Loves it even more!
'later,
--
~ ~ /|\ ~ George E. Norkus - Michigan Boating SIGOP
~ / | \ ~ xx...@Detroit.freenet.org
\-----------/ TELNET = 204.29.212.10 (Greater Detroit Freenet)
-----------------------------(after logging on), type --> go boating