You are obtaining the XL-7500 series, which is a fine product for what it is, but it can't hold a candle to the other AMSOIL oils. The XL-7500 was spefically formulated for the quick lube market and only has a recommended drain interval of 7,500 miles and is just not as good as AMSOIL's ASL, ATM or Series 2000 oils. It's a price formulated oil for a price demanding market niche.
This is the only such AMSOIL product like this. If you want the best protection, performance, fuel economy, reduced engine wear, reduced engine temperatures, etc., the AMSOIL ASL, ATM or the best, Series 2000 line, is the way to go.


Steve
CEO of Hi-Tech Oil Co.
Distributing industry leading AMSOIL synthetic lubricants for 19 years

 

i use asl 5-30

 

I have some series 2000 (TSO) waiting in the garage. My engine is consuming oil and Im afraid switching to 0w30 may upset the dealer and try to blame the oil. any thoughts?

 

How much oil is your engine consuming quart vs miles? Have you documented the consumption? What brand, type and viscosity of oil are you currently using?

Lastly, the dealer doesn't know what oil you are using. The AMSOIL Series 2000 0W-30 may very well reduce oil consumption due to its very low volatility/evaporation.


Steve
CEO of Hi-Tech Oil Co.
Distributing industry leading AMSOIL synthetic lubricants for 19 years

 

im consuming about 2 qts in around 3000-3500 miles. Im using the ASL 5w30.

 

A couple of weeks ago someone else posted a similar wear test and this was your reaction ...

Were you correct then, or are you correct now?

 

If your engine can do the extended drains, Amsoil is the oil to do it with. But if you are just beginning the process, I highly suggested getting the oil analayzed to verify the wear is good and the TBNs are still good. ie.. make sure the oil isn't contaminated and the addtive packages aren't all done.

 

The machine referred to in the "bogus" oil test is the falex machine, which only tests for film strength, the one posted by hightechoilblah is a fourball wear test which is common in industry, thats the difference in that case.

 

I beg your pardon redlude97? What's with that?

 

Hi redriderr One quart per every 1,000 miles is considered normal by vehicle manufacturers, so actually your oil consumption is pretty good, by vehicle manufacturer definitions.

 

i was typing quickly and I didn't remember your sn completely

 

Hi redlude97 The Falex machine was used to test for extreme pressure properties with gear lubes, not engine oils. Engine oils are not in an extreme pressure environment. This is what makes that oil test bogus, dishonest, deceptive and flat out wrong.


Steve
CEO of Hi-Tech Oil Co
Distributing industry leading AMSOIL synthetic lubricants for 19 years

 

The ASTM D-4172 Four Ball test used in your study is also a high pressure steel-on-steel frictional scar test for greases, gear lubes and oils.
What's so different that one test is "bogus, dishonest and deceptive" and the other is rock solid? ... *****?

 

its all about applications and industry standards. The are numerous ways to test for similar properties, but the industry has adopted a few that are more commonly used.

 

I wasn't trying to debate the merits of one standard over another or defend either study. I just wanted to know why he thinks we should believe that these test methods are so different (in real terms) that he can interpret the results as polar opposites.

My point is that he discounted (mocked) the first comparo on the basis that the scar test didn't represent the real conditions in an engine, yet proudly posts this 4 ball test. Last I checked, I don't have 4 ***** rubbing inside my engine either.