I read on there site that you don't need to change the oil for 23k miles as long as you use there oil filter and
 syn oil whats you opinsion in this? thats a risk to take with my turbo anyone tried this?

 The engine oil has a longer drain interval because of the better base stock. The synthetic base stock in
 AMSOIL has proven to be superior to even the best commercially available synthetic engine oils such as
 Mobil 1 and in terms of longevity, even Red Line.

 Because I have a turbocharger, I change twice a year instead of once. Turbochargers place higher
 temperature stress on the engine oil.

 I have a 2000 Mazda Protege with the I4 1.8L engine and after 22,0000 km and one year of driving, I had
 the engine oil analyzed for about $20 Canadian. And to no surprise, the engine oil was still pristine. And
 here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, we got winters that dropped to near -30 degrees Celcius every so often,
 with a couple foot deep dumpings of snow in the last couple years, as well as having temperatures in the
 low 30 degree Celcius range in the summer.

 I've also seen 38,000 km 18 month old AMSOIL from a 2000 Honda Odyssee. Also still well within specs.

 Yes, it costs a pinch more, but when you factor in the extended drain intervals, you actually save money on
 the oil itself, as well as on maintenance through an increase in longevity of parts.
 

 regarding the Mazda, that was supposed to be 22,000km and not 22,0000km.
 --

 I am an AMSOIL user... have been for years, but a few car enthusiasts I converse with tell me that AMSOIL
 isn't as good as Mobil 1. They haven't done much to convince me of their opinion as they don't, like me,
 have any facts either.

 Do you have anything I could point them to that backs up the claim that AMSOIL is better than Mobil 1?

 Thanks in advance...

 Bill

 PS - I agree, you don't have to change AMSOIL that often. I changed it every 20,000 miles in my Nissan
 Altima SE (naturally aspirated). I could have gone longer, but I drove on dirt roads a lot and that made me
 nervous about dirt getting into the system. I have 0W-30 AMSOIL in both my cars now. I'll change the Audi
 out every 10,000 miles per the manual because I drive that car VERY hard. :-) The Volvo will get changed
 every 15,000. The miles add up on my cars very quickly so I tend to change oil every 5-6 months.
 --
 2000 Volvo V70R AWD (261hp); 2001 Audi TT Quattro Roadster (~255hp)

 Just to set the record straight Amsoil does not typically recommend more than 10,000 miles or 2x/3x times
 the recommended oil change intervals for turbo cars depending on the Amsoil oil you choose. Turbos are
 hard on ANY oil, but yes Amsoil holds up the best, and had less wear in standard ASTM tests than MOBIl
 1. Petroleum is NOT good for any turbo.

 I go 10,000 mile intervals in my turbo and get the oil analyzed. The Amsoil is still pretty good, and the lab
 says to continue running it (too late because I take make sample while draining) The only thing that starts
 to get elevated is the "nitrate" level...due mainly to blow-by combustion gasses whilst boosting.

 All this said there are fleet truckers using the Amsoil by-pass filter system that have gone over 800,000
 miles on the SAME crankcase of Amsoil. I totally understand that long haul diesels are different animals
 than short run gas turbos, but still the oil held up and the engines were in better shape (less wear) than the
 trucks in the same fleet with regular 10,000 mile oil changes at 500,000 miles. The oil is great, and
 cheaper in the long run.
 --
 Paul S.

 I've been using AMSOIL for almost 25 years now. I run my non-turbos for 25,000 miles OR 1 year,
 changing oil filter at 6 months.
 I've run oil analysis on the turbos since I first got my 85 245 (in about 1988), and they show the oil suitable
 for continued use after 11,000 miles with no filter change (and no oil added). Based on that, I err on the
 side of caution and change the 0W-30 in the turbos at 10,000 miles, oil filter at 5,000---except for the 245
 which now has a Bypass Filter installed. I test the oil in it every year or so (don't run that one much
 anymore).

 Is AMSOIL better than Mobil 1. Yes--if you look at the data sheets there is an edge in AMSOIL favor. In
 use, two examples:
 Small engine mechanic changed his Toyota from Mobil 1 to AMSOIL Series 2000 0W-30. Said he picked
 up an additional 40 miles per tankful.

 Fellow with older Bronco changed from Mobil 1 to AMSOIL 0W-30, and said his highway mileage went
 from 26 mpg to 30 mpg.

 Not all cars will perform the same---but most of those who try both will stick to AMSOIL.

 Here's some info on te 5w-30:

 AMSOIL 100% Synthetic 5W-30 Motor Oil (ASL)

 Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
 11.7

 Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
 63.4

 Viscosity Index (ASTM D-2270)
 182

 CCS Viscosity @ -20°C, cP (ASTM D 2602)
 2555

 Borderline Pumping Temperature °C (°F) (ASTM D-3829) <-40 (-40)

 Pour Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 97)
 -51 (-60)

 Flash Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 92)
 230 (446)

 Four Ball Wear Test (ASTM D-4172 B: 40 kg, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 1 hour, Scar in mm)
 0.35

 Noack Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (ASTM D-5800) 6.9

 High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity cP, 150°C, 1.0 X 106 s.-1, (ASTM D 4683),
 Minimum 3.5

 Total Base Number
 >11.0

 Sorry about the formatting. I copied and pasted it from AMSOIL's website

 The extraordinary claims made by Amsoil and the company`s supporters should be backed up by
 extraordinary proof.Anecdotes are not proof.I should think that volumes of literature exists that cover
 controlled tests in real usage (petroleum vs Amsoil)? Or are we being subjected to the hype of multi-level
 marketing ?

 Simple question:

 When the oil is analyzed what tests are performed. Is there any analysis of decomposition products?

 ...Why is it that Amsoil is Not "Mainstream"...i.e. Endorsed by Volvo, or Mercedes, Or Ford? I know it has
 been around for a Long Time...What is the Stumbling Block?...It would Seem that with such extraordinary
 claims some manufacturer would include it in one of the New "100,000 Miles before a Tuneup" Autos...It
 Just Doesn't Make Sense.
 --
 1995 T-5R (MOBIL 1)

 There are many much more knowledgeable on the subject than I- here goes,
 Amsoil is a much smaller company than Exxon/Mobil and therefore does not have either the distribution
 capacity nor the marketing capability to compete mainstream with Mobil 1.

 I personally use Mobil 1 Synthetics in my engines and ATF.

 That stated, I have also heard many good things about AMSOIL products.

 When engine oil is analyzed, no tests of performance are done. It is not a test, but an analysis of
 composition. Vital substances and substances typical of wear are looked for in this analysis.
 --

 Basically AMSOIL doesn't really put an effort into commercial automobiles. To be totally honest, 90% of all
 cars on the road don't really need the performance of a lubricant such as AMSOIL. All would definetly
 benefit from using it, but only a few really need it. It is the high stressed engines and trannies that make the
 best use of AMSOIL. Engines with forced induction, high rpm, high load, high compression, high
 horsepower per litre, and trannies that deal with heavy loads and high torque that will all last significantly
 longer and run significantly better with AMSOIL compared with most run of the mill synthetics.

 The biggest reason AMSOIL remains small is because from the very start, AMSOIL has ONLY been about
 the development of synthetic lubricants. They were the first to offer synthetic lubricants to the average
 buyer. Before then, the only people that had access to synthetic lubricants were government institutions
 such as the military, air force, etc. It wasn't until recently that AMSOIL's product line diversified to things
 beyond synthetic lubricants.

 The engineering society still considers AMSOIL and its creator, pioneers of synthetic lubricants. They were
 the first to create a synthetic oil that exceeds API standards. And to this day, is still considered the best
 lines of synthetic lubricants, for its application, available to the public, by the engineering society.

 AMSOIL is different from companies like Mobil, Castrol, Quaker, etc, in that these other companies all
 produced ONLY petroleum based engine oils while AMSOIL was well on its way to selling synthetic engine
 oil to the public. And at that time, most people thought nothing of engine oil besides drain and fill. It was
 only the racing crowd and industry that took notice. All of these other companies are the profit hungry
 companies with stockholders constantly demanding projections. Imagine how good Mobil 1 could be if
 they spent a little more time on their product instead of satisfying stockholders.
 --

 If by decomposition products you mean measurements the decomposition of the oil itself, yes these can
 be seen by the oxidation number and increased acid by-products. Also you will see increased nitrates,
 which are measured as well.

 As Sin pointed out a wide variety of metals and dirt are measured, along with oxides, nitrates, % fuel in the
 oil, etc....
 --
 Paul S.

 No car company endorses one oil brand. Some car companies have their own specifications that Amsoil
 exceeds by wide margins. Car makers really are hesitant about saying to stick with any brand of any
 product (except their own maybe). I think we are just approaching the edge of what you allude to though.
 Some car company may come out with a 30,000 mile oil change interval recommendation with certain
 synthetic oil brands. Perhaps the public isn't ready.

 Amsoil is the first to market with synthetic 5W-20 now. This oil weight is REQUIRED for certain 2001
 Fords and Hondas. Again Amsoil has the least amount of wear, lowest amount of volatility, least amount of
 oxidation, etc of ANY 5W-20 made. Not magic, just a damn good product

 Amsoil has been in business since 1972. Back then the founder/owner/president/dictator/etc of Amsoil, Al
 Amatuzio decided he didn't want to sell his product by conventional factory/distributor/store/end user
 relationship. You can question this all you want. Perhaps Amsoil would be a household name if he hadn't
 chose to go factory/dealer/end user, but I assure you as a dealer there is nothing magical about the
 product nor is there anything sinister about the way the product is sold.

 Also I can tell you there is NO love between Al Amatuzio and the head of GM for example. GM didn't even
 want to test Amsoil when testing oil for the poorly designed hot running Corvette in the late 80's early 90's.
 Not because there was anything wrong with Amsoil....in fact GM knew DAMN well Amsoil would win the
 tests and didn't want to be free advertsing for an unconventional but SMALL GOOD company. So, yes, it
 just doesn't make sense.
 --
 Paul S.

 Sin,can you cite the literature that refers to engines and trannies that "will all last significantly longer and
 run significantly better with Amsoil than with run of the mill synthetics" ? Does the "military" use Amsoil ?
 What is "the engineering society" ? Finally,your statement "Imagine how good Mobil 1 could be if they
 spent a little more time on their product instead of satisfying stockholders" defies logic and basic
 economics.Satisfying stockholders is done by producing a marketable (read quality) product.

 I think amsoil is great alos. But many who write pages on its glory, also happen to sell the stuff.
                Re: Is AMSOIL really that great? A Thought?[850]['95 T-5R]   [post reply]
                            Stu -- Tuesday, 22 May 2001, at 2:50 p.m.

 Paul,the old "They don`t want you to know" excuse has been recycled for everything from the perpetual
 motion machine to cold fusion to,now,Amsoil.The product either is shown to work as claimed,or it is not
 shown to work as claimed.Ambiguity and obfuscation serve only as a smokescreen to a marketing
 scheme,in my opinion.I`ll go out out on a limb here and say that if Amsoil synthetic lubricants performed as
 claimed,we wouldn`t have to buy them throught an Amway-type distribution system.They`d be available
 everywhere so as to satisfy demand.

 The product works as claimed. I think Amsoil has demostrated this MANY times. It's damn well time
 someone proved they DON'T.

 I'm not sure where you came up with the "they don't want you to know thing".
 --
 Paul S.

 My original post simply asked for proof of Amsoil`s efficacy.Several posts later,I`ve yet to see the proof,the
 studies.The "They don`t want you to know thing" is in reference to your claim that GM didn`t want to test
 Amsoil because they (GM) knew it would "win" the test and therefore garner free publicity from GM.I should
 think that claim should be proven also.Lastly Paul,how could anyone be expected to believe your claim of
 the product working as claimed without references (not anecdotal,please).As an example,I seriously doubt
 that any of us would rush to buy "new miracle" substance brake pads without proof of efficacy or if the
 manufacturer challenged the buying public to prove they didn`t work.

 To get research performed that shows the higher performance of AMSOIL compared to most other
 synthetics in terms of engine oil, ATF and gear lube, The University of Toronto, and University of Waterloo
 both have research in their libraries that have compared them. Both of the Engineering departments of
 these two universities have done research regarding said lubricants.

 No, the military does not use AMSOIL, but if you read carefully, when AMSOIL, the first to offer synthetic
 lubricants commercially, first begin marketing their synthetic lubricants, ONLY the military and other
 government institutions were using synthetic lubricants at the time.

 The engineering society consists of the engineering departments at universities and places of research,
 industry (AMSOIL is one of the most used synthetic lubricants in industry) and print such as magazines
 such as Lubricants World.

 You obviously have not dealt with large companies that have a few large stockholders. You don't know how
 many compromises large companies make to please these stockholders. And a lot of these things affect
 the quality of the product. And us as consumers don't hear half of the cost saving, quality lowering, profit
 increasing tactics.

 I don't know how many times I've posted information regarding the properties of certain AMSOIL products.
 How many of you doubters have simply spouted off your "logical" deductions without doing your own
 research? C'mon, I dare you. Look up the information yourself. I've shown my cards, I've posted properties
 for AMSOIL products, lets see the properties for other lubricants. I'm sick of arguing with doubters that
 offer no information regarding the products in question.
 --

 I can send you to Amsoil.com web site, but you won't believe that.

 Here's an example:

 Four ball wear test (ASTM D4172) 40Kg load pressure at 150° C, 1800 rpm for 1 hour, at an
 INDEPENDENT lab:

 Amsoil 0W-30: 0.373 mm wear
 Mobil 1 5W-30: 0.589 mm wear
 Mobil 1 0W-30: 0.607 mm wear

 If you send me your home address I can send you more data. But that's from Amsoil too.

 The data has indeed been challenged. Numerous times, by the big oil companies. Yet Amsoil is legally
 allowed to publish their valid standardized test data BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. Because the results are
 repeatable ASTM and NOACK tests. Amsoil wins these tests. Please see some of this data at
 Amsoil.com. You'll need to search around a bit for it, because it really depends on what type of oil or lube
 you are comparing.

 Not sure that I ever made any miracle claims. I just say it's a better product. The public thinks it's "too
 expensive", but I say they aren't looking at the big picture.

 --
 Paul S.

 Paul.After all this,the bottom line is;An oil is not superior to another oil due to it`s "properties" or a "four ball
 wear test." It is superior when it can be shown to work better in the real world,in everyday use(does the
 product cause less wear in a large number of applications over a long period of time,for example).Amsoil
 claims it works better in everyday use(less wear,longer time between changes) and I wonder where the
 data came from.Sin claimed that Some universities had research available in their libraries.It seems to me
 that if Amsoil has valid data demonstrating the efficacy of their product in real world applications,they
 would poudly point that fact out to the buying public.Since they don`t,I must surmise that it doesn`t exist.I`m
 a doubter,to be sure,but I`m also a potential customer that shouldn`t have to prove that Amsoil doesn`t
 work,when I question the company`s claims.Thanks for time in responding to my questions.

 Sin,if you promoted a product that clearly had demonstrated it`s efficacy,you wouldn`t have to continually
 defend spurious claims.

 you wrote:

 "An oil is not superior to another oil due to it`s "properties" or a "four ball wear test." It is superior when it
 can be shown to work better in the real world..."

 Amsoil has done MANY fleet tests. The data is there. Not sure why you say they don't have the data. But
 you know what the argument is against these: "It's anecdotal", "It's not standardized", "It's not double
 blind"....Another problem is with so called "real world tests", they are expensive and time consuming. Take
 Mobil for example: How many real world tests have you seen from them?
 --
 Paul S.

 Paul,the lack of standardized,double blind,controlled tests due to the costs involved is a cop-out.The only
 way to back up the claims made by Amsoil is to do those tests.I suspect that Amsoil (and Mobil) do not
 participate in that type of testing for another reason;there`s a great potential for the data to not come out
 right.I see nothing wrong with a company selling a synthetic lubricant and touting it`s performance on a
 "four ball wear test." I see a problem,however,when that company tries to translate that test data into proof
 that the lubricant will perform in a fashion superior to other products.That`s deceptive.

 "Paul,the lack of standardized,double blind,controlled tests due to the costs involved is a cop-out."

 No it isn't, the costs are huge. But to be really unbiased the study should be done by a third party. I would
 LOVE for some university/organization, etc to do such a study.

 "The only way to back up the claims made by Amsoil is to do those tests.I suspect that Amsoil (and Mobil)
 do not participate in that type of testing for another reason;there`s a great potential for the data to not
 come out right."

 Dude, your logic circled back on you. Think about it.

 "I see nothing wrong with a company selling a synthetic lubricant and touting it`s performance on a "four
 ball wear test." I see a problem,however,when that company tries to translate that test data into proof that
 the lubricant will perform in a fashion superior to other products.That`s deceptive."

 No it's NOT deceptive, volatility and wear tests have been shown to duplicate real world conditions. In fact
 that's why the were invented and adopted. For example the NOACK volatility really does show that the
 pour point solvents in inferior multigrade petroleum oils (20W-50 for example) do "evaporate" off and
 cause a viscous nasty black goo cycle that really does harm engines.

 --
 Paul S.

 Paul,I`ll stand on my last post.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 if all of you that keep making the claim "if it was that good . . ." did your own research, I wouldn't have to.

 Have you looked up the technical properties of these other oils that you claim are just as good? I didn't
 think so.
 --

 Sin,technical properties that translate,in fact,to real world applications are what`s at issue here.Technical
 properties that may be superior when demonstrated in a laboratory but that haven`t been tested in
 controlled situations(inlong term fleet service,double blind and controlled for example) are meaningless.

 When AMSOIL applied to your (and my) government for the right to use the phrase "First in Synthetics",
 the govt determined that AMSOIL had to demonstrate that they were firstL:
 1. in date of introduction (easily done)
 2. in performance

 Amsoil provided documentation. The feds then send letters to all other (known) synthetic
 producers/marketers/distributers and gave them soemthing like 90 days in which to scream "foul" or
 refute. No replies were forthcoming.

 Think about this--AMSOIL has been marketing products for almost 30 years now. Within the industry,
 AMSOIL is regarded as the leader in synthetics.
 Al Amatuzio has been recognized by the industry as a pioneer.
 If the products didn't work at least as well as claimed, the company would have folded years ago, rather
 than continuing to expand.

 Dick,The US government does not "certify" a lubricant to perform as claimed.Private organizations are in
 that business.I assume that you are refering to the US Patent office.If Amsoil wanted to patent the phrase
 "First in synthetics," they would have to have applied there.The patent office wouldn`t care a whit if the
 product worked or not.Mr Amatuzio could very well be recognized "by the industry" as a pioneer.That
 recognition apparently doesn`t translate to his product being superior to any other lubricant in real world
 applications,primarily because the testing required to prove it has not been done.I suspect that the real
 reason people thing Amsoil works is because they were convinced to pay an exorbitant price for it and
 feel that it therefore must be good.Proof,that isn`t.

 if you look hard enough, you can get AMSOIL cheaper then Mobil 1.
 --

 Stu, I've been reading this thread for a while and while I have not used synthetic oil in my tranny yet, I feel I
 must jump in to give my 2 cents.
 When I buy something, I try to do as much research as I can, and one of the things I look for in a product
 are specs. You cannot believe manufacturers claims so the only thing you can do is compare specs with
 their competitors and get feedback from users or reviewers.
 TV's, stereos, computers all benefit from comparing specs.
 Specs will not tell you how reliable they are, but how it will perform.

 In this case, you do not believe that Amsoil is a good product.
 What brand do you prefer and why? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
 Following your replies in this thread, I wonder how you choose to buy a certain products if you don't believe
 in the manufacturers specs.

 Have you seen independent studies that prove Mobil or Amsoil is better or worse than any of their
 competitors?

 I'm sure part of the reason you don't trust Amsoil is because of the multi-level marketing aspect but ML
 marketing does not make it a bad product. I don't trust ML companies either.
 Amway is a ML company but they do have a toothpaste that is supposed to be quite good. No proof, I just
 read that on websites that had ex-Amway distributors trashing Amway!

 Robert,you raise some good points.I have never used a synthetic oil(primarily because I`ve never been
 convinced of the various mfg`s claims).I use various brands of petroleum lubricants.I think your point about
 comparing a product`s specs is right, up to a point.I`ll take Amsoil`s claim that it`s product performs in a
 certain fashion on various lab tests.Translating those lab tests into real world applications is quite a
 reach,however.I feel that the claim that their oil will cause less engine wear and allow longer time between
 changes should be proven by real world use,ie long term controlled studies.I am not aware of any valid
 studies that show the supriority of synthetic lubicants over non-synthetic in long term usage.If at some
 point,Amsoil or Mobil were able to prove those claims,I would most likely use the product.Multi-level
 marketing,in my opinion,tends to raise the price of items over similar items marketed other ways.I used
 that example to illustrate the fact that some consumers can be convinced of a product`s efficacy by it`s
 high price.It appears to me that Amsoil(Mobil,also) is marketed in that fashion.That style of marketing
 impacts directly on the product because if the oil was clearly superior to non-synthetic lubricants,in all
 probability,it would sell itself,and mlm would slow the distribution and sales.

 So what you're saying is that you're not against Amsoil. You're just not convinced that synthetic oil is
 superior to regular oil. I haven't read any studies either, that proves synthetic is better but I think it is better,
 based on people claiming to have extended intervals for oil changes and the data (their data) that shows
 the boiling and shear points.
 Assuming that synthetic is better, I don't think there is much to choose between one brand or another.

 Anybody got any links that definitively proves synthetic is superior?

 "No car company endorses one oil brand" You are WRONG Pablo, my 2000 Mercedes E320 specifically
 calls for Mobil 1. Actually all 2000 and later Mercedes comes with Mobil 1 from the factory and they specify
 Mobil 1 in their owner's manual.
 --
 Long

 Mobil 1 is the sponsor of MB/Mac for Formula 1. Shell sponsors Ferrari.
 --
 Paul S.

 to know that a major automobile company would select a synthetic oil for their fine cars. I hope others
 follow suit.

 Just curious, what is the recommended oil change interval from MB?
 --
 Paul S.

 9000 miles. For 2000 and 2001 models the first 4 years scheduled maintenance are free and only the
 dealer could reset the computer so thats the bad news.
 --
 Long