Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday March 28, 2015
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Service & Maintenance

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-04-2008, 03:07 AM   #1
alanlcit
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 71108
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA
Vehicle:
2005 WRX STi
Silver

Default Used Oil Analysis - Amsoil ASL 5W30 - 2005 Subaru WRX STi

Here's my latest UOA from Blackstone.
As a reminder, my car is stock other than the Cobb Accessport stage 1 tune.

Brief driving description: One very long (~2000 mile) road trip in relatively cool weather on this oil change. The rest was pretty pedestrian stuff; nothing particularly aggressive other than the occasional freeway onramp. No racing.

I plan to stick with the 5W30 through the winter months unless I hear strong disapproval from NASIOC. Based on the wear numbers below, it seems like it's probably just fine.

Filter: I'm using the Purolator PureOne PL14612. Seems like it's fine for my usage.

I'd be grateful for any comments on these numbers. The copper numbers are down in this UOA; can I thank the oil for that? The previous 2 UOAs were Castrol Syntec 10W40.

Should I go to 6000 miles like they say? (I'll need to add about 2 quarts of oil over the interval). BTW, consumption with the Amsoil 5W30 was about the same as I experienced with the Castrol Syntec 10W40.

Should I change my air filter? The numbers are gradually inching up on the silicon, but I don't know what level I should change it at....of course, we did have the San Diego fires during this interval, so maybe I'll wait for next time to see where I'm at (my air filter doesn't LOOK too bad).

Thanks!

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
alanlcit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:28 AM   #2
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

This is a good uoa, but you did add quite a bit of oil in a short time (although normal by STI standards on a lot of xW30's).

I have a GC uoa to post soon and your numbers are better than mine (except for the viscosity and flashpoint). My interval was 7,900.

I wonder why the flashpoint is a little low? Fuel dilution not showing up in the uoa?
Where's bulwnkl?

-Dennis
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:59 AM   #3
birukun
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 52801
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA.
Vehicle:
1999 Legacy Wagon L
Green 30th Anniv.

Default

You mention your air filter - the stuff that really clogs your filter you cannot see. Especially after the fires. I live in PQ and got ashed out. Don't forget to protect the car finish too.
birukun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:49 PM   #4
JamesWilson
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 124833
Join Date: Sep 2006
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston, TX
Vehicle:
2000 Legacy Wagon
Mystic Mountain Blueberry

Default

Nice report. +1 on checking/changing the air filters after the October fires, mine was pretty trashed and I clean it often (cleanable filter). Might switch to the Amsoil EAA air filter next time, my Si numbers are a bit higher than I'd like.
JamesWilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 10:24 AM   #5
sidewayz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 5810
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Easton PA
Vehicle:
2001 S366 2.5RS

Default

Im using Amsoil 10w30 turbo oil..

I see ZERO oil consumption with it and I change mine every 7k not only that, Im running 20psi at 306whp. and she doesnt use any oil lol
sidewayz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 11:52 AM   #6
bulwnkl
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41070
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Vehicle:
2005 Black Tiger
(Black Turbo Baja)

Default

Primary reason for flash to be low is fuel dilution. OTOH, this isn't drastically low for what we often see from Blackstone on turbocharged Subies here. I'd change my air filter and check for intake tract leaks just because of the fires, but that's just me. Interesting to see some of the chemistry differences between the 2 oils, isn't it? You go through a bunch of oil during an OCI, don't you? Insolubles aren't bad, but then there's all that make-up oil... Congratulations on choosing a more appropriate viscosity grade this time around.

Last edited by bulwnkl; 01-05-2008 at 12:08 PM.
bulwnkl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 12:12 PM   #7
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulwnkl View Post
Congratulations on choosing a more appropriate viscosity grade this time around.
Are you one of those "thin is in" guys?

-Dennis
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 03:42 PM   #8
bulwnkl
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41070
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Vehicle:
2005 Black Tiger
(Black Turbo Baja)

Default

Nah, I'm one of the most un-"in" guys out there. Remember I drive a Baja! I just hate wasting fuel ($$$) on account of a delusion of better protection from a higher number on a plastic bottle.

In fact, I'd take my Baja down to 5W20 if future analyses support it. I ain't skeered!
bulwnkl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 11:26 AM   #9
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulwnkl View Post
Nah, I'm one of the most un-"in" guys out there. Remember I drive a Baja! I just hate wasting fuel ($$$) on account of a delusion of better protection from a higher number on a plastic bottle.

In fact, I'd take my Baja down to 5W20 if future analyses support it. I ain't skeered!
Yeah contrary to popular belief, all oils are not the same. I'm a bit thinoilaphobic, unless it's a great package like Amsoil. Let me guess; the 5W20 would not be something like Mobil or Castrol?

-Dennis
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 03:46 PM   #10
bulwnkl
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41070
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Vehicle:
2005 Black Tiger
(Black Turbo Baja)

Default

Actually, I don't have any special issue with Castrol's product except the price (and lack of good fuel dilution protection, but that's pretty well the norm right now). Mobil's products have significant performance disadvantages not related to viscosity. Interestingly, I'd put RedLine in viscosity-wise to replace a 5W30 without even thinking about it, but I probably won't because of other factors.
bulwnkl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 09:41 PM   #11
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

I was assuming you were referring to RLI. No?

-Dennis
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 02:07 AM   #12
jetskibucky
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 136694
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Orange County, SoCAL
Vehicle:
07 STI LimitD #242
SPW Stage 2+

Default

Amsoil is an intersting product revered by many with the same enthusiasm of Amway users. As a matter of fact, they are marketed the same. I used to use them until I found out who made their filters. When I read more research and discovered they refused testing for the new SAE standards, I became suspicious.

Now, I just use Mobile One. No other oil has been tested more. If you sleep better at night thinking Amsoil is special and better than the rest, use it. In another 20 years or so, you'll discover that it is not better and despise the use of cleaver marketing tactics.
jetskibucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 09:33 AM   #13
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskibucky View Post
Amsoil is an intersting product revered by many with the same enthusiasm of Amway users. As a matter of fact, they are marketed the same. I used to use them until I found out who made their filters. When I read more research and discovered they refused testing for the new SAE standards, I became suspicious.

Now, I just use Mobile One. No other oil has been tested more. If you sleep better at night thinking Amsoil is special and better than the rest, use it. In another 20 years or so, you'll discover that it is not better and despise the use of cleaver marketing tactics.
You really need to do some research before you start posting your opinion . Just because an oil is not tested by an oil standards body, does not mean that it cannot not meet their specs.

It's one thing to just spout a bunch of hot air, it's another to post an opinion and not back it up with facts. Especially in a thread that is about facts.

-Dennis

Last edited by bluesubie; 01-08-2008 at 01:04 PM.
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 01:27 PM   #14
bulwnkl
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41070
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Vehicle:
2005 Black Tiger
(Black Turbo Baja)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
I was assuming you were referring to RLI. No?

-Dennis
My preference for RLI is based on things not related to viscosity of itself. When I said I'd go down to a 20 I just meant in terms of grade classification. It's true that I'd probably choose the RLI product, but that's not the point I was driving at.
bulwnkl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2008, 10:17 PM   #15
jetskibucky
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 136694
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Orange County, SoCAL
Vehicle:
07 STI LimitD #242
SPW Stage 2+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
You really need to do some research before you start posting your opinion . Just because an oil is not tested by an oil standards body, does not mean that it cannot not meet their specs.

It's one thing to just spout a bunch of hot air, it's another to post an opinion and not back it up with facts. Especially in a thread that is about facts.

-Dennis

Hey Gomer, I work for the API(American Petroleum Institute). You still think you know more than me?
jetskibucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 10:34 AM   #16
bulwnkl
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41070
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Vehicle:
2005 Black Tiger
(Black Turbo Baja)

Default

You have demonstrated before that you either don't know some of the significant technical aspects of the things you talk about or perhaps you're not being intellectually honest about them.

That is not to say that I think Amsoil is better or worse than other products. I agree that their marketing tactics are distasteful to many people (including me). However, just as clever marketing does not mean that the product superior, it also does not mean it is inferior. All that aside, Mobil 1 motor oil demonstrates with essentially every UOA today that their product provides inferior wear protection as compared with its contemporaries. While that may or may not lead to shorter engine life for the owner conducting the UOAs given hundreds of variables, it does mean that the product is inferior to its contemporaries regardless of how much testing has been done on it. More testing doesn't necessarily mean better product if the object of the testing is merely to be 'good enough.'
bulwnkl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 01:06 PM   #17
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskibucky View Post
Hey Gomer, I work for the API(American Petroleum Institute). You still think you know more than me?
Judging from your spelling errors, ignorance and lack of evidence in your posts, I would say yes.

Now I remember you. You didn't know what I meant when I said "Energy Conserving Mobil1" in previous thread You said you haven't heard of it and wondered if it was a "specific weight".

In case you never got your answer, check this link to the International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee's Minimum Performance Standards for Passenger Car Engine Oil - ILSAC GF-4 paper. More info on your company's site. By the way, my name isn't Gomer.

alanlcit - Apologies for the hijack!

-Dennis

Last edited by bluesubie; 01-09-2008 at 02:17 PM. Reason: added link
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 08:45 PM   #18
jetskibucky
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 136694
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Orange County, SoCAL
Vehicle:
07 STI LimitD #242
SPW Stage 2+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
Judging from your spelling errors, ignorance and lack of evidence in your posts, I would say yes.

Now I remember you. You didn't know what I meant when I said "Energy Conserving Mobil1" in previous thread You said you haven't heard of it and wondered if it was a "specific weight".

In case you never got your answer, check this link to the International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee's Minimum Performance Standards for Passenger Car Engine Oil - ILSAC GF-4 paper. More info on your company's site. By the way, my name isn't Gomer.

alanlcit - Apologies for the hijack!

-Dennis
Kudos for correcting my spelling. I'm not a big fan of spellcheck, and I didn't expect anyone to challenge my understanding of petroleum product based on my ability to spell.

First of all, "Energy Saving" is not a recognized classification sanctioned by either the API or SAE. It is a marketing term used to illicite interest in the unknowing and unknowledgeble.

Secondly, while the link you posted is entertaining and knowledgeble, it makes no mention of testing standards for specific heat, specific gravity, particulate soluability, and a host of other factors in the classification of petroleum based lubricants.

Sorry if I made spelling errors in this post. The urgency of being gramatically correct does not justify using spell check.
jetskibucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 09:11 PM   #19
bulwnkl
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 41070
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Vehicle:
2005 Black Tiger
(Black Turbo Baja)

Default

Quote:
The urgency of being gramatically correct does not justify using spell check.
Thats OK, grammar and spelling are two completely different things anyway.
bulwnkl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 09:36 PM   #20
edh
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 39955
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reno, NV
Vehicle:
2003 WRX

Default

Hey bucky, he said "energy conserving" not "energy saving". Now, click on this link to the API site:

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/motor...lity-marks.cfm

Notice the words "energy conserving" in the API donut. Now scroll down the page and read how this designation is achieved. Done that? Good. Now explain to us again how "energy conserving" is not a recognized API classification applied to motor oil.

Ed
edh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 10:46 PM   #21
jetskibucky
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 136694
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Orange County, SoCAL
Vehicle:
07 STI LimitD #242
SPW Stage 2+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edh View Post
Hey bucky, he said "energy conserving" not "energy saving". Now, click on this link to the API site:

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/motor...lity-marks.cfm

Notice the words "energy conserving" in the API donut. Now scroll down the page and read how this designation is achieved. Done that? Good. Now explain to us again how "energy conserving" is not a recognized API classification applied to motor oil.

Ed
Ah, I stand corrected on the classification issue. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I'm not adverse to admitting being wrong. I'm a chemist, I do not work in operations and should have checked my manual before posting. For the sake of enlightenment, I will research the specific classification criteria and post by tomorrow. I would do this now but I'm home and my book is at the office. Stay tuned!
jetskibucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 11:33 PM   #22
skydes
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 141347
Join Date: Feb 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Anaheim, California
Vehicle:
2005 WRX
WRB

Default

RLI is wayyyy too expensive. Shipping alone is like 20 bucks for a gallon.
skydes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2008, 07:53 PM   #23
bluesubie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
Vehicle:
04 FXT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskibucky View Post
Ah, I stand corrected on the classification issue. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I'm not adverse to admitting being wrong. I'm a chemist, I do not work in operations and should have checked my manual before posting. For the sake of enlightenment, I will research the specific classification criteria and post by tomorrow. I would do this now but I'm home and my book is at the office. Stay tuned!
Dude, you need to relax in the first place. There's no need to come into a thread making assumptions about people. I don't blindly bash oils and give props to the very good Mobil1 uoa's posted on here (although the better ones are mainly highway miles or a combination of 10W30 and 15W50 ).

We're commenting on these threads and learning about oil.

edh - Thank you.

-Dennis

Last edited by bluesubie; 01-10-2008 at 08:01 PM.
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2008, 07:06 PM   #24
alanlcit
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 71108
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA
Vehicle:
2005 WRX STi
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesubie View Post
Dude, you need to relax in the first place. There's no need to come into a thread making assumptions about people. I don't blindly bash oils and give props to the very good Mobil1 uoa's posted on here (although the better ones are mainly highway miles or a combination of 10W30 and 15W50 ).

We're commenting on these threads and learning about oil.

edh - Thank you.

-Dennis
Dennis,

I agree, jetskibucky needs to relax. It's ok though, I don't mind. I originally posted to get feedback on the UOA, and I got that. It settled down, then someone bumped the thread.... I'm planning to continue using the Amsoil 5W-30 until it warms up again in San Diego, as I said. The UOA bears that out, I think. I have used Mobil 1 in my car previously, and for my car only, I found the oil consumption to be unacceptable. I can't speak for anyone else or their experiences. For whatever reason, I'm doing slightly better with the Amsoil, and the wear numbers look fine. (Does anybody dispute that...even given that I added quite a bit of oil?) I don't have any opinions about Amsoil's marketing strategy.

Any thoughts from you or others about which specific Amsoil product I should move to when it warms up? Keep in mind that I don't race the car, but it obviously gets hot in Southern California, and I drive through the desert from time to time. I'd like to stick to Amsoil, for simplicity, but not sure whether I should use their 5W-40 European formula, or one of the 10W-40 formulas. I haven't looked at BITOG for information/UOAs on those oils, but just wanted to get a quick idea of how these oils stack up. Looks like the 10W-40 has slightly higher HTHS (both better than the 5W-30, though). Also the 5W-40 is a little more volatile...I'm guessing 10W-40 is probably the way to go?

Thanks,
Alan
alanlcit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2008, 09:06 PM   #25
JamesWilson
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 124833
Join Date: Sep 2006
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston, TX
Vehicle:
2000 Legacy Wagon
Mystic Mountain Blueberry

Default

Either one is probably fine, the 10w-40 is a few pennies cheaper I believe. I run 5w-40 in San Diego all year round, but in an NA car.
JamesWilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Used Oil Analysis - Amsoil ASL 5W30 - 2005 Subaru WRX STi alanlcit Service & Maintenance 0 05-11-2008 09:24 PM
Used Oil Analysis - Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30 - 2005 Subaru WRX STi AndyH Service & Maintenance 16 03-10-2008 09:30 PM
Brand New 2005 Subaru WRX STi 6CD changer radio bwagman Private 'For Sale' Classifieds 0 12-25-2004 12:06 PM
2005 Subaru WRX STi Mods??? ScoobyInc Factory 2.5L Turbo Powertrain (EJ Series Factory 2.5L Turbo) 11 12-14-2004 10:42 AM
Oil Analysis: Amsoil ASL 5w30, 2003 Subaru WRX 2.0T, 7,382 mi, 34,294 mi total drees Service & Maintenance 13 08-10-2004 11:32 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2015 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.