Consumer Reports: The surprising truth about motor oils

Back in 1996, Consumer Reports published an article that was supposed to represent their conclusions regarding a New York taxi-cab study testing numerous different brands of oil.

In theory, the test was designed to test many of the major brands of oil, both petroleum and a few synthetic under "the most grueling" conditions that vehicles will ever see - a taxi-cab service.

In their report, after a 60,000 mile study, CR states that "thorough statistical analysis of our data showed no brand-not even the expensive synthetics-to be meaningfully better or worse in our tests".

This article is a strong rebuttal to CR's baseless and flawed conclusions:

No Difference Between Petroleum & Synthetic Oils?

First, it should be fairly obvious that their testing was flawed and their conclusions illogical when they themselves indicate that virtually NO difference whatsoever was seen between ANY of the oils, including between petroleum and synthetic oils.

30 years of NON-brand related field testing in thousands of fleets around the world has shown CONSIDERABLE wear reductions in fleets using full synthetic oils vs. petroleum oils regardless of brands. This has been demonstrated both via oil analysis comparisons as well as engine tear-down and inspection.

A large portion of these field tests were NOT oil company sponsored. They were paid for entirely by the fleet companies themselves who simply wanted to know FOR SURE whether they would significantly benefit from a switch to synthetic lubricants in their fleet vehicles.

So, the very fact that Consumer Reports' "test" showed virtually no difference whatsoever between the petroleum and synthetic oils when it came to wear reductions and sludging within the engines (which flies completely in the face of decades of testing by companies who NEED to know the truth in order to protect equipment worth MILLIONS of dollars) is already a clear indicator that "something" was being ignored within their testing regimen.

All Oils Prove Excellent Sludge Prevention

As part of their test result conclusions, Consumer Reports says: "All the oils proved excellent at preventing sludge. At least part of the reason may be that sludge is more apt to form during cold startups and short trips, and the cabs were rarely out of service long enough for their engine to get cold. Even so, the accumulations in our engines were so light that we wouldn't expect sludge to be a problem with any of these oils under most conditions."

I can't even believe the shear ignorance of this statement. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouth and pronouncing it as "the truth about motor oils". First they say that there were virtually no differences in the level of sludge formation between any of the oils, but then indicate the reason was that their testing procedure did not run the vehicles under conditions that would typically form those deposits.

Then, they go on to state that, because they saw minimal sludging in their testing, they are sure that sludge wouldn't be a problem under most conditions - WITH NO TESTING DATA TO BACK THAT STATEMENT WHATSOEVER. On what basis are they able to make this statement? They, themselves, indicate that their testing has no bearing on this issue since the conditions that would normally form sludging were not even present in the test.

Equivalent Wear Protection Across the Board

In addition, the greatest amount of wear that is seen in an engine is either at a cold-start, where an engine may see metal to metal contact wear or under situations of extremely high load or RPM. Which one of these conditions were these taxi-cabs subjected to?

There ARE no cold-starts for taxi-cabs which are run nearly 24/7 in most cases. At what point in this test were these engines subjected to high load or high RPM - they are being driven around the city at 30 and 40 miles per hour and idling as much as they are driving.

CR themselves indicate in their "report" that synthetic oils tend to excel in cold temperature operation (the engines were NEVER cold) and under situations where high film strength would be critical (high load/RPM) which was never an issue for these taxi-cab engines.

But, the same is true even when comparing one petroleum basestock to another petroleum basestock.

Basestock Quality Grades

Someone who understands tribology at all recognizes a significant difference between an API Group I, Group II, Group II+ or Group III petroleum basestock (unfortunately, as of about a decade ago, Group III petroleum basestocks may also labeled as "synthetic") .

When this "test" was run, well over a decade ago, there were still petroleum oils out there running low grade Group I basestocks in their oils while others were running Group II and II+.

There are HUGE stability, performance and protection differences between a Group I and a Group II or II+ petroleum basestock, which is why more recent oil formulations that meet the most recent API specs, perform so much better than those oils over a decade ago. In order to meet those newer specs, more and more oils have HAD to move to Group II and II+ basestocks because they simply perform better.

However, despite this well-known fact, no differences were seen in the Consumer Report study, even though it is a near certainty that all of those petroleum oils were NOT using the same quality petroleum basestocks.

Of course, the reasons CR saw no differences in wear protection between the oils are glaringly obvious and have been exposed within this article - their study didn't do any testing under the conditions that would have shown these differences. These variables were completely ignored by their study.

Flawed From the Start

This test was flawed from its inception and the conclusions that Consumer Reports drew from it were even more flawed, many of them completely baseless since they were not supported by their own testing, nor by any other laboratory and field testing over the past 3 decades.

AMSOIL has thousands of customers from over 3 decades of selling premium synthetic lubricants and high efficiency filters who can all attest to the specific and significant differences in engine wear using AMSOIL vs. their previous petroleum and synthetic oils. Many of these customers have used oil analysis results to prove it.

You can rest assured that there ARE specific and considerable benefits to running synthetic oils vs. petroleum oils in your vehicles and equipment and stepping up to AMSOIL only raises the bar even further.

Whether you choose AMSOIL or some other synthetic oil, you WILL see differences in fuel mileage, performance, regular maintenance and engine longevity IF:

1. Your vehicle sees a cold or dry start at least once per day.
   
2. Your engine is ever under high stress, such as when racing, towing or carrying a large passenger load.
   
3. You live in a very cold climate.
   
4. You live in a very hot climate.
   
5. You drive alot of miles.
   
6. You don't trade your vehicle back into the dealer every few years.

Moreover, if you take a look at the specification and testing comparisons between AMSOIL and other synthetic and petroleum lubes, you will see that stepping up to AMSOIL is the absolute best thing you can do for your expensive vehicles and equipment. There simply is no better lubricant brand on the planet - and we don't just say it, we PROVE it with industry standardized test methods and clear reporting of the results.