>>> very true. I am trying this one out for size.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Now you will have the cult screaming.
> Roy,
> You are mistaken the API is not rock bottom.
WTF are you talking about?? Try following the thread
<big snip>
In response to Steve Lusardi 's post. I thought everyone should know:
> Roy,
> You are mistaken
one Roy wasn't the one who made the comment
<big snip>
> In point of fact Amsoil no longer has their oil tested, as it surpasses the
> most severe API tests by very wide margins.
and i am supposed to believe this rubbish because you and Amsoil says
so??? NOPE!! not gonna happen! If the stuff was that good, they would have
no problems letting a independent lab test their stuff. the fact that they
don't speaks volumes about their product.
<another big snip>

Signature
Chris
> Roy,
I'm not Roy. Roy is not me. (no offense Roy)
> You are mistaken the API is not rock bottom.
Actually, it is. The very highest API approvals don't come
anywhere close to the minimum (now obsolete) ACEA approvals.
> For clarity the API (American
> Petroleum Institute) tests are rather comprehensive and these tests are
> performed on a special test engine where the lubricity of the oil is tested
> across its utility temperature range and the additive package is also tested
> for other attributes like particulate suspension and other factors.
API is a bunch of motor oil marketers getting together and
deciding on a standard that their oils will meet at the highest
profit margin using the cheapest base stocks.
Rather than rely on the guy selling me oil to tell me what I
should use, it makes much more sense to rely on the manufacturer
of the vehicle to specify which oils meet their approvals.
(survived their testing)
Anything else is like a third grader dictating what is a passing
grade in his/her respective school.
> The API
> rating is based on the best test passed by the oil.
Yeah, and -they- invent the test which makes it not so "best."
> The first letter
> represents the oil's intended usage "C" for compression ignition engines
> (Diesel) and "S" for Spark ignition (Gasoline).
Actually, "S" = service and "C" = commercial
> The second letter indicates
> the severity of the test passed like SH or CF.
Severity?
> On the other hand, the SAE
> test is a viscosity test only against a mean standard, similar to the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> at 0 degrees and at 212 degrees, like 10W30, which states that the orifice
> time at 0 degrees is equivalent to 10W and 212 equivalent to 30W.
You jump from tests and approvals to SAE viscosities... Why I
don't know.
> In point of fact Amsoil no longer has their oil tested,
Uh-Oh!
So, no;
Sequence IIIE, Sequence IIIF, Sequence IIIG, Sequence IVA,
Sequence VD, Sequence VE, Sequence VG, ASTM D5533, ASTM D6593,
ASTM 6891, ASTM 4683, CEC L-38A-94, etc, etc, etc.... ????
One would buy this stuff because?
> as it surpasses the
> most severe API tests by very wide margins.
And the proof is where?
And like I said, the most severe API tests don't even come close
to the minimum ACEA tests.
> Amsoil is a double diester based
> oil and is fully synthetic using no petroleum.
"Fully synthetic" is no guarantee of anything.
> The lubricity of petroleum
> based oils starts deteriorating around 220 degrees F and Amsoil starts to
> fall off around 350 degrees F. Mobil 1 and the like are synthesized,
> petroleum based oils and although superior to pure petroleum oils, they are
> inferior to Amsoil in both temperature and lubricity.
Really? Checking the High Temperature/High Shear (HTHS)*
viscosities of Amsoil against Mobil 1 shows not much difference
for the products that would typically be used for normal day to
day service.
(i.e., excluding the racing oil)
I bet if I worked at it a little, I could find some Castrol or
Pentosin or ELF oil(s) that would put Amsoil to shame.
> The real question you
> need to ask; Is this extra performance worth the higher cost?
Which extra performance would that be?
0.06 CentiPoise @150*C? You better believe it isn't worth the
higher cost _OR_ the brain washing.
> This is especially true when contamination is an issue, as in a diesel application,
> where oil changes are the only solution and extended usage is not available
> to offset the higher cost. Amsoil has its own limitation though. Amsoil's
> typical failure mode is that it tends to gel into little balls that can
> block oil passages and filters and I am not sure what causes this and it can
> happen with new oil as well as old.
Sounds like another good reason to avoid it.
* HTHS = viscosity in CentiPoise @ 100*C, 300* F
>In point of fact Amsoil no longer has their oil tested, as it surpasses the
>most severe API tests by very wide margins.
This one's a keeper.
Boy, I sure get a warm fuzzy feeling about using Amsoil when I know
it's not tested. Yep, a cult zombie message board spammer telling me
it surpasses all the tests is good enough for me.
Screw the testing, it only costs money that could be going into the
pockets of the MLM pyramid dwellers. I prefer my oil completely
untested and completely unsullied by any certifications (which, we all
know, place an absolute upper limit on the performance).