Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / September 2006
Amsoil and Non-API Licensing & Warrenty Issues
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Andy - 30 Aug 2006 04:26 GMT Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed?
A. Good question. Let us address API licensing in depth, as well as the issue of warranties. Some AMSOIL motor oils are API licensed, some are not. If you're concerned about your warranty and feel pressures to use an API licensed oil, even after reading this answer, then the XL 5W-20 (XLM), 5W-30 (XLF), 10W-30 (XLT) and 10W-40 (XLO) or our 15W-40 (PCO) API licensed oils should be your choice. If you are looking for an alternative to frequent oil changes or just want the best performing oil for your car, then one of our top tier non-API licensed synthetic oils are for you. Read on, and decide for yourself.
API Licensing - Passenger Cars - What is it?
An API (American Petroleum Institute) license indicates that a specific motor oil formulation has passed the minimum performance standards as defined by a series of laboratory bench, physical, chemical and engine tests. These tests were selected and minimum performance standards were set by the API Lubricants Committee to address specific areas such as engine wear, deposits, fuel economy, emissions, etc. The committee is comprised of representatives from automobile, oil and additive companies. The current specification is SM/GF-4 for gasoline engines and CI-4 Plus for severe-duty diesel engine service and CF for indirect injected diesel engine service.
Costs
The cost for running a test program for a single fuel efficient passenger car motor oil formulation is from $230,000 to $350,000, depending on if the formula passes the tests the first time through or requires multiple test runs or formula modifications to achieve a passing average (testing costs for heavy-duty diesel are running from $750,000 to $1,000,000). Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $1050 per year for non-members and $850 per year for members. There is also a royalty fee per gallon sold for all gallons over one million. The length of time between new specifications is now approximately 2 to 3 years, which does not allow a great deal of time to recover testing costs.
Who Licenses What Formulas?
Additive companies, such as Lubrizol, Afton, Infineum and Oronite, develop licensed formulas that they offer to oil companies to re-license. It is inexpensive to re-license one of these formulas, and the majority of oil companies choose to do this to avoid the costs associated with testing. This lowers the value of engines oils as the same chemistry is being sold under many brand names. Some of the major oil companies do have their own proprietary formulas developed, tested and licensed. All lubricant formulas from AMSOIL INC. are unique and proprietary.
Flexibility In Manufacturing An API Licensed Formula
API licensing was originally developed for mineral based oils, and it affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils. Mineral oils comprised of Group I and Group II petroleum basestocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum basestocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, Group III and Group V base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester (Group V) base stock from a specific supplier, then only that suppliers ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and it increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.
There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic basestocks although the better cold temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. (That's another whole story). What this means is that if you properly formulate the lubricant for which you have run all of the API tests, there are guidelines that allow you to use that same basic formula to make 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, etc. viscosity motor oil. Finally, there is a rule for substitutions in the CMA (Chemical Manufacturers Association) code of practice that allows a small degree of flexibility for all formulas. It allows a company to make changes of certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided the additives are at the same or higher concentration.
Key Limitations For API Licensed Formulas
Phosphorous content - .06% minimum to .08% maximum (API SM; 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30, 5W-30, 10W-30 viscosity grades, only) NOACK volatility - 15% maximum
Click HERE for an explanation of NOACK Volatility
The prevalent sources of phosphorous in motor oils are additives called zinc dithiophosphates (ZDPs). These versatile additives contribute to reduced oxidation, corrosion and wear. The automobile manufacturers, however, have demanded that lubricants contain a maximum of only .08% phosphorous. Their reason is some manufacturers believe higher phosphorous content levels will poison the catalytic converters on their cars before they reach 120,000 miles, which is the number of miles that vehicles are required to pass EPA emission standards. There is not total agreement within the automotive and lubrication industry about whether phosphorous levels over .08% actually do harm catalytic converters in the long run. What they have failed to make allowances for is the NOACK volatility of an oil, the volatility of the phosphorus itself, or the oil drain intervals. The maximum allowable NOACK volatility percentage for the SM/GF-4 passenger car motor oil specification is 15%. Most of AMSOIL motor oils are in the 5% to 8% NOACK volatility range. There is a correlation between NOACK volatility and oil consumption, which ends up in the exhaust gasses. Therefore, higher phosphorous, low volatility oils present no more risk to catalytic converters than low phosphorous oils with higher volatility. This has also been demonstrated for years in actual application through state mandated exhaust gas testing on our Dealers' and customers' high mileage vehicles using AMSOIL synthetic motor oils. State inspectors are continually amazed at the low emissions levels generated by vehicles using AMSOIL products. So much for poisoning catalytic converters.
Why Some AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils Are API Licensed And Some Are Not
1. Full API licensing puts AMSOIL INC. in an inflexible position. Not only would we find it necessary to buy formula components from specific vendors and be at the mercy of their pricing and availability, we would not be able to make any major improvements to the lubricant formulas for 2 to 3 years without new testing and the associated costs. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic basestocks just as they have for other basestocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. 2. Full API licensing would impose strict phosphorous limitations on our motor oils. AMSOIL INC. disagrees with this limitation and feels strongly that consumers benefit from long drain, low volatility oils that pose no threat to catalytic converters. To solve this issue, the API and vehicle manufacturers must develop tests and make exceptions for high phosphorus, long drain interval, low volatility oils.
Warranties And API Licensed Motor Oils
Fortunately, the law does not allow manufacturers to "void your warranty" simply because of the brand of oil you use, the specifications it meets or the miles you drive between oil changes. To be specific, they cannot deny fixing your broken radio, faulty valve or cracked piston because you used an AMSOIL non-API licensed motor oil, or because you've gone more than 3000 miles since your last oil change. Denial of warranty coverage must be specifically due to an oil related failure. Courts of law will find against any manufacturer or dealership that tries these warranty shenanigans. If any automobile dealership insinuates that your warranty will be void if you use AMSOIL products or utilize extended drain intervals, let AMSOIL INC. know the name of the Dealership, the address, the owner's name and the name of the employee that made this statement.
Mail to:
AMSOIL INC. Attention: Technical Services Department AMSOIL Building Superior, WI 54880
or e-mail to tech@amsoil.com.
They will almost never put it in writing, but if they do, please send us a copy of that, too. Either way, we will send them a letter informing them to cease the intimidation of our customers. Click HERE to read a sample letter.
Only if the oil is determined to be the direct cause of the engine problem can a manufacturer or dealership deny warranty coverage for that specific problem. In this situation the AMSOIL warranty would apply, and the AMSOIL Technical Services Department would assist you in processing your claim and in getting the vehicle repaired. That's our pledge to you. AMSOIL INC. sells millions of gallons of oil per year and warranty claims are a rare occurrence. If you ever have a warranty problem with an automobile manufacturer or dealership, AMSOIL will assist you by analyzing the problem and providing data supporting the fact that repairs should be made under the vehicle manufacturer's warranty. If this does not resolve the problem, AMSOIL will submit a claim with our insurance company and request that an adjuster have the vehicle repaired and pursue legal settlement later if necessary.
How Does AMSOIL INC. Ensure Their Products Meet Or Exceed The Minimum Specifications Of The Tests Required For API Licensing?
First, AMSOIL INC. works closely with major additive companies to select the top performing, and usually most expensive, passenger car and heavy-duty diesel motor oil additives. These additives have already passed all of the API licensing requirements in a petroleum or synthetic based formulation. Then we work with the additive company to maximize the amount of additive used and to boost the additive package in selected performance areas to achieve an optimum performing additive package for reduced wear and extended drain intervals. This is unlike other oil companies who, because additives are expensive, use the minimum amount of the least expensive additives required to meet the minimum API requirements.
We then utilize a blend of synthetic basestocks with known performance characteristics as a replacement for the petroleum basestocks to optimize performance in areas of lubricity, volatility, viscosity index, oxidation and nitration resistance, pour points, flash points, deposit control, soot handling, emissions, etc. We also will utilize a high quality V.I. improver with better viscosity and cleanliness properties. This replaces the inexpensive, low quality V.I. improver used in the API licensed petroleum formula. We do laboratory bench tests before running field tests to verify the superiority of the synthetic formula in actual use. We also continue to monitor the performance of the oil through close scrutiny of tens of thousands of oil analysis tests per year across a wide variety of vehicles all around North America and the World. AMSOIL INC. has been collecting used synthetic oil samples from passenger cars since 1982. No other oil company has such a vast database of the performance of synthetic lubricants over extended drain intervals. AMSOIL INC.'s products and formulations outperform API licensed oils. They're engineered that way. Period.
Conclusion
AMSOIL INC. takes pride in never having conformed to industry norms or standards when those standards are contrary to peak performance. We introduced synthetics to the automotive world in 1972 with the first synthetic motor oil to exceed API performance specifications. At that time other manufacturers refused to recognize the superior performance of synthetic motor oils. Now, however, most companies sell synthetic lubricants, vehicles are factory filled with synthetic motor oils and gear lubes, and some manufacturers even offer extended warranties if you use synthetics. AMSOIL has always offered extended drain intervals because the oil was capable of performing for extended drains, and it was the right thing to do for the consumer. Now the entire industry is moving in that direction. Ironically, GM is now extending drain intervals (as much as 12,000+ miles) through the use of their oil life monitoring system, and some foreign automakers recommend 10,000 mile and longer oil drain intervals. Additionally, competitive oil companies are now extending drain intervals and even Mobil is recommending 15,000-mile oil drains for oils that are not API SM licensed. AMSOIL is a company of firsts. That doesn't happen by always conforming to industry norms and standards. API licensing of lubricants is voluntary, and it ensures automobile manufacturers and consumers that the product meets a set of minimum standards. Should these standards, in the future, be raised to a level consistent with AMSOIL's standards for motor oil performance, AMSOIL will consider licensing all oils. For those that feel pressured to use an API licensed product, we have them and encourage you to use them (XLM, XLF, XLT, XLO and PCO). AMSOIL does offer better performing motor oils that are not API licensed for all of the reasons explained in this response. They provide our customers with alternatives to the commodity products typically available in the market today. If you want the convenience of extended drain intervals or the top performance from your vehicle, AMSOIL has taken time to engineer the very best money can buy.
Jim Warman - 30 Aug 2006 04:56 GMT Oh, Andy, Andy, Andy... you have just taken a giant leap backwards for SPAMsoil....
First, you haven't researched usenet at all...... and your lengthy, time wasting post is in contravention of many usenet rules.... If you can't research that, how on earth could you research your lengthy, time wasting post????
The only thing special about SPAMsoil is the marketing ploy that adds mark-up at every step of the transaction... I believe that SPAMsoil even admits to abandoning PAO base stocks on some of their product line...
It is efforts like this that make your company look sluttish..... this kind of post isn't much better than telemarketers at supper time....
Andy - 30 Aug 2006 13:33 GMT >First, you haven't researched usenet at all...... and your lengthy, time >wasting post is in contravention of many usenet rules.... If you can't >research that, how on earth could you research your lengthy, time wasting >post???? That is information directly from the Amsoil website, I just did a copy and paste.
If you have issues with the post, contact Amsoil, since its all thier information.
Jeff - 31 Aug 2006 01:33 GMT >>First, you haven't researched usenet at all...... and your lengthy, time >>wasting post is in contravention of many usenet rules.... If you can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is information directly from the Amsoil website, I just did a > copy and paste. Those of us who use usenet also have internet access.
Instead of cut and paste, they posting a URL:
http://URL.andy.com/IT_is_stupid_to_Cut_and_paste
> If you have issues with the post, contact Amsoil, since its all thier > information. Andy - 31 Aug 2006 04:22 GMT >>>First, you haven't researched usenet at all...... and your lengthy, time >>>wasting post is in contravention of many usenet rules.... If you can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://URL.andy.com/IT_is_stupid_to_Cut_and_paste I'm not sure you would have access to that area of the site.
Jeff - 31 Aug 2006 23:00 GMT <...>
>>Instead of cut and paste, they posting a URL: >> >>http://URL.andy.com/IT_is_stupid_to_Cut_and_paste > > I'm not sure you would have access to that area of the site. What you posted is copyrighted, as well So not only did you break usenet rules, you broke the law.
Jeff
Andy - 01 Sep 2006 00:14 GMT ><...> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >What you posted is copyrighted, as well So not only did you break usenet >rules, you broke the law. I did not break the law.
Bruce L. Bergman - 01 Sep 2006 00:41 GMT >>>Instead of cut and paste, they posting a URL: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What you posted is copyrighted, as well So not only did you break usenet >rules, you broke the law. Yabbut SPAMsoil isn't going to be so broken up about it to where they'll do anything about it, he gave them wider exposure.
You want trouble, try posting something where the original author DOESN'T want the information out there "to be free" - like the Secret Recipe for Coca-Cola, or the Kentucky Fried Chicken "11 Secret Herbs and Spices", or the Krispy Kreme Donut Mix recipe, or the Sekrit Skriptures from the upper levels of Skienntoologgy. (Deliberately mis-spelled to throw off keyword searches, please leave that way.)
Post those, and they'll take action - in the first three examples you'll have a phalanx of cops and lawyers on your doorstep in the morning, and the last example they'll send Tom Cruise over to jump on your sofa.
--<< Bruce >>--
Andy - 01 Sep 2006 01:12 GMT >>>>Instead of cut and paste, they posting a URL: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yabbut SPAMsoil isn't going to be so broken up about it to where >they'll do anything about it, he gave them wider exposure. Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct.
CJB - 01 Sep 2006 02:45 GMT > Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. You mean like when you misspelled words in the subject line?
CJB
Bob - 01 Sep 2006 03:47 GMT >> Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. > > You mean like when you misspelled words in the subject line? > > CJB Lol..... if it weren't for the idiots like Andy Amsoil would have went bankrupt years ago. The people who are buying amsoil are likely the same people who make the lottery such a success.
Andy - 01 Sep 2006 04:02 GMT >>> Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >bankrupt years ago. The people who are buying amsoil are likely the same >people who make the lottery such a success. Your comments make me laugh. You just have no idea, much like serveral of the other posters.
Bob - 01 Sep 2006 04:54 GMT >>>> Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your comments make me laugh. You just have no idea, much like > serveral of the other posters. Lol... yea I'm just another dumbass....... on the other hand you are the genius who discovered amsoil.
Bought any winning lotto tickets lately?
Andy - 01 Sep 2006 12:25 GMT >>>>> Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Your comments make me laugh. You just have no idea, much like >> serveral of the other posters.
>Bought any winning lotto tickets lately? I don't gamble. I use only proven things, based on science.
Bob - 01 Sep 2006 18:03 GMT >>>>Lol..... if it weren't for the idiots like Andy Amsoil would have went >>>>bankrupt years ago. The people who are buying amsoil are likely the same [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't gamble. I use only proven things, based on science. And yet you not only blindly believe everything on spamsoils web site but also think we should believe it. That doesn't sound very scientific to me.
You'd probably be better off to pick a different group to spam your oil on 'cause I don't see anyone here buying your garbage.
WISynOil@gmail.com - 02 Sep 2006 17:05 GMT > >>>>Lol..... if it weren't for the idiots like Andy Amsoil would have went > >>>>bankrupt years ago. The people who are buying amsoil are likely the same [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And yet you not only blindly believe everything on spamsoils web site but > also think we should believe it. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. I'm sure independant research wouldn't to you. I mean you still get the name of the company wrong. Maybe you should actualy read the test information, it's not like Amsoil's site is the only source of information.
> You'd probably be better off to pick a different group to spam your oil on > 'cause I don't see anyone here buying your garbage. That's because it's not garbage, no matter how much you think it is.
Doing a google search on you, seems your always picking fights in newsgroups.
CJB - 02 Sep 2006 17:52 GMT Looks like Andy called for reinforcements from headquarters.
CJB
>> >>>>Lol..... if it weren't for the idiots like Andy Amsoil would have >> >>>>went [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Doing a google search on you, seems your always picking fights in > newsgroups. Bob - 05 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT >> >>>>Lol..... if it weren't for the idiots like Andy Amsoil would have >> >>>>went [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Doing a google search on you, seems your always picking fights in > newsgroups. Doing a google search on you, seems your nothing but a spammer. And not a very bright one either.
Tom - 05 Sep 2006 09:24 GMT gee bob, that's an even better comeback than the one Andy AmSoil directed towards me.
> Doing a google search on you, seems your nothing but a spammer. And not a
> very bright one either. Jeff - 02 Sep 2006 20:14 GMT >>>>>> Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't gamble. I use only proven things, based on science. Please give us some examples of the scientific tests that show that Amsoil is any better than the other synthetic oils, with links.
Jeff
WISynOil@gmail.com - 03 Sep 2006 03:51 GMT > >>>>>> Its sad when you can't even get the company name correct. > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf for motorcycle oils (look at the last page) http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
aarcuda69062 - 03 Sep 2006 16:50 GMT In article <1157251893.824612.198320@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Please give us some examples of the scientific tests that show that Amsoil > > is any better than the other synthetic oils, with links. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2156.pdf for motorcycle oils (look at the > last page) The last page of the PDF just shows the Amsoil logo. The second from the last page shows a list of the test methodology. The third from the last page shows a notorized affidavit signed by an Amsoil employee in their home county in Wisconsin, note, they spelled Amsoil [Asmoil] wrong. Nothing independent here. Certainly nothing to support anything other than Amsoil hyping their own overpriced product.
> http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html "Where you'll find this comment from a Mr. Childers; Here we are at our first sample in the Mobil 1 re-test. Nothing unusual so far. It sure is nice to have a smooth-running engine again! The extra vibration from the over-thick Amsoil was getting annoying."
Andy - 03 Sep 2006 19:19 GMT >In article ><1157251893.824612.198320@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Nothing independent here. Certainly nothing to support anything >other than Amsoil hyping their own overpriced product. Nothing independent? Now I know people are just fighting for the sake of fighting. No matter how much proof there is, you just don't see anything but your own "proof"
aarcuda69062 - 03 Sep 2006 19:54 GMT > >The last page of the PDF just shows the Amsoil logo. > >The second from the last page shows a list of the test [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nothing independent? No, nothing. A paper authored by a company employee notarized in that companies home county hardly qualifies as anything other than self serving.
> Now I know people are just fighting for the sake > of fighting. No matter how much proof there is, you just don't see > anything but your own "proof" You have yet to provide any proof.
Fox guarding the hen house have any meaning to you?
BTW, why did you snip my reply to your second link, the one where the comment was made that the engine runs better and doesn't have an annoying vibration now that the Amsoil has been replaced with Mobil1?
Lastly, any legitimate professional mechanic can access pictures and text on i-ATN posted by the owner of Continental Imports in Gainsville Florida of a late model BMW that was sludged up from the owner using Amsoil. Clearly, this oil is not all it's made out to be and survives only by virtue of the brainwashing techniques its promoters use on hapless dupes such as yourself.
Andy - 03 Sep 2006 20:54 GMT >> Now I know people are just fighting for the sake >> of fighting. No matter how much proof there is, you just don't see >> anything but your own "proof" > >You have yet to provide any proof. I have provided plenty.
>Lastly, any legitimate professional mechanic can access pictures >and text on i-ATN posted by the owner of Continental Imports in >Gainsville Florida of a late model BMW that was sludged up from >the owner using Amsoil. Clearly, this oil is not all it's made >out to be and survives only by virtue of the brainwashing >techniques its promoters use on hapless dupes such as yourself. Going to post a link, or is this just more Amsoil bashing? Anyone that knows anything about oil knows that synthetic oils no matter what brand can't cause sludge, because the dont contain any wax.
Ed White - 03 Sep 2006 22:34 GMT > Going to post a link, or is this just more Amsoil bashing? Anyone > that knows anything about oil knows that synthetic oils no matter what > brand can't cause sludge, because the dont contain any wax. Sludge is not necessarily formed from wax. And besides, the Amsoil XL product line is made from highly refined Group III Petroleum Oils (like Castrol Syntec).
Ed
Andy - 03 Sep 2006 23:56 GMT >> Going to post a link, or is this just more Amsoil bashing? Anyone >> that knows anything about oil knows that synthetic oils no matter what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >product line is made from highly refined Group III Petroleum Oils (like >Castrol Syntec). So are you going to post a link or not?
Yes Amsoil XL oils are Group III, which is why I don't use them.
Ed White - 04 Sep 2006 00:42 GMT > >> Going to post a link, or is this just more Amsoil bashing? Anyone > >> that knows anything about oil knows that synthetic oils no matter what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So are you going to post a link or not? Link to what? I was only resposding to your assertion that synthetic oils can't form sludge. They certainly can. The blow-by (water, unburned hydrocarbons, etc) can combine with the oil to make a mess. On the other hand true synthetics (not the faux syynthetic Amsoil XL product line) are much more resistent to coking than petroleum based oils and therfore less likely to forn the yucky gummy crap that was clogging Toyota engines in the recent past.
> Yes Amsoil XL oils are Group III, which is why I don't use them. Well it ironic that they went this route after trashing Syntec when it was first introduced and after years of touting the wonders of fully synthetic oil. They used to have a long BS explanation of why they used the Group III oil for the XL Line instead of a true synthetic, but in the end it pretty much could be distilled down to "because we can get away with it and make more money."
If you want links here are some I like:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009433 http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=015992#000000 http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=015986#000006
If is my personal opinion that there is nothing "wrong" with Amsoil, but that there is nothing particulalrly special about it either. The only way you can justify the high cost is to also buy the long drain interval claims. And these are bogus in my opinion - at least to the extent that there is something unique about the Amsoil products that allow them to last significaantly longer than other motor oils that meet the current service categories. And there is no way I am going to use non-API logo oil while my car is under warranty. The M-M Warranty act protects you if you don't use the manufacturer's oil but it doesn't protect you if you use oil that doesn't meet the manufacturer's specifications.
Ed
Andy - 04 Sep 2006 01:01 GMT >> >> Going to post a link, or is this just more Amsoil bashing? Anyone >> >> that knows anything about oil knows that synthetic oils no matter what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Link to what? To this place in Florida .
aarcuda69062 - 04 Sep 2006 15:21 GMT > >> So are you going to post a link or not? > > > >Link to what? > > To this place in Florida . What place in Florida?
Tom - 03 Sep 2006 09:02 GMT I cant give you a scientific test to show it, but I can give you a real life test to prove it. in 1988 I bought a ford superduty diesel. the body shop next to me bought the sister truck to use as a wrecker. both trucks were identical. both trucks had banks turbos put on them within 500 miles of purchase, within 1 week of each other. the first thing the body shop did was drop the oil, and put in amsoil synthetic. they were an amsoil dealer, and swore by it. I put valvoline all fleet plus in mine. by 1992, both trucks had about 45,000 miles on them. I did nothing but change my oil every 3,000 miles. they went with the amsoil recommended 5,000 mile oil change, and had to replace 4 turbos and 2 engines, due to lack of oiling. in late 92, they stopped selling amsoil, and switched to 5,000 mile oil changes using all fleet plus, and have not had any engine problems in 275,000 miles now.
oops, I just realized you wanted proof that spamsoil was good, not that it was garbage.
"Jeff" <jeff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Please give us some examples of the scientific tests that show that Amsoil > is any better than the other synthetic oils, with links. > > Jeff Jeff - 03 Sep 2006 20:51 GMT >I cant give you a scientific test to show it, but I can give you a real >life test to prove it. A single test doesn't prove anything.
> in 1988 I bought a ford superduty diesel. the body shop next to me bought > the sister truck to use as a wrecker. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > oops, I just realized you wanted proof that spamsoil was good, not that it > was garbage. Again a single test doesn't prove anything. Now, a comparison between identical fleets, that would be getting somewhere.
Jeff
> "Jeff" <jeff@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Please give us some examples of the scientific tests that show that >> Amsoil is any better than the other synthetic oils, with links. >> >> Jeff WISynOil@gmail.com - 03 Sep 2006 21:30 GMT > I cant give you a scientific test to show it, but I can give you a real life > test to prove it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > changes using all fleet plus, and have not had any engine problems in > 275,000 miles now. A tow truck is under far greater stress than a non-tow truck is. You say they went with the 5,000 mile oil change that Amsoil recomends...well sorry, but Amsoil doesn't make an oil where they specify a 5,000 mile oil chanage.
That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make Amsoil look bad an boost your ego.
Tom - 03 Sep 2006 21:44 GMT you are 100% correct spamsoil does not recommend a 5,000 mile oil change. ford does. boost my ego??? be realistic here. you could drop off 10 free tractor trailers full of your crap at my shop, and I still would not use it. I have seen way to many engines and turbos that were ruined by spamsoil to ever switch from tried and true valvoline all fleet plus. and with the 10k mile service on the large trucks,(over 30k lbs) and the 3k mile service on the small vehicles, (under 30k lbs) and 100 hour service on the heavy equipment, I use over 8,000 gallons of valvoline all fleet plus per year.
>> I cant give you a scientific test to show it, but I can give you a real >> life [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make > Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. I. Care - 03 Sep 2006 22:47 GMT > you are 100% correct spamsoil does not recommend a 5,000 mile oil change. > ford does. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make > > Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. I thought I had seen an extended drain interval mentioned on the Amsoil site, so I looked up the Amsoil 10w-30 change recommendations quoted here from the Amsoil web site:
"SERVICE LIFE AMSOIL Synthetic 10W-30 Motor Oil is recommended for extended drain intervals in unmodified(1), mechanically sound(2) gasoline fueled vehicles as follows:
=3F Normal Service(3) =3F Up to 25,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first.
=3F Severe Service(4) =3F Up to 15,000 miles or one year, whichever comes first.
=3F Replace AMSOIL Ea full-flow oil filter at the time of oil change up to 25,000 miles (other brands at standard OEM* intervals).
=3F In all other applications, extend the oil change interval according to oil analysis or follow the OEM* drain interval.
*OEM =3F Original Equipment Manufacturer
(1) Where the engine or operating conditions have been modified from the original manufacturers=3F design, drain oil at the owner=3Fs discretion or extend based on oil analysis. Examples include the use of performance computer chips; modified exhaust, fuel or air induction systems; and the use of fuels other than those recommended for normal operation by the manufacturers.
(2) Engines are in good working condition and within the factory design settings. Mechanically sound engines, for example, do not leak oil or consume excessive amounts, are not worn out, do not overheat, do not have internal or external anti-freeze leaks and have properly working emission control systems. AMSOIL recommends repairing malfunctioning engines prior to the installation of AMSOIL synthetic oils.
(3) Non-turbo/non-supercharged personal transportation vehicles frequently traveling greater than 10 miles at a time and not operating under severe service.
(4) Turbo/supercharged vehicles, commercial or fleet vehicles, extensive engine idling, first and subsequent use of AMSOIL engine oil in vehicles with 100,000 miles or greater, daily short trip driving (less than 10 miles), frequent towing, plowing or hauling heavy loads and frequent driving in dusty conditions."
 Signature I. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}
Andy - 03 Sep 2006 23:55 GMT Crap? Sorry, but Amsoil isn't crap no matter how much you think it is. You must be the only one thats seen any damage caused by Amsoil. One of the local truck drivers has a Mack dump truck and has over 100k on Amsoil, and runs a good used oil analysis program. He does change the filters and top off as needed. Sounds like your in the pocket of Valvoline.
>you are 100% correct spamsoil does not recommend a 5,000 mile oil change. >ford does. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make >> Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. Tom - 04 Sep 2006 00:16 GMT well, think what you will. but so far in the three or so days this thread has gone on, there have been only 2 people that have stood up for spamsoil, and they were both dealers. ant the spamsoil dealers could not even get their stories rite.
> Crap? Sorry, but Amsoil isn't crap no matter how much you think it > is. You must be the only one thats seen any damage caused by Amsoil. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>> That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make >>> Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. Andy - 04 Sep 2006 01:02 GMT Good job on the spelling, and grow up already.
>well, think what you will. but so far in the three or so days this thread >has gone on, there have been only 2 people that have stood up for spamsoil, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >>>> That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make >>>> Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. Tom - 04 Sep 2006 09:51 GMT ooh good come back.
> Good job on the spelling, and grow up already. > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >>>>> That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make >>>>> Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. SC Tom - 04 Sep 2006 14:12 GMT > Good job on the spelling, and grow up already. Oh, Andy, you have no right to condemn someone else's spelling when your spelling and punctuation is no better. Shame, shame!!
SC Tom
CJB - 04 Sep 2006 16:50 GMT Andy, I usually spell it "AmSoil." Is that better?
Thanks,
CJB
> Good job on the spelling, and grow up already. > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >>>>> That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make >>>>> Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. Jeff - 04 Sep 2006 21:16 GMT > Good job on the spelling, and grow up already. Nice personal attack.
You look real mature. You would fit in with my 8th graders. Or maybe their little brothers and sisters.
Jeff
>>well, think what you will. but so far in the three or so days this thread >>has gone on, there have been only 2 people that have stood up for [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >>>>> That said, your probably just making the whole thing up trying to make >>>>> Amsoil look bad an boost your ego. Bob - 05 Sep 2006 02:15 GMT It's pretty much the same story every time some idiot comes here and starts trying to convince every one how good amsoil is. The best argument they can ever come up with is a cut and paste from amsoils own web site. Bob
> well, think what you will. but so far in the three or so days this thread > has gone on, there have been only 2 people that have stood up for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> the filters and top off as needed. Sounds like your in the pocket of >> Valvoline. Jim Warman - 31 Aug 2006 02:07 GMT Well, y'see, Andy... I don't recall anyone here saying "Andy, can you please tells us all about that miracle lube called Amsoil??? It must be wonderful stuff and our internet doesn't have Google and all that other stuff".
Looking at your posting history (or at least a portion of it) we can deduce that you are, most probably, a SPAMsoil "dealer".... and you are out trolling for suckers.... all the while, being oblivious to the fact that usenet was not designed to be an avenue of free advertising for shysters and frauds...
>>First, you haven't researched usenet at all...... and your lengthy, time >>wasting post is in contravention of many usenet rules.... If you can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you have issues with the post, contact Amsoil, since its all thier > information. rmac - 31 Aug 2006 02:58 GMT >>First, you haven't researched usenet at all...... and your lengthy, time >>wasting post is in contravention of many usenet rules.... If you can't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you have issues with the post, contact Amsoil, since its all thier > information. zwsdotcom@gmail.com - 30 Aug 2006 16:02 GMT > Oh, Andy, Andy, Andy... you have just taken a giant leap backwards for > SPAMsoil.... What is this sh.t anyway, Amway oil? Do I have to send a dollar bill to everyone on a list and add my own name and address?
Andy - 30 Aug 2006 16:21 GMT >> Oh, Andy, Andy, Andy... you have just taken a giant leap backwards for >> SPAMsoil.... > >What is this sh.t anyway, Amway oil? Do I have to send a dollar bill to >everyone on a list and add my own name and address? Hu?
Tom - 30 Aug 2006 08:55 GMT if spamsoil is so freaking good, as all the spamsoil dealers claim it is, them why is it that the only ones that use spamsoil are the spamsoil dealers???
> Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? > [quoted text clipped - 249 lines] > performance from your vehicle, AMSOIL has taken time to engineer the > very best money can buy. Andy - 30 Aug 2006 13:35 GMT Never heard of Spamsoil. Amsoil is used by a lot of people that aren't dealers. Its amazing that can cant grasp that simple concept.
>if spamsoil is so freaking good, as all the spamsoil dealers claim it is, >them why is it that the only ones that use spamsoil are the spamsoil [quoted text clipped - 252 lines] >> performance from your vehicle, AMSOIL has taken time to engineer the >> very best money can buy. Jeff - 31 Aug 2006 01:34 GMT > if spamsoil is so freaking good, as all the spamsoil dealers claim it is, > them why is it that the only ones that use spamsoil are the spamsoil > dealers??? They weren't even the first to introduce synthetic oil.
jeff
Andy - 31 Aug 2006 04:24 GMT >> if spamsoil is so freaking good, as all the spamsoil dealers claim it is, >> them why is it that the only ones that use spamsoil are the spamsoil >> dealers??? > >They weren't even the first to introduce synthetic oil. They were the fist ti introduce a synthetic oil for the automotive industry. Mobil 1 was two years later. Amsoil came out in 1972, Mobil 1 was in 1974. There were synthetic lubricants before, that were used in the aviation industry.
rmac - 31 Aug 2006 02:57 GMT > Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? Answer: Spamsoil doesn't want to invest the money required to license their oils. They would rather spend the money on developing rather verbose excuses for not doing so.
Jeff - 31 Aug 2006 23:03 GMT >> Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? > > Answer: Spamsoil doesn't want to invest the money required to license > their oils. They would > rather spend the money on developing rather verbose excuses for not doing > so. Try again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
MOTUL of Frances introduced synthetic motor oil before Amsoil .
Andy - 01 Sep 2006 00:14 GMT >>> Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >MOTUL of Frances introduced synthetic motor oil before Amsoil Like wikipedia is a reliable source.
Andy - 01 Sep 2006 00:37 GMT >>>> Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>MOTUL of Frances introduced synthetic motor oil before Amsoil Ok, to quote the wikipedia article...
The first company to develop an API-rated 100% synthetic motor oil available in the United States was Amsoil Inc.
There is no mention that MOTUL had an API-rated oil.
SC Tom - 01 Sep 2006 14:18 GMT >>>>> Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There is no mention that MOTUL had an API-rated oil. First you attack wikipedia, then you quote it. BUT, if you click on the superscripted [1] by the quote, you'll see that it was entered by, (can you guess?. . .)
"Ed Newman is Marketing Manager for AMSOIL INC."
That's like asking Famous Amos who makes the best cookies in the world!
I'm not here to slam or praise Amsoil, but if you want to lend a little credence to your statements, you need to quote someone besides your own marketing manager.
SC Tom
Jeff - 02 Sep 2006 21:36 GMT >>>>> Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There is no mention that MOTUL had an API-rated oil. MOTUL was sold in Europe, not the US, at first. Why would they bother with an API-rating? API standards for *American* Petroleum Institute. I never claimed that MOTUL sold oil in the US.
Jeff
|
|
|