Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Amsoil and Non-API Licensing & Warrenty Issues

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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 supplier’s 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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.