Penzoil platinum??
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 114
Keep in mind that this illustration is designed to show how a person can potentially save money by using a quality oil with extended drain capabilities versus a less expensive oil drained more frequently. The difference between AMSOIL (and M-1 EP) and the competing oils is that only AMSOIL and M-1 EP are specifically formulated for extended drain intervals...the others all have to be drained more frequently. This is not a hard and fast test...it's an illustration. The length of time one chooses to use a product such as AMSOIL compared to the length of time they choose to use a less expensive oil (not to mention the number of miles one drives per year) will result in much different results of this comparison. But even if we were to give the competing synthetics credit for the maximum drain interval recommended by their manufacturer (7500 miles), AMSOIL at it's maximum drain recommendation would still be more cost effective. Reduce AMSOIL to 12.5K and keep the other synthetics at 7500 miles and AMSOIL is still more cost effective. Again, it's just an illustration...
But as I said in my previous post, most people choose AMSOIL for the performance and convenience it offers. In the big scheme of things, the cost difference is really not that much either way. I use AMSOIL because I believe it to be the best oil available, not the cheapest.
But as I said in my previous post, most people choose AMSOIL for the performance and convenience it offers. In the big scheme of things, the cost difference is really not that much either way. I use AMSOIL because I believe it to be the best oil available, not the cheapest.
Last edited by mwh; Mar 4, 2009 at 05:01 AM.
Old Fuddy Duddy
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,712
Just a viewpoint.
I am an AMSOil person from the quality/protection aspect. I use M1 in my wifes Rav because its a pain to keep 5w-20 Amsoil in stock. She runs a bunch of miles and I HAVE to change it every 5K due to warranty.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 114
Not to poke in, but then why would you buy M1? They "changed" because of the Castrol fiasco. Instead of maintaining the high road, the succumbed and dipped to the Castrol level.
Just a viewpoint.
I am an AMSOil person from the quality/protection aspect. I use M1 in my wifes Rav because its a pain to keep 5w-20 Amsoil in stock. She runs a bunch of miles and I HAVE to change it every 5K due to warranty.
Just a viewpoint.
I am an AMSOil person from the quality/protection aspect. I use M1 in my wifes Rav because its a pain to keep 5w-20 Amsoil in stock. She runs a bunch of miles and I HAVE to change it every 5K due to warranty.
I have been using M1 EP for a few a few years in the wifes 4- Runner and it is a good product. I run it for 10k miles and try to remember to change the filter at 5k.
Last edited by mwh; Mar 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM.
Maxima.org Sponsor and Donating Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (121)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,325
From: San Antonio, TX
I see you edited your post. In the original post you agreed with my point of view and now this edited reply seems to contradict your own comments. Once again, I will say the AMSOIL ROI report is BS and you agreed with that before you edited. I am starting to think that when my case of AMSOIL runs out I am going with REDLINE products in my bike and going back to M1 EP in my 3 cars. The AMSOIL report is not "just and illustration" it is supposed to be hard facts. I refuse to buy product from wishy-washy sales people or their companies unfair marketing practices.
I do agree with you that the relative cost savings will vary depending on a number of factors including how long one decides to run one of the competing oils, how long one would choose to run AMSOIL, and how many miles the customer drives per year. The cost model demonstrates potential savings based on a set of assumptions AMSOIL chose to use (price of the oil, drain interval, annual mileage). Those assumptions are clearly disclosed in the publication and they can vary from case to case. While OEM's may specify 7500 mile OCIs under ideal conditions, and UOAs may support longer drain intervals than the model's 5K intervals for the competing oils, I believe AMSOIL chose 5,000 miles as the basis for this comparison because most service centers typically recommend 3,000 or 5,000 mile drain intervals for these competing oils. To the best of my knowledge, the manufacturers of these competing oils make no specific claims/recommendations concerning recommended drain intervals.
Many potential customers focus on the initial purchase price of AMSOIL and fail to see the long term value a product like AMSOIL can provide. For those concerned about the price, this illustration demonstrates that over the course of 25,000 miles, a customer can actually save money using a premium, extended drain oil versus a lower priced product that must be changed more frequently. What AMSOIL did not include in their illustration is the additional cost of filters and labor associated with multiple oil changes...had they factored those costs into the model as well, the results would have been tilted even more in AMSOIL's favor. Unlike other companies who formulate their oils to meet minimum standards and achieve a low target price they think the consumer will tolerate, AMSOIL has always formulated their oils for maximum performance and long service life...and that underlying foundation (performance and longevity) can result in reduced total life-cycle cost for the consumer.
I regret if nature of this cost model has influenced your decision to switch to a different brand of motor oil in your cars. The results of the performance tests included in this Study, all of which were conducted in accordance with internationally recognized ASTM protocols, are obviously of lesser significance to you than the hypothetical cost model. I also recommend you thoroughly research motorcycle oils before deciding to switch brands...AMSOIL has a comprehensive Motorcycle oil White Paper on their web site which is well worth reading.
I sincerely hope you are satisfied with your selection of products. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Last edited by talkinghorse; Mar 6, 2009 at 06:21 AM. Reason: Additional information/Clarification
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 114
Edits were made to better clarify the intent of the Cost Savings illustration contained in the Comparative Oil study.
I do agree with you that the relative cost savings will vary depending on a number of factors including how long one decides to run one of the competing oils, how long one would choose to run AMSOIL, and how many miles the customer drives per year. But the cost model is not "BS" as you label it.
Many potential customers focus on the initial purchase price of AMSOIL and fail to see the long term value a product like AMSOIL can provide. For those concerned about the price, this illustration demonstrates that over the course of 25,000 miles, a customer can actually save money using a premium, extended drain oil versus a lower priced product that must be changed more frequently. What AMSOIL did not include in their illustration is the additional cost of filters and labor associated with multiple oil changes...had they factored those costs into the model as well, the results would have been tilted even more in AMSOIL's favor. Unlike other companies who formulate their oils to meet minimum standards and achieve a low target price they think the consumer will tolerate, AMSOIL has always formulated their oils for maximum performance and long service life...and that underlying foundation (performance and longevity) can result in reduced total life-cycle cost for the consumer.
I regret if nature of this cost model has influenced your decision to switch to a different brand of motor oil in your cars. The results of the performance tests included in the same Study, all of which were conducted in accordance with internationally recognized ASTM protocols, are obviously of lesser significance to you than the cost model which demonstrates potential savings based on a set of assumptions clearly disclosed in the publication. I also recommend you thoroughly research motorcycle oils before deciding to switch brands.
I sincerely hope you are satisfied with your selection of products.
I do agree with you that the relative cost savings will vary depending on a number of factors including how long one decides to run one of the competing oils, how long one would choose to run AMSOIL, and how many miles the customer drives per year. But the cost model is not "BS" as you label it.
Many potential customers focus on the initial purchase price of AMSOIL and fail to see the long term value a product like AMSOIL can provide. For those concerned about the price, this illustration demonstrates that over the course of 25,000 miles, a customer can actually save money using a premium, extended drain oil versus a lower priced product that must be changed more frequently. What AMSOIL did not include in their illustration is the additional cost of filters and labor associated with multiple oil changes...had they factored those costs into the model as well, the results would have been tilted even more in AMSOIL's favor. Unlike other companies who formulate their oils to meet minimum standards and achieve a low target price they think the consumer will tolerate, AMSOIL has always formulated their oils for maximum performance and long service life...and that underlying foundation (performance and longevity) can result in reduced total life-cycle cost for the consumer.
I regret if nature of this cost model has influenced your decision to switch to a different brand of motor oil in your cars. The results of the performance tests included in the same Study, all of which were conducted in accordance with internationally recognized ASTM protocols, are obviously of lesser significance to you than the cost model which demonstrates potential savings based on a set of assumptions clearly disclosed in the publication. I also recommend you thoroughly research motorcycle oils before deciding to switch brands.
I sincerely hope you are satisfied with your selection of products.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 114
Edits are fine as long as they are used to make the original message clearer or remove typos. In your case you changed your story. All my purchases are researched and this is a good example of that.
Maxima.org Sponsor and Donating Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (121)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,325
From: San Antonio, TX
Let me provide some background, my work includes detailed IT analysis studies for large global clients. If I were to develop and then present erroneous information to C level, I would lose all credibility and they would never ask me back. That report is in fact marketing BS and lends me to question the rest of the product literature.
Again, I wish you the best with your product selection.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 114
Again, I regret you feel the way you do. I entered this discussion because I felt I could provide some clarity to a discussion you were having with another member of this site. You will recall that I began my explanation by stating that, in essence, I was providing my opinion concerning the cost savings portion of AMSOIL's comparative oil study. You must realize that the publication is not mine...I didn't do the study, I didn't establish the assumptions for the cost comparison. I've done my best to explain it to you, and I am not going to comment on it any further. Therefore, if you have any additional questions concerning the study I recommend you contact AMSOIL Tech Services at 715-392-7101 and perhaps they can explain the basis for the test.
Again, I wish you the best with your product selection.
Again, I wish you the best with your product selection.
Maxima.org Sponsor and Donating Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (121)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,325
From: San Antonio, TX
Forget the cost model, but look at the comparison data study mwh posted and compare m-1 ep to PP. M-1 EP outperforms PP in virtually every category except for wear protection, but the diffference there is not terribly significant. What you should be looking for is an oil that provides consistent performance in all areas of the test. If your decison is between M1-EP and PP, M-1 EP would be the better choice.
Last edited by talkinghorse; Mar 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM.
This is one thing mwh and I agree on. Forget the cost model, but look at the comparison data study mwh posted and compare m-1 ep to PP. M-1 EP outperforms PP in virtually every category except for wear protection, but the diffference there is not terribly significant. What you should be looking for is an oil that provides consistent performance in all areas of the test. If your decison is between M1-EP and PP, M-1 EP would be the better choice.
Forget the cost model, but look at the comparison data study mwh posted and compare m-1 ep to PP. M-1 EP outperforms PP in virtually every category except for wear protection, but the diffference there is not terribly significant. What you should be looking for is an oil that provides consistent performance in all areas of the test. If your decison is between M1-EP and PP, M-1 EP would be the better choice.
I used to run m1, but my last oil change I switched to the PP because i heard that it has performed better than the m1 (non-ep) in recent tests, and its a bit cheaper, $23 vs. $26 for 5 qts.
The engine seems to run a little smoother with the PP, and my milage seems to be up 1-2 mpg. That could also be coincidence with the little warmer weather or other factors.
I was just wondering if anyone had any links to test data comparing the M1 vs. PP.
The engine seems to run a little smoother with the PP, and my milage seems to be up 1-2 mpg. That could also be coincidence with the little warmer weather or other factors.
I was just wondering if anyone had any links to test data comparing the M1 vs. PP.
Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 253
From: Tulsa, OK
I used to run m1, but my last oil change I switched to the PP because i heard that it has performed better than the m1 (non-ep) in recent tests, and its a bit cheaper, $23 vs. $26 for 5 qts.
The engine seems to run a little smoother with the PP, and my milage seems to be up 1-2 mpg. That could also be coincidence with the little warmer weather or other factors.
I was just wondering if anyone had any links to test data comparing the M1 vs. PP.
The engine seems to run a little smoother with the PP, and my milage seems to be up 1-2 mpg. That could also be coincidence with the little warmer weather or other factors.
I was just wondering if anyone had any links to test data comparing the M1 vs. PP.
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 116
From: Pensacola, FL
Alright, so I made the change yesterday morning and went on a 50 mile trip via highway, after the oil change. I have noticed an increase in highway miles per gallon of 1.8(per gallon according to the fuel economy button). I am staying impartial, so I'm not going to praise PP just yet, the increase could be due to the new oil. Then again, I did put Seafoam in my car and drove 90 miles before the oil change. I was trying to get rid of sludge, and the oil was very black so I think the Seafoam did its job.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post