AMSOIL API Certification
You know, it hurts to be this good. It really does. 
From an Amsoil Rep that I contacted. TOOK ALL OF ONE DAY.
This is the 1st part:
AMSOIL API Licensing
Good question. AMSOIL staffers have recently read some message boards with misinformation regarding this issue. 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 5W-30 (XLF) or 10W-30 (XLT) XL-7500 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 SJ/GF-2, and in July 2001 the first use of SL/GF-3 will begin.
Costs
The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, 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. (That amount goes to $275,000 to $500,000 for a Heavy Duty Diesel licensing program on a specific formula.) Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $825 per year for non-members and $625 per year for members. There is also a small 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, Ethyl,, Infinium 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, however, tends to commoditize the market. The same chemistry is being sold under many brand names. Most of the major oil companies do have their own proprietary formulas developed, tested and licensed. All of AMSOIL INC.'s lubricant formulas 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 basestock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor engine tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum basestocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, basestock interchange for Group III and V synthetic basestocks is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester (Group V) basestock from a specific supplier, then anyone blending that formula must buy only that supplier's ester. Complete engine testing would need to be performed on the formula using another supplier's ester before an oil company could buy it from that alternative supplier. This additional testing is normally not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes it very difficult for synthetic lubricant manufacturers to negotiate prices with synthetic basestock suppliers. Click HERE for more information about Group I through Group V basestocks.
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 formula to make 0W-30, 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 change the percentages of components in the formula by varying amounts from the original formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements. For example, if the licensed formula used 10% of a certain V.I. improver, you would have the ability to utilize from 9% to 11% of the same V.I. improver for your formula.
Key Limitations For API Licensed Formulas
Phosphorous content - .10% maximum
(API SL; 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 (ZDTPs). Currently, these versatile additives act as oxidation/corrosion inhibitors and aid in the ability of a lubricant to reduce wear. The automobile manufacturers, however, have demanded that lubricants contain a maximum of only .10% phosphorous. Their reason is that some manufacturers believe that higher phosphorous content levels will poison the catalytic converters on their cars before they reach 150,000 miles, which is the number of miles that their vehicles will be required to pass EPA emission standards. There has not been total agreement within the automotive and lubrication industry about whether phosphorous levels over .10% 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 maximum allowable NOACK volatility percentage for the new SL/GF-3 passenger car motor oil specification is 15%. Most of AMSOIL motor oils are in the 5% to 8% NOACK volatility range. Studies have shown there is a correlation between NOACK volatility, oil consumption and the amount of phosphorous from motor oil that will end up in the exhaust gasses. Therefore, oils with higher levels of phosphorous but with low volatility, such as AMSOIL motor oils, present no more risk to catalytic converters than low phosphorous oils with higher NOACK 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.
AMSOIL INC. has determined that the reduced wear and extended drain intervals achievable with phosphorous levels higher than the API limit of .10% are real benefits for the consumer, and pose no risk to catalytic converters. AMSOIL motor oils, except for the API licensed XL-7500 5W-30 and 10W-30 viscosity grades, all have greater than .10% phosphorous levels, and therefore, cannot be API licensed.
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, 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 basestock 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. This limitation is the main reason most AMSOIL motor oils are not API licensed. AMSOIL INC. currently disagrees with this limitation and feels strongly that the reduced wear and longer oil and additive life achieved through higher levels of properly balanced phosphorous content is more important than the arbitrary API phosphorous limit that does not give any consideration to the NOACK volatility level of an oil. When chemistry is developed that will provide superior engine wear protection with reduced phosphorous levels, or Noack volatility considerations are put in place, then the phosphorous level will become a non-issue.
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 to fix 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. All 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:
From an Amsoil Rep that I contacted. TOOK ALL OF ONE DAY.
This is the 1st part:
AMSOIL API Licensing
Good question. AMSOIL staffers have recently read some message boards with misinformation regarding this issue. 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 5W-30 (XLF) or 10W-30 (XLT) XL-7500 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 SJ/GF-2, and in July 2001 the first use of SL/GF-3 will begin.
Costs
The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, 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. (That amount goes to $275,000 to $500,000 for a Heavy Duty Diesel licensing program on a specific formula.) Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $825 per year for non-members and $625 per year for members. There is also a small 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, Ethyl,, Infinium 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, however, tends to commoditize the market. The same chemistry is being sold under many brand names. Most of the major oil companies do have their own proprietary formulas developed, tested and licensed. All of AMSOIL INC.'s lubricant formulas 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 basestock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor engine tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum basestocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, basestock interchange for Group III and V synthetic basestocks is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester (Group V) basestock from a specific supplier, then anyone blending that formula must buy only that supplier's ester. Complete engine testing would need to be performed on the formula using another supplier's ester before an oil company could buy it from that alternative supplier. This additional testing is normally not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes it very difficult for synthetic lubricant manufacturers to negotiate prices with synthetic basestock suppliers. Click HERE for more information about Group I through Group V basestocks.
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 formula to make 0W-30, 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 change the percentages of components in the formula by varying amounts from the original formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements. For example, if the licensed formula used 10% of a certain V.I. improver, you would have the ability to utilize from 9% to 11% of the same V.I. improver for your formula.
Key Limitations For API Licensed Formulas
Phosphorous content - .10% maximum
(API SL; 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 (ZDTPs). Currently, these versatile additives act as oxidation/corrosion inhibitors and aid in the ability of a lubricant to reduce wear. The automobile manufacturers, however, have demanded that lubricants contain a maximum of only .10% phosphorous. Their reason is that some manufacturers believe that higher phosphorous content levels will poison the catalytic converters on their cars before they reach 150,000 miles, which is the number of miles that their vehicles will be required to pass EPA emission standards. There has not been total agreement within the automotive and lubrication industry about whether phosphorous levels over .10% 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 maximum allowable NOACK volatility percentage for the new SL/GF-3 passenger car motor oil specification is 15%. Most of AMSOIL motor oils are in the 5% to 8% NOACK volatility range. Studies have shown there is a correlation between NOACK volatility, oil consumption and the amount of phosphorous from motor oil that will end up in the exhaust gasses. Therefore, oils with higher levels of phosphorous but with low volatility, such as AMSOIL motor oils, present no more risk to catalytic converters than low phosphorous oils with higher NOACK 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.
AMSOIL INC. has determined that the reduced wear and extended drain intervals achievable with phosphorous levels higher than the API limit of .10% are real benefits for the consumer, and pose no risk to catalytic converters. AMSOIL motor oils, except for the API licensed XL-7500 5W-30 and 10W-30 viscosity grades, all have greater than .10% phosphorous levels, and therefore, cannot be API licensed.
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, 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 basestock 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. This limitation is the main reason most AMSOIL motor oils are not API licensed. AMSOIL INC. currently disagrees with this limitation and feels strongly that the reduced wear and longer oil and additive life achieved through higher levels of properly balanced phosphorous content is more important than the arbitrary API phosphorous limit that does not give any consideration to the NOACK volatility level of an oil. When chemistry is developed that will provide superior engine wear protection with reduced phosphorous levels, or Noack volatility considerations are put in place, then the phosphorous level will become a non-issue.
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 to fix 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. All 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:
Still kicking *** here-->
Part II:
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 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. The fact is there never has been an engine failure attributed to the non-performance of AMSOIL products, and we do not expect there ever will be. If it ever did, both AMSOIL and our insurance company would make certain your problem was resolved. Click HERE to see the AMSOIL Limited Warranty.
API licensing of lubricants is voHow 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 the vast majority of 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 highly shear stable V.I. improver to ensure viscosity retention throughout extended drain intervals. This replaces the inexpensive and less shear stable 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 data base 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, it was recently published that automotive manufacturers will be recommending extended drain intervals of up to 15,000 miles in the near future because that's what consumers want.
AMSOIL is a company of firsts. That doesn't happen by always conforming to industry norms and standards.
luntary, 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 (XLT, XLF 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.
Part II:
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 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. The fact is there never has been an engine failure attributed to the non-performance of AMSOIL products, and we do not expect there ever will be. If it ever did, both AMSOIL and our insurance company would make certain your problem was resolved. Click HERE to see the AMSOIL Limited Warranty.
API licensing of lubricants is voHow 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 the vast majority of 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 highly shear stable V.I. improver to ensure viscosity retention throughout extended drain intervals. This replaces the inexpensive and less shear stable 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 data base 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, it was recently published that automotive manufacturers will be recommending extended drain intervals of up to 15,000 miles in the near future because that's what consumers want.
AMSOIL is a company of firsts. That doesn't happen by always conforming to industry norms and standards.
luntary, 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 (XLT, XLF 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.
Jeff's being irritating
Just the way I like to see him, and goes to show that doing an ounce of research can go a long way. I'll probably add this to my Oil Analysis sticky. I appreciate your work on this Jeff.
Just the way I like to see him, and goes to show that doing an ounce of research can go a long way. I'll probably add this to my Oil Analysis sticky. I appreciate your work on this Jeff.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,026
Originally posted by bill99gxe
Jeff's being irritating
Just the way I like to see him, and goes to show that doing an ounce of research can go a long way. I'll probably add this to my Oil Analysis sticky. I appreciate your work on this Jeff.
Jeff's being irritating
Just the way I like to see him, and goes to show that doing an ounce of research can go a long way. I'll probably add this to my Oil Analysis sticky. I appreciate your work on this Jeff.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 284
Well well, that's mighty offical looking. Bringing in the big boys huh? Was that a cut and paste?
From the API website: "This program is a cooperative effort between the oil industry and vehicle and engine manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler; the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association; and the Engine Manufacturers Association."
The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association? Wouldn't they know what's proper to put in their engines? Amsoil states they disagree with API, but why hasn't API come around yet? It looks like their info is slightly dated as they seemed amazed that some auto manufactures are going to start recommending 15k oil changes. Well, Mercedes and BMW already have. And why don't they use Amsoil in their engines?
Why is there no Amsoil found in CART or F1 (the most technically advanced engines on the face of the earth?).
And the NOACK volatility is something I've only heard associated with Amsoil, and brought up by Amsoil reps - I wonder why. Since you cut and pasted the document, the link with more info on the NOACK doesn't work. Can you provide that? I'm interested. I also would like to see the link to the official warranty if possible.
"The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, 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."
Probably the salary of the lowest peon on their board of directors. I still don't buy the cost issue. But hey, that's my opinion - not fact.
"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 cease the intimidation of our customers. Click HERE to read a sample letter."
WTF is that? Is that where this post is going to end up? I'd care to see the letter too.
Ok Jeff92se, you win. I can't compete with this form letter dreamt up by their PR dept (they must get this all the time). And it sure sounds like an advertisement. But there are too many claims for which I don't have the information to dispute - even if I don't believe them.
From the API website: "This program is a cooperative effort between the oil industry and vehicle and engine manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler; the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association; and the Engine Manufacturers Association."
The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association? Wouldn't they know what's proper to put in their engines? Amsoil states they disagree with API, but why hasn't API come around yet? It looks like their info is slightly dated as they seemed amazed that some auto manufactures are going to start recommending 15k oil changes. Well, Mercedes and BMW already have. And why don't they use Amsoil in their engines?
Why is there no Amsoil found in CART or F1 (the most technically advanced engines on the face of the earth?).
And the NOACK volatility is something I've only heard associated with Amsoil, and brought up by Amsoil reps - I wonder why. Since you cut and pasted the document, the link with more info on the NOACK doesn't work. Can you provide that? I'm interested. I also would like to see the link to the official warranty if possible.
"The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, 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."
Probably the salary of the lowest peon on their board of directors. I still don't buy the cost issue. But hey, that's my opinion - not fact.
"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 cease the intimidation of our customers. Click HERE to read a sample letter."
WTF is that? Is that where this post is going to end up? I'd care to see the letter too.
Ok Jeff92se, you win. I can't compete with this form letter dreamt up by their PR dept (they must get this all the time). And it sure sounds like an advertisement. But there are too many claims for which I don't have the information to dispute - even if I don't believe them.
You see CFster, dispite all the credible information I just listed, I yet to see the API test that Amsoil failed. Where is it?
The very best you can do is try to dispute the information by using childish remarks.
Amsoil not in F1??? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Geez do I have to research how much it takes to purchase any amount of decent space on a F1 or Indy car???? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You challanged me you got an internet beat down. Period.
The reason and the only reason you can't beat me is that the information I have presented is as close to the truth as I can find it(considering it came from Amsoil directly that's pretty damn close)
I mean you ask us to verify everything we say but you still judge your oil's condition by looking at it?
The very best you can do is try to dispute the information by using childish remarks.
Amsoil not in F1??? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Geez do I have to research how much it takes to purchase any amount of decent space on a F1 or Indy car???? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You challanged me you got an internet beat down. Period.
The reason and the only reason you can't beat me is that the information I have presented is as close to the truth as I can find it(considering it came from Amsoil directly that's pretty damn close)
I mean you ask us to verify everything we say but you still judge your oil's condition by looking at it?
My pleasure Bill. It was quite educational as well.
Originally posted by bill99gxe
Jeff's being irritating
Just the way I like to see him, and goes to show that doing an ounce of research can go a long way. I'll probably add this to my Oil Analysis sticky. I appreciate your work on this Jeff.
Jeff's being irritating
Just the way I like to see him, and goes to show that doing an ounce of research can go a long way. I'll probably add this to my Oil Analysis sticky. I appreciate your work on this Jeff.
And since I'm feelin' frisky, here are the links. Whoa!!!! More legitimate information from Jeff! Come on CFster, your falling behind here
NOACK test. Your precious API approved Mobil got it's azz kicked.
http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/art...sing_noack.htm
Warranty information for the 10th time. I still don't see one from CFster's API crew!?
http://www.amsoil.com/warranty.htm
SAMPLE letter from Amsoil. Again more than the CFster API crew has provided.
http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/art...mpleletter.htm
Amsoil not in racing??? Think again API boy!
http://www.amsoil.com/racing.htm
What the hell, I just threw this one for free. : )
http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/art...basestocks.htm
NOACK test. Your precious API approved Mobil got it's azz kicked.
http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/art...sing_noack.htm
Warranty information for the 10th time. I still don't see one from CFster's API crew!?
http://www.amsoil.com/warranty.htm
SAMPLE letter from Amsoil. Again more than the CFster API crew has provided.
http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/art...mpleletter.htm
Amsoil not in racing??? Think again API boy!
http://www.amsoil.com/racing.htm
What the hell, I just threw this one for free. : )
http://www.amsoil.com/articlespr/art...basestocks.htm
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 284
"You see CFster, dispite all the credible information I just listed, I yet to see the API test that Amsoil failed. Where is it?"
I never said they failed the test. I said it was a possibility that either they failed it or elected not to take it. Apparently they said they elected not to take it. They stated the cost issue (which, having some business sense, I don't agree with). And they stated the NOACK issue, which I've never heard of before - and dispute (wouldn't it serve the API and the automakers best if they made this allowance?)
"Amsoil not in F1??? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Geez do I have to research how much it takes to purchase any amount of decent space on a F1 or Indy car???? HAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Nope. It's common knowledge that some sponsors shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in F1. But, who ever said they have to be a sponsor? Do you think the manufacturers name of every part in their cars are stamped on the side?
Sponsors aside, a front running F1 team will use any means at their disposal to build a more reliable engine. The Williams/BMW team was having major problems this season (even though they made more hp than anyone else) with their engines blowing up if their pitstops ran a few seconds too long. Their engines are ultra sensitive to overheating and would expire several laps later. Maybe switching to Amsoil would win them the championship!
"The reason and the only reason you can't beat me is that the information I have presented is as close to the truth as I can find it(considering it came from Amsoil directly that's pretty damn close)"
Sure, Amsoil's version of the truth.
"I mean you ask us to verify everything we say but you still judge your oil's condition by looking at it?"
Yes.
I never said they failed the test. I said it was a possibility that either they failed it or elected not to take it. Apparently they said they elected not to take it. They stated the cost issue (which, having some business sense, I don't agree with). And they stated the NOACK issue, which I've never heard of before - and dispute (wouldn't it serve the API and the automakers best if they made this allowance?)
"Amsoil not in F1??? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Geez do I have to research how much it takes to purchase any amount of decent space on a F1 or Indy car???? HAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Nope. It's common knowledge that some sponsors shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in F1. But, who ever said they have to be a sponsor? Do you think the manufacturers name of every part in their cars are stamped on the side?
Sponsors aside, a front running F1 team will use any means at their disposal to build a more reliable engine. The Williams/BMW team was having major problems this season (even though they made more hp than anyone else) with their engines blowing up if their pitstops ran a few seconds too long. Their engines are ultra sensitive to overheating and would expire several laps later. Maybe switching to Amsoil would win them the championship!
"The reason and the only reason you can't beat me is that the information I have presented is as close to the truth as I can find it(considering it came from Amsoil directly that's pretty damn close)"
Sure, Amsoil's version of the truth.
"I mean you ask us to verify everything we say but you still judge your oil's condition by looking at it?"
Yes.
Sure sums up this conversation. Maybe if you taste it, it will add to your examination skills. lol
Maybe if you taste it, it will add to your examination skills. lol
Originally posted by CFster
[B
"I mean you ask us to verify everything we say but you still judge your oil's condition by looking at it?"
Yes. [/B]
[B
"I mean you ask us to verify everything we say but you still judge your oil's condition by looking at it?"
Yes. [/B]
Amsoil just plain tastes better.
Jeff uses Mobile 1 right now, and could have had his butt handed to him for the comment in the NOACK volatility link. But that would require actually reading the Oil Analysis sticky as an initial introduction into this whole oil thing which probably would have made this thread shorter.
Jeff uses Mobile 1 right now, and could have had his butt handed to him for the comment in the NOACK volatility link. But that would require actually reading the Oil Analysis sticky as an initial introduction into this whole oil thing which probably would have made this thread shorter.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 284
Dammit, are you two sisters or something?
Hmmm...all your links are from Amsoil's site. That wouldn't make them biased in any way would it?
Warranty info:
"These products will not cause mechanical damage when used according to the company's recommendations in mechanically sound equipment."
Forgive me, I'm not a lawyer. Does "company" mean Amsoil, or does it mean the manufacturer of the mechanically sound equipment? If it means the manufacturer (it seems like it would, as you would have to follow the manufacturers instructions for things like putting the proper amount of oil in, etc), then does it also mean manufacturer's maintanence schedule?
Where does it say anything about the 25k drain interval?
"Amsoil not in racing??? Think again API boy!"
Dirt track racing and monster trucks. Oooh, big time!
All these posts and still a MaximaFanatic. I may not have the number but I should get extra points for effort!
Hmmm...all your links are from Amsoil's site. That wouldn't make them biased in any way would it?
Warranty info:
"These products will not cause mechanical damage when used according to the company's recommendations in mechanically sound equipment."
Forgive me, I'm not a lawyer. Does "company" mean Amsoil, or does it mean the manufacturer of the mechanically sound equipment? If it means the manufacturer (it seems like it would, as you would have to follow the manufacturers instructions for things like putting the proper amount of oil in, etc), then does it also mean manufacturer's maintanence schedule?
Where does it say anything about the 25k drain interval?
"Amsoil not in racing??? Think again API boy!"
Dirt track racing and monster trucks. Oooh, big time!
All these posts and still a MaximaFanatic. I may not have the number but I should get extra points for effort!
Originally posted by CFster
Dammit, are you two sisters or something?
Dammit, are you two sisters or something?
No, but we did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
You were warned early in this thread about what would happen.
Where does it say anything about the 25k drain interval?
Uhh....all over Amsoil's website.....
Originally posted by CFster
Whatever...
Weren't you the guy that said rear camber was adjustable on a Max?
Whatever...
Weren't you the guy that said rear camber was adjustable on a Max?
Get over it.
Ohhhhh more attempted flames!
If you would reSEARCH you might find out. muhahahaha.
Your the one w/ 15 years of experience, why are you asking me??
If you would reSEARCH you might find out. muhahahaha.
Your the one w/ 15 years of experience, why are you asking me??
Originally posted by CFster
Whatever...
Weren't you the guy that said rear camber was adjustable on a Max?
Whatever...
Weren't you the guy that said rear camber was adjustable on a Max?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 284
Actually I meant caster. I realized that after I posted but it took this long to get past the "server busy" page to repost. And I have 15 years of experience, and no it is not. Camber either.
"Where does it say anything about the 25k drain interval?
Uhh....all over Amsoil's website....."
But not in the warranty.
"A typical reaction from a member who had his butt handed to him and is now trying to discredit or impune that member who did the butt handing by changing the subject."
I'm sorry, weren't you the one who has been stand-offish since the beginning? Questioning my ability to do research and calling me irresponsible?
Remember,
MY ORIGINAL POST WAS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION!
I was asking the Amsoil supporters here to prove their case, since it's been shoved down everybody's throat from the get go.
So far all the facts you've provided are propoganda straight off of Amsoil's website.
"Where does it say anything about the 25k drain interval?
Uhh....all over Amsoil's website....."
But not in the warranty.
"A typical reaction from a member who had his butt handed to him and is now trying to discredit or impune that member who did the butt handing by changing the subject."
I'm sorry, weren't you the one who has been stand-offish since the beginning? Questioning my ability to do research and calling me irresponsible?
Remember,
MY ORIGINAL POST WAS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION!
I was asking the Amsoil supporters here to prove their case, since it's been shoved down everybody's throat from the get go.
So far all the facts you've provided are propoganda straight off of Amsoil's website.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! And where are your facts coming from? Tea leaves and Miss Cleo!?!
"""I'm sorry, weren't you the one who has been stand-offish since the beginning? Questioning my ability to do research"""
And was he wrong???? No, he was dead on accurate. Truth hurts sometimes.
Anytime you want to give some REAL information, let me know. hahaha
You have access to the EXACT same internet that I do.
I use it. You do not.
"""I'm sorry, weren't you the one who has been stand-offish since the beginning? Questioning my ability to do research"""
And was he wrong???? No, he was dead on accurate. Truth hurts sometimes.
Anytime you want to give some REAL information, let me know. hahaha
You have access to the EXACT same internet that I do.
I use it. You do not.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 284
"And where are your facts coming from?"
From API's website. I believe I posted the link.
And from my own ASE certified ***.
Actually, you guys confirmed what I said about the zinc/phosphorus. Which is the reason they're not certified (they admitted that). The reason they gave was BS dreamt up by their PR staff. I've been reSEARCHing the internet and the only people that mention NOACK are affiliated with Amsoil. API's documents (my facts) aren't in question from anybody. Amsoil's reasons for not becoming certified are.
Also, there are several usenet discussions going on about this (as the Amsoil obviously knows).
From API's website. I believe I posted the link.
And from my own ASE certified ***.
Actually, you guys confirmed what I said about the zinc/phosphorus. Which is the reason they're not certified (they admitted that). The reason they gave was BS dreamt up by their PR staff. I've been reSEARCHing the internet and the only people that mention NOACK are affiliated with Amsoil. API's documents (my facts) aren't in question from anybody. Amsoil's reasons for not becoming certified are.
Also, there are several usenet discussions going on about this (as the Amsoil obviously knows).
"several discussions"?? Where?? And since when did "discussion" become fact?
I could "discuss" and say ASE certified mechanics suck ***** and don't know crap. Does that make it true?? Well they did seem not to know how to probably fix VTC assemblies. (which I fixed myself. Nissan fix lasted 6k, my fix lasted 60k and going )
Where are all these discussions taking place????? Wonderland????
Oh and did I every dispute API's website information? Did Amsoil?? hahaha It's funny you api neglected to list the $100,000's of $ it takes to get an oil certified. muhahahaha.
If you think Amsoil's information is wrong, find some information that directly and accurately disputes it. Or better yet sue Amsoil for a few million and quit your job.
Hey, bitter to the end huh??
I could "discuss" and say ASE certified mechanics suck ***** and don't know crap. Does that make it true?? Well they did seem not to know how to probably fix VTC assemblies. (which I fixed myself. Nissan fix lasted 6k, my fix lasted 60k and going
) Where are all these discussions taking place????? Wonderland????
Oh and did I every dispute API's website information? Did Amsoil?? hahaha It's funny you api neglected to list the $100,000's of $ it takes to get an oil certified. muhahahaha.
If you think Amsoil's information is wrong, find some information that directly and accurately disputes it. Or better yet sue Amsoil for a few million and quit your job.
Hey, bitter to the end huh??
Geez, I go away for a few days and when I get back there's five pages on this! Jeff and Bill, thanks for digging up all the info on Amsoil. Between the Amsoil's comments, and the spreadsheet and many people swearing by Amsoil, I don't see how anyone can say they make an inferior oil without talking out their ***.
BTW, are there any Amsoil dealers on this site, not just Preffered Customers??
BTW, are there any Amsoil dealers on this site, not just Preffered Customers??
Not that I know of. But I think you would receive just about the same price either way. Better than retail that's for sure.
Originally posted by iwannabmw
Geez, I go away for a few days and when I get back there's five pages on this! Jeff and Bill, thanks for digging up all the info on Amsoil. Between the Amsoil's comments, and the spreadsheet and many people swearing by Amsoil, I don't see how anyone can say they make an inferior oil without talking out their ***.
BTW, are there any Amsoil dealers on this site, not just Preffered Customers??
Geez, I go away for a few days and when I get back there's five pages on this! Jeff and Bill, thanks for digging up all the info on Amsoil. Between the Amsoil's comments, and the spreadsheet and many people swearing by Amsoil, I don't see how anyone can say they make an inferior oil without talking out their ***.
BTW, are there any Amsoil dealers on this site, not just Preffered Customers??
Originally posted by Jeff92se
Not that I know of. But I think you would receive just about the same price either way. Better than retail that's for sure.
Not that I know of. But I think you would receive just about the same price either way. Better than retail that's for sure.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 284
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=am...ing.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...4.uslink.net#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...7%2540pinn.net
Those are some links to google usenet searches. I don't know how to put a usenet link into a message so...
Those are just from the past couple of months. I'm sure if you search more you'll find it's been going on forever.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ing.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....earthlink.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...4.uslink.net#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...7%2540pinn.net
Those are some links to google usenet searches. I don't know how to put a usenet link into a message so...
Those are just from the past couple of months. I'm sure if you search more you'll find it's been going on forever.
Not really. Everyone of those links provide very good discussion but very little fact(from both sides)
The links in my thread, describe and address the zinc and phosphorus content in a very detailed manner. It's funny, when CFster sees Amsoil rep info that looks bad, he as no problem in using as FACT. When information from that same company disproves his beliefs, it's somehow "lies"???
These guys all slam Amsoil and make this oil out to be worse than others. But there is not one mention of the independent data that shows Amsoil meeting or outright beating(or killing the dino oils) other sythetics. Ed Hackett's article is all over the net but doesn't show up here?? Odd indeed.
The answer to all this is so simple. Api sets limits to the amount of these additives. Amsoil doesn't agree with them and states their arguement very clearly as to why. You dont' see API information on why they set these particular limits do you?? Why does Amsoil have to protect their position but API does not?? Odd again.
Zinc and Phosphorus are anti-wear additives. That is why motorcycle engines have more of this item. Becuase motorcycle engines are stressed much more than car engines. It also the reason MOBIL 1 CANNOT CLAIM AND HAS NEVER TRIED TO MARKET THEIR OIL AS EXTENDED DRAIN INVERVAL OIL. THEY CAN'T. BECUASE IT SEEMS THEY CANNOT PUT ENOUGH OF THESE ADDITIVES TO LAST LONG ENOUGH. It would also explain why the XL series don't carry the extended drain interval label. But it does claim to have a 7500 mile drain interval. How long is Mobil's claim for drain interval??? What? None? But again and again, CFster says Mobil is better. Why? What makes Mobil so much better than Amsoil?
All the info is there, but no one even bothers to look at the facts/opinions to see what is proven and what is just "discussed".
The links in my thread, describe and address the zinc and phosphorus content in a very detailed manner. It's funny, when CFster sees Amsoil rep info that looks bad, he as no problem in using as FACT. When information from that same company disproves his beliefs, it's somehow "lies"???
These guys all slam Amsoil and make this oil out to be worse than others. But there is not one mention of the independent data that shows Amsoil meeting or outright beating(or killing the dino oils) other sythetics. Ed Hackett's article is all over the net but doesn't show up here?? Odd indeed.
The answer to all this is so simple. Api sets limits to the amount of these additives. Amsoil doesn't agree with them and states their arguement very clearly as to why. You dont' see API information on why they set these particular limits do you?? Why does Amsoil have to protect their position but API does not?? Odd again.
Zinc and Phosphorus are anti-wear additives. That is why motorcycle engines have more of this item. Becuase motorcycle engines are stressed much more than car engines. It also the reason MOBIL 1 CANNOT CLAIM AND HAS NEVER TRIED TO MARKET THEIR OIL AS EXTENDED DRAIN INVERVAL OIL. THEY CAN'T. BECUASE IT SEEMS THEY CANNOT PUT ENOUGH OF THESE ADDITIVES TO LAST LONG ENOUGH. It would also explain why the XL series don't carry the extended drain interval label. But it does claim to have a 7500 mile drain interval. How long is Mobil's claim for drain interval??? What? None? But again and again, CFster says Mobil is better. Why? What makes Mobil so much better than Amsoil?
All the info is there, but no one even bothers to look at the facts/opinions to see what is proven and what is just "discussed".
Originally posted by srbarnes4ever
The plot thickens.....
The plot thickens.....
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 191
MOBIL TROUBLES
Re: MOBIL TROUBLES
Originally posted by Steve Marsh
HEY GUYS CHECK OUT THIS LINK REGARDING MOBIL OIL COMPANY
www.avweb.com/articles/av1suit.html
HEY GUYS CHECK OUT THIS LINK REGARDING MOBIL OIL COMPANY
www.avweb.com/articles/av1suit.html
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 191
Well do you currently know as to what "specific type" of oil and or lubrication is used in the aviation industry? I was under the impression that the military and commercial sectors used high quality synthetic avaition oils for their jets/planes, due to the high heat etc. After all we have the most powerful military force in the world. Please tell me something that I may not know? And I don't hate or dislike mobil, its just that they had/have legal issues (in general) that should be viewed with an open mind, and not tunnel with vision thats all!
Originally posted by Steve Marsh
Well do you currently know as to what "specific type" of oil and or lubrication is used in the aviation industry? I was under the impression that the military and commercial sectors used high quality synthetic avaition oils for their jets/planes, due to the high heat etc. After all we have the most powerful military force in the world. Please tell me something that I may not know? And I don't hate or dislike mobil, its just that they had/have legal issues (in general) that should be viewed with an open mind, and not tunnel with vision thats all!
Well do you currently know as to what "specific type" of oil and or lubrication is used in the aviation industry? I was under the impression that the military and commercial sectors used high quality synthetic avaition oils for their jets/planes, due to the high heat etc. After all we have the most powerful military force in the world. Please tell me something that I may not know? And I don't hate or dislike mobil, its just that they had/have legal issues (in general) that should be viewed with an open mind, and not tunnel with vision thats all!
I have let your posts go thus far, but really a lawsuit is nothing new for an oil company. With this being marine applications, it does not apply to our automotive oil discussions here. Mobile 1 has been safely proven by a lab to go at least 8k without harm to an engine under certain driving conditions. There is still no reason to not recommend this oil here or to tarnish its reputation. The same why CFster is trying to smear Amsoil, you seem to have been trying to smear Mobile 1. Neither of you are right in doing so. Your welcome to post the link and ask for opinions on what we think, but other than that this is fairly irrelevant at this time.
Hopefully, you have more maturity than some of our other members here and understand that while I prefer Amsoil, there isn't a valid reason to not give Mobile 1 its props has well.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 191
Bill,
I have no ill will against mobil one, and or any of its consumers all i suggested was for one to keep an open mind. Please show me where i out right labeled mobil one as being a non productive product. And yes lots of oil companies have lawsuits, but not all. Remember this is what a forum is all about debates, knowledge, fyi's etc. As for maturity we are all adults, i have kept an open mind, with out the use of name calling and or profanity. Also i inquired about aviation lubricants, after all i don't know everything. Let us all just continue to share information and allow one to make his or her choices there after. There is an abundance of information on this site.If Amsoil should have any legal issues for any reason, I would promptly investigate as to what went wrong as well as their remedy for such a matter. Remember a corporation/business's biggest threat is an educated consumer, let us continue to do so!
I have no ill will against mobil one, and or any of its consumers all i suggested was for one to keep an open mind. Please show me where i out right labeled mobil one as being a non productive product. And yes lots of oil companies have lawsuits, but not all. Remember this is what a forum is all about debates, knowledge, fyi's etc. As for maturity we are all adults, i have kept an open mind, with out the use of name calling and or profanity. Also i inquired about aviation lubricants, after all i don't know everything. Let us all just continue to share information and allow one to make his or her choices there after. There is an abundance of information on this site.If Amsoil should have any legal issues for any reason, I would promptly investigate as to what went wrong as well as their remedy for such a matter. Remember a corporation/business's biggest threat is an educated consumer, let us continue to do so!
I should have been a little clearer. You are correct in the fact that turbine aircraft engines use synthetic oil due to the high heat and stress, and actually, not one turbine manufacturer I am aware of allows any other oil to be used.
For recip piston engines in the aviation fleet, synthetic is a no-no, as Mobil discovered the hard way. Aircraft engines have far different requirements than auto engines due to their different design, and vastly different operating conditions. One issue with Mobil 1 was lead contamination from avgas, another is since aircraft engines tend to sit unused for longer periods of time it's is much more crtical to have a thicker oil film coating parts to prevent rust and corrosion. Both of these factors, and others, conspired to cause the premature wear discussed in the lawsuit.
Mobil was the pioneer in marketing synthetic for the piston fleet, and it turned into a rather public and humiliating defeat. Currently, no other manufacturer offers a full synthetic for the piston fleet, they are simply not compatible yet. The closest would be Aeroshell's semi-synthetic, which retains enough properties of both types of oil's to be a viable marketing alternative to dino oil.
Just because Mobil made a mistake in their aviation oil doesn't mean their auto oils have the same problems. I have no qualms whatsoever about filling my crankcase with their oil in my Max. Over 6,000K on the current fill of 5W-30. Thanks Bill
For recip piston engines in the aviation fleet, synthetic is a no-no, as Mobil discovered the hard way. Aircraft engines have far different requirements than auto engines due to their different design, and vastly different operating conditions. One issue with Mobil 1 was lead contamination from avgas, another is since aircraft engines tend to sit unused for longer periods of time it's is much more crtical to have a thicker oil film coating parts to prevent rust and corrosion. Both of these factors, and others, conspired to cause the premature wear discussed in the lawsuit.
Mobil was the pioneer in marketing synthetic for the piston fleet, and it turned into a rather public and humiliating defeat. Currently, no other manufacturer offers a full synthetic for the piston fleet, they are simply not compatible yet. The closest would be Aeroshell's semi-synthetic, which retains enough properties of both types of oil's to be a viable marketing alternative to dino oil.
Just because Mobil made a mistake in their aviation oil doesn't mean their auto oils have the same problems. I have no qualms whatsoever about filling my crankcase with their oil in my Max. Over 6,000K on the current fill of 5W-30. Thanks Bill
Originally posted by Steve Marsh
Bill,
I have no ill will against mobil one, and or any of its consumers all i suggested was for one to keep an open mind. Please show me where i out right labeled mobil one as being a non productive product. And yes lots of oil companies have lawsuits, but not all. Remember this is what a forum is all about debates, knowledge, fyi's etc. As for maturity we are all adults, i have kept an open mind, with out the use of name calling and or profanity. Also i inquired about aviation lubricants, after all i don't know everything. Let us all just continue to share information and allow one to make his or her choices there after. There is an abundance of information on this site.If Amsoil should have any legal issues for any reason, I would promptly investigate as to what went wrong as well as their remedy for such a matter. Remember a corporation/business's biggest threat is an educated consumer, let us continue to do so!
Bill,
I have no ill will against mobil one, and or any of its consumers all i suggested was for one to keep an open mind. Please show me where i out right labeled mobil one as being a non productive product. And yes lots of oil companies have lawsuits, but not all. Remember this is what a forum is all about debates, knowledge, fyi's etc. As for maturity we are all adults, i have kept an open mind, with out the use of name calling and or profanity. Also i inquired about aviation lubricants, after all i don't know everything. Let us all just continue to share information and allow one to make his or her choices there after. There is an abundance of information on this site.If Amsoil should have any legal issues for any reason, I would promptly investigate as to what went wrong as well as their remedy for such a matter. Remember a corporation/business's biggest threat is an educated consumer, let us continue to do so!
I'm not really sure where my head was when I said "marine", I meant aviation.......stupid me.
Anyhoo, here are a couple of your posts:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....655#post728655
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....033#post725033
You said Mobile 1 was inferior and Amsoil was superior, which indicates a significant degree of difference between the two. I disagree with that contention. I think Mobile 1 is a very competent oil, although some independent test do show a few of its shortcomings, specifically the flashpoint, as Amsoil just seems to kick the rear out of all other oils I've seen tested. But for the money and availability, Mobile 1 synthetic is hard to beat.
You have posted their "troubles" in all of the posts below:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....791#post726791
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....690#post726690
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....683#post726683
And additionally, you sound like a commercial here:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....863#post724863
Since you are a newbie in these forums, your comments are met with extra scrutiny, as they should be because of your lack of reputation, etc, on the forums. It is not personal, just simply skepticism. Your actions appear to many as being "spam", which is not met here with open arms. There's no need to over-inflate your opinion. With 156k on your vehicle, you have proven Amsoil's worthiness in engines, regardless of what some other member(s) state about Amsoil not having a label on their oil and thus it is not worthy of being used. I don't recall a label making an engine run better, but I digress.
All I ask is for you to state your opinions with a little less absolutism. It will go a long way towards building a good reputation here as a contributing member. I also ask that you consider reviewing this link:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....threadid=85170
as I would be most interested in your participation, seeing as how you have a high mileage VQ engine that has been fed with Amsoil all its life.
Take it easy,
bill99gxe
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 191
Thanks Bill, these links are very informative. As far as the scrutiny is concerned i can respect that, i agree, whereas i never felt that i was being personally attacked. I viewed it as a direct challenge to back up my statements and or findings regarding a specific product. Further I thought that it was the most educational moment regarding motor oil that i seen and or heard for sometime. It has definitely been a learning experience for me !!
!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RussMaxManiac
General Maxima Discussion
3
Mar 22, 2002 05:42 PM
pookster
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
1
Jan 8, 2001 08:11 AM