Why say bad things about AMSOIL?
BPIN...@sleh.com
(This should get a good thread going . . .)
Maybe I need to get my priorities re-adjusted, but instead of looking for
naked women on the internet, I like to read about Synthetic Oil and
"Snake Oils". (I want my car to last a long time), and I just read
another comment by someone who was "BASHING" Amsoil.
To All of the "AMSoil Bashers" out there - Why do you put down AMSoil? I
am tired of people bashing this company without facts.
Does anyone have any 1st hand experience with any engines or
transmissions getting damaged because of Amsoil use?
I have never used any Amsoil or Redline products (I DO use Redline Water
Wetter in the radaidor), and I have been very happy with Mobil 1 engine
oil and Mobil 1 synthetic ATF. However . . .
Here's what I see as the benifits of AMSoil: One---- A Product that
people have been satisifed with for a long time, and has developed a
loyal customer base. If there were negative things to be said about
Amsoil (other than being expensive and (supposedly) non API or SAE
certified, I am sure that we would have heard about it on the net long
ago!
If someone is happy using 59 cent "sale du jour" oil in their car, or
paying 30 bucks at their local lube place for regular oil and filter or
installing a by-pass oil filter and filling their car up with Amsoil and
not changing their oil for "extended drain periods" , it is not up to me
to telll them they are wrong. If they ask my advice, I will give it to
them.
Two--- The Multi Level Marketing of Amsoil gives people a means to make a
supplemental income selling something they believe in. Imagine making
extra money selling a product you believe in! Sure beats selling Mary
Kay or Amway!
Three-- Even though it does not (supposedly) have the SAE or API rating,
it does not appear (from this layperson's perspective anyway) that is
some kind of Snake Oil. I have a relative who works at Lubrizol in Deer
Park TX, and he tells me that Amsoil is very good customers of Lubrizol.
Now I realize that that statement in itself does not mean anything, but
Lubrizol is the leading supplier of the engine additive materials found
in most major engine oils (including Mobil 1). Now each company works
with Lubrizol to formulate their own "additive" package, so they could be
buying total junk or the best stuff around, but at least they are dealing
with a leading supplier of engine oil additives.
So in summary, Amsoil is: (One) A product that has a lot of loyal users,
(Two) allows people to earn a supplemental income, selling a product they
believe in, and (Three) and they source products from reputable vendors
Who could argue with these statements. To quote a line from a popular
song: "If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad".
Now, if you want to say anything negative about Amsoil (It's too
expensive, hard to find and not (Supposedly) API and SAE Certified)
that's fine.
I do not use it because of these reasons, and I am not pushing my engine
to the limits. It took me a long time to switch to Mobil 1 Synthetic,
and I had to build up the courage to buy a set of car ramps so that I
could do the oil changes myself, and it would still cost me about the
same as it did before when I went to a "Lube" place. (I used to be
"mechanically challenged"!)
I have never seen a bottle of Amsoil, so I do not know where to get it
easily (yes I know that I can get it from about a hundred different web
sites - please don't e-mail me with your web site!)
Also, I hear that they are more expensive. I checked a couple of web
sites, and found this info: 0w30 and 20w-50 oils were 7.95 a quart 5w-30
and 10-w30 oils were 5.50 a quart Now this is more expensive than even
Mobil 1, but IF you choose Amsoil, you also want to use their extended
oil change concept, which makes the oil cheaper in the long run, I guess.
I still like changing my oil and filter every 3-5 thousand miles.
As far as SAE and API certification, the web sites that I visited showed
API classifications, but did not mention SAE starburst certification.
However I do not have first hand knowledge either way of the ratings.
So, nobody is forcing you to like or dislike any product. If you choose
or don't choose Amsoil, that's fine, and you want to give facts why you
don't like it, that's fine, but don't say bad things that you cannot
support!
This is my position and I guess I am stuck with it!
Bruce
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark
On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 20:11:53 -0600, BPIN...@sleh.com wrote:
>(This should get a good thread going . . .)
Thanks Bruce. Like we need another Amsoil thread here. If you need
some info just search for Amsoil on Dejanews. You will find hundreds,
perhaps thousands of articles in which every point you have addressed
had been discussed in great detail. Very few Amsoil guys hang out here
anymore. The ones that do are a pretty good bunch of guys....they
don't pester us like the amsoil dealers (and non-dealers alike :-) )
have in the past.
Just yesterday I was sitting around wondering when we were going to
have another amsoil flare-up. After all, it has been almost 2 months.
>
>This is my position and I guess I am stuck with it!
Sorry. Perhaps Prozac?
It kind of takes me back to the days of edsanders. Ahhhh, the good ole
days.
Stephen H. Westin
BPIN...@sleh.com writes:
<snip>
> Here's what I see as the benifits of AMSoil: One---- A Product that
> people have been satisifed with for a long time, and has developed a
> loyal customer base. If there were negative things to be said about
> Amsoil (other than being expensive and (supposedly) non API or SAE
> certified, I am sure that we would have heard about it on the net long
> ago!
Likewise, wouldn't we hear of any facts to *support* AMSoil's claims?
<snip>
> Also, I hear that they are more expensive. I checked a couple of web
> sites, and found this info: 0w30 and 20w-50 oils were 7.95 a quart 5w-30
> and 10-w30 oils were 5.50 a quart Now this is more expensive than even
> Mobil 1, but IF you choose Amsoil, you also want to use their extended
> oil change concept,
for which I have seen *no* supporting test data. If someone has
results of a controlled comparison where AMSoil, or any other
synthetic, actually gave better oil longevity than conventional oils
under similar conditions, please present it.
Please don't inundate me with tests that don't include mineral oils
for comparison. Showing that a synthetic worked well over an extended
interval doesn't show that it's any better than a conventional oil,
*unless* you also have data that show that the conventional performed
worse in those same conditions.
> which makes the oil cheaper in the long run, I guess.
> I still like changing my oil and filter every 3-5 thousand miles.
Exactly. Why take chances with your engine in the absence of *really
solid* evidence that synthetic oils really last longer?
Look at it this way: wouldn't the car companies jump at the chance to
advertise extended oil-change intervals? They already have gone to
platinum-tipped spark plugs, at considerable expense, to extend
service intervals.
<snip>
--
Stephen H. Westin
Brent A. Peterson
L3 Automotive Lighting Solutions wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Kyle Eller wrote:
> > We at AMSOIL decided it was time to make a public statement
> Ooh, this ought to be good! We'll laugh, we'll cry--it'll be better than
> "Cats"!
> > Current AMSOIL products are not API certified
They actually got off their collective butts recently and got
a couple products certified. I guess selling oil in the end
is more important their reasons for not doing it.
http://www.api.org/cgi-bin/eolcs_li.cgi?k=767
License No. 0995 AMSOIL, Superior, WI 54880
AMSOIL XL-7500 10W-30 API Service Symbol
AMSOIL XL-7500 5W-30 API Service Symbol
AMSOIL XL-7500 10W-30 API Certification Mark
AMSOIL XL-7500 5W-30 API Certification Mark
--
Email:\peterson\@armour.iit.edu\ (remove anti-spam \'s)
Sick of spammers? Send their spam back to the their site
admin accounts. See http://www.iit.edu/~petebre/spammerlist.html
L3 Automotive Lighting Solutions
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997 BPIN...@sleh.com wrote:
> To All of the "AMSoil Bashers" out there - Why do you put down AMSoil?
> am tired of people bashing this company without facts.
You want facts? You got facts. I am reprinting, below, my point-by-point
analysis and response to the Amsoil Webmaster's PR campaign on Usenet a
while back. Please read it. The Webmaster/PR Goon's name was Kyle Eller,
and he is the one who is quoted. Text that is not preceded by > is my
own:
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Kyle Eller wrote:
> We at AMSOIL decided it was time to make a public statement
Ooh, this ought to be good! We'll laugh, we'll cry--it'll be better than
"Cats"!
> clearing up some of the misunderstandings
Excuse me, "misunderstandings"? I don't think so. This is a Damage
Control buzzword invoked by PR types who are trying to gloss-over
legitimate problems that real people (i.e. consumers) have found with
their products.=20
> Please feel free to post this response (unedited and in its entirety) to
> any other newsgroups where similar discussions may be ongoing.=20
That is *your* job, not ours. However, I am sure that if you spam this
noise all over the net, you'll hear about it. From many thousands of
people.
> The API Starburst program provides a set of minimum standards for motor
> oil
And a reference by which manufacturers can specify the quality of oil to
be used in their vehicles. =20
> rationale is, look for this one symbol and you=B9re (relatively) assured =
of
> getting an oil with sufficient quality for your vehicle.
True.
> We believe there is some merit to this program: consumers purchasing
> discount oils or buying from companies that treat motor oil as a
> commodity need this kind of protection.
Oh, please. It's called a quality standard. If you don't have the stamp,
the only logical and safe assumption for the consumer to make is that your
product doesn't measure up. The American Petroleum Institute didn't just
spring-up yesterday; they have a LOT more credibility than your company.
Keep trying, you don't make any points with this "argument".
> AMSOIL products certainly aren=B9t
^^^^^^
<snort> Here you are trying to snooker us with your PR lines, and you
don't even show the courtesy of using a standard character set that will
display apostrophes instead of the pi symbol or numeral 9. Perhaps there
is some Amsoil in your keyboard.=20
=20
> discount or commodity oils;
Well, they're certainly not "discount" oils, I'll give you that!=20
> they are premium products
Says you. Without the stamp of approval from a *recognized* authority
on the subject (i.e., API) your words are so much hot air. Think about
it; why should we believe you? You have an agenda (to sell more Amsoil).
The API has no such agenda.
> deliver exceptional performance.
Hot air. "Show me the money."
> AMSOIL customers are seeking the best product, not trying to squeak by
> at the lowest price.=20
No, Amsoil customers are being taken-in by your obnoxious fleet of
pyramid-crazed salesdroids.
> Current AMSOIL products are not API certified
HERE WE HAVE IT, FOLKS--right from the horse's mouth. Er, right from
*some* part of the horse, anyhow.
> until now it has never been an important issue to our customers or
> dealers
No, it's been an important issue to your NON-customers. That's one good
reason why we're NON-customers! Duh.
> I can see where the confusion has come from. Let=B9s set the
> record straight.=20
Yummy, more PR damage control words. Pass the Pepto-Bismol.
> 1. The first reason is the most important. To become API certified or
> receive the Starburst symbol, companies are required to provide detailed
> information on their formulations.
Yeah, because if Amsoil did *that*, then it would become public knowledge
that these products really aren't all that great, aren't special in any
fashion, and sometimes have dangerously low performance characteristics.=20
There was a very scientific set of tests done on many different lube
products a few years back. The results were published in SK magazine.=20
The Amsoil products consistently fared worse than even some
standard-priced petroleum-based products, and worse than proven,
high-quality, conventionally-marketed synthetics such as Mobil-1.=20
> AMSOIL has more experience than any other synthetic lubricant formulator
Hot air. Pass the popcorn.
> and uses proprietary technology to achieve remarkable results.
"Remarkable results," huh? Oog, shouldn't have asked for that popcorn, I
need the Pepto again.=20
> Consequently we protect our formulations as strictly as, for instance,
> Coca-Cola protects its soft drink formulations.=20
Then you don't get the API symbol and you don't get our business. Why is
this so hard for you to comprehend?
> 2. We don=B9t choose to participate in the Starburst program because of
> product differentiation.
BWAhahahahahaha!! This gets better and better! "OUR oil is special! It
DOESN'T carry the approval stamp of a recognized and trusted testing
establishment!" Well, yah, I guess that's some kind of "differentiation".
Hee hee.
> we have no desire to lump our products in with commodity oils, be they
> synthetic or petroleum.
"Commodity oils". Is that a technical term? Or is it just another batch
of half-baked PR bullshit? If I call-up the API and ask them for
information on "commodity oils", what are they going to tell me? I
didn't think so.
> Some in this newsgroup have implied that this is a marketing failure
There's no "implication" about it. The fact that SO MANY people are
so vigorously evangelizing AGAINST your product makes it a marketing
failure FACT, not a marketing failure FICTION. (And no, I don't care to
hear your latest sales figures. Snake oil sells! It's just that many of
us have more intelligence than to use an untested product like Amsoil.)
> but we consider it quite the opposite.
I suppose that is your prerogative. Now the question becomes: Do we
care? (Hint: the answer is not "yes".)
> We can meet changing demands
Yah, like in case you're not pyramidally-selling enough of your
over-priced, non-API-approved oil, you can introduce other,
equally-questionable products like lawn fertilizer and imitation Armor-All.
> or take advantage
> of new technology much more quickly than larger companies can by releasin=
g
> new products and new formulations.
I see. This must explain why those larger companies have 99.9 percent of
the market.
> The API programs cut into this advantage.
The real oil companies don't seem to have any problem with it.
> The delay time between a product=B9s conception and its release
> could be increased by nine months if we sought certification for it.
Oh well!
> This is unacceptable for us, our dealers and our customers.
And your lack of certification is unacceptable to us, your large and
growing base of vocal NON-customers. Remember the old legislator's maxim;
for every one constituent who writes with an opinion on something, LOTS of
other people feel the same way and don't write. Just accept the fact that
you're wrong, either go away or fix the problem, and quit whining.
> 4. Cost is a factor
Well, gee, you don't seem to think cost is much of a factor in overpricing
your non-approved oils! Oh, or is that more "product differentiation" so
you can stand out from the "commodity oils"? =20
> significant for companies like AMSOIL who use innovative technology or
> change formulations when improvements are possible.
Costs for the API
> Certification and Starburst programs can run as high as $300,000-$500,000
> per product per certification.
Hey--if you wanna play, you gotta pay, eh? Your argument here is
laughably jejeune. It would be as if recent Korean import carmaker Kia
said "We have innovative, creative technology. Our products exceed DOT/EPA
specs in every respect. DOT and EPA specs are OK for protection of
consumers who may choose to purchase lower-quality "commodity" cars such
as Mercedes and Dodge, but we choose to differentiate our product by not
seeking DOT or EPA approval." The only difference here is that companies
who choose not to obtain DOT/EPA approval of cars for sale, don't get to
sell their cars because it is against the law. Those companies who choose
not to obtain API approval of their oils have to contend with no such law,
but it doesn't change the fact that your company's product must be assumed
inferior and/or dangerous to the health of our cars, because it does not
carry the approval stamp that tells us that it meets the standard.=20
> Companies that have their oils certified are locked into their
> formulations.=20
Is that a fact? I don't believe that it is. I think it's a creative,
selective perception of reality. (This kind of perception has a name. It
starts with the letter "L".) The off-the-shelf oils of today are FAR
superior to the products of even last year, and even more superior to
those of five years ago, ten years ago, etc. If your statement above were
true, we'd still be buying Veedol, the Royal Purple Motor Oil, for Service
MS. =20
> They have no incentive to improve quality. They want to stay with the min=
imum
> standards, the status quo.
You surely do keep us in stitches! Here is a new vocabulary word for you:
"Competition". Go put that in your Funk and Wagnall's. =20
> AMSOIL products perform at a level far superior to industry standards,
Please close your mouth; you're contributing more than your share to
global warming. Get it through your head: Your assurances that your
products are "superior" are meaningless. Your company has no credentials
and no credibility. API has those credentials and credibility. Amsoil
does NOT equal API. Clear?
> increased fuel economy, increased horsepower and reduced wear.
BS, MS, and PhD.
(The last two are "More Still" and "Piled Higher and Deeper". You can
figure out the first one for yourself.) If you'd skim through a tribology
text, you'd find--to your corporate horror--that the available decrease in
frictional losses with better lubricant inside of lubricated units
(engine, trans, diff) are so infinitessimal that the maximum possible
increase in efficiency would be on the order of about one percent. The
placebo effect, however, is alive and well. And as for "reduced wear", as
someone who keeps careful track of oil filter quality, I can assure you
that Amsoil's recent (last few years) decision to cut down on the quality
of your oil filters (while still paradoxically remaining committed to a
filter construction technique abandoned by the rest of the industry
decades ago) gives lie to your little assurance here.
> consistently in the appropriate laboratory tests
Interesting how the results change when those tests are not funded by
Amsoil!
> field tests and billions of miles driven by AMSOIL customers.=20
In other words, anecdotal data. Yawn.
> Of course, consumers should choose products they are comfortable with.
By George, he's GOT IT! =20
> Customers who feel it's urgent to buy an oil that has the API Starburst
> symbol have lots of alternatives.
Amongst which are not included Amsoil products.
> Obviously, they can also share their opinions and make recommendations
Yes, we can. (Thank you for your kind permission). And we do. And we
will.
> But any balanced, truthful discussion of this issue must take the facts
> above into account.=20
And you were doing so well with your revelation that customers must choose
products they are comfortable with. Firstly, for Amsoil to be talking
about "balanced and truthful discussion" is like the Pope expounding on
the joy of sex. Secondly, what is it with you? Are you new? This is
UseNet--what makes you think it's "balanced"? Does this look like a
newsroom to you? This is the real world, sunshine. Make a good product,
and Netizens everywhere will sing your praises. The opposite, as you are
hopefully beginning to learn, is also true in spades.=20
Now let's move on:
> Extending drain intervals and using an oil with no API Certification does
> *not* void new car warranties.
Does too. From my recent-model Dodge owner's manual:
"The top portion of the oil container label circle diagram will contain
the API oil quality level indication. Use only API SG or better engine
oil." On the next page: "Use only oils conforming to API quality
specifications. This will afford the optimum performance characteristics
required for your vehicle." On the next page: "Lubricants which do not
have an API approval mark shown on the container, should not be used".=20
The warranty specifies that minimum oil drain intervals must be followed
for the warranty to remain in effect. There is plenty of legal ground and
lots of precedent for this. If the product is not maintained according to
manufacturer-specified schedules, it is called NEGLECT/ABUSE, and no
warranty that I have ever seen covers these behaviors.
Okay, you tell me: Do you think Chrysler is lying here? I don't think so.
You lose.=20
> Major auto manufacturers and regulatory
> agencies have determined that warranties must cover all equipment failure=
s
> unless they were directly caused by the aftermarket product in question
Oh, really? No, they haven't. Companies are permitted to adopt a
standard for maintenance products for their cars. If products used in the
maintenance of a car do not conform to those standards, then the carmaker
has good legal ground not to pay claims, based on the fact that inferior
or non-specified maintenance products were used. Nice try, but those of
us with legal background can see right through your attempted twisting of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which states that manufacturers cannot
make a warranty dependent on the use of a specific brand of maintenance
product, unless that brand is provided free of charge to owners. =20
> A General Motors representative sums it up rather well:
> "Warranty applicability is contingent upon the cause of failure and
> generally covers defects in material and workmanship only."
Straw-man argument. (Take a logic course or look it up). This statement
by this "representative" does not speak to the questions at hand.
Warranties do not cover abuse. Use of non-approved products and disregard
for manufacturer-specified drain intervals is universally considered
abuse. QED.
> A warranty cannot be voided on the basis of a maintenance practice.
Certainly it can. Read the warranty in your car. If this were true,
nobody would bother changing their oil. They'd just pick up a new
warranty engine every 15k miles or so.
> issue -- to date, the use of AMSOIL synthetic engine oils in extended
> service use as recommended by AMSOIL has never been found the causative
> factor in a warranty claim
Uh-huh. And for how many years was it the sworn testimony of the tobacco
industry that cigarettes had never been found the causative factor in a
death?
> Also, please consider this: Our products challenge the norms of the oil
> industry
If you're so good, PROVE IT. Get the stamp that everyone knows means
something.
> and they are sold through Multi-Level Marketing.
And there's another problem; your obnoxious swarms of usually-ignorant,
pyramid-crazed salesdroids. With a few random exceptions, they are
irritatingly ignorant of the products they sell and the market context in
which they are competing, falling back on Amsoil company party lines with
pat answers to questions. I actually know one sadly mistaken woman in
Eugene, Oregon who actually thinks she's going to retire on Amsoil!
<snicker, chuckle>
> world. In this environment, AMSOIL has been a successful and profitable
> business for nearly twenty-five years
Snake oil sells. Big schmeal.
> and our engine oils have never been the cause of an engine failure. This
> speaks volumes about our product quality and our integrity.=20
No, it doesn't. I know people who have been smoking for 30 years or more,
and who are not dead. This doesn't "speak volumes" about cigarettes'
safety, does it? Of course not! And yet, this is the argument you are
making, because the recognized authorities on engine oil quality have not
judged your product's safety or efficacy.
> Again, AMSOIL stands behind its products, and appropriate use of those
> products in no way compromises warranties.
Blah, blah, blah.
> Some have suggested that because our products are not API certified, they
> haven't been properly tested.=20
It doesn't matter if you've tested them yourself; the point of a testing
standard is to ensure that a NEUTRAL third party has tested and approved
the product. Amsoil is anything but neutral. In short, nobody cares what
your own tests have shown. If the results are so good, then you should
have no problem passing API.
> Again, it's important to keep things in perspective. AMSOIL was the
> pioneer in synthetic automotive lubricants. We not only *have* the
> technical expertise, we *created* a lot of it.
Well, you're certainly "creating" a lot of -something- right now...
> is our dealers. A large share of AMSOIL's success can be credited to the
> professionalism and dedication our dealers have always shown.
<SCHchchchnktittertitter> Excuse me, I need a drink of water...
> we are committed to enforcing this policy as necessary. Dealers who fail
> to abide by these policies are subject to disciplinary action up to and
> including loss of their dealerships.
Oh, no! Please, Mr. Amsoil, don't scare me any more! I might lose my $12
"dealership"! Then I couldn't retire to Trenton, NJ! Sob!
> It's unfortunate that in all of the discussion about AMSOIL, our most
> vocal detractors have failed to contact us for information.
We don't want your cooked-up "information". We want to see proof--that's
spelled "A-P-I" that your oil is so all-fired good as you say it is.
Unless/until you provide it, your claims are all a bunch of stuff and
nonsense.
> wouldn't it make sense to contact AMSOIL if the questions are about
> AMSOIL and there's confusion about the answers?
Wow. This guy wouldn't have a clue if somebody faxed it to him. There's
that "confusion" word again. It reminds me of a 1954 ad for Camel
cigarettes. It said "And remember, if you have been confused by medical
claims for cigarettes, remember that 9 out of 10 doctors who smoke, smoke
CAMELS!"
> The same principle applies to problems with individual AMSOIL Dealers.
> With tens of thousands of active dealers, we can't act as a police force.
Well, which way is it? Do you "enforce these rules" (above) or can you
"not act as a police force"? One or the other. (Hint, it's not the
former).
> please feel free to contact us with questions you may have.
Just one: Amsoil must be a reasonably large company. With all the
combined weight of grey matter in that building, are you folks still
*seriously* this clueless? The mind boggles.
--Dan
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and=20
taste good with ketchup."
John M. Feiereisen
In <5v4bsq$dks$1...@trotsky.cig.mot.com>, "Brent A. Peterson"
<"\\peterson\\"@armour.iit.edu\\> wrote:
>They actually got off their collective butts recently and got
>a couple products certified. I guess selling oil in the end
>is more important their reasons for not doing it.
>http://www.api.org/cgi-bin/eolcs_li.cgi?k=767
>License No. 0995 AMSOIL, Superior, WI 54880
>AMSOIL XL-7500 10W-30 API Service Symbol
>AMSOIL XL-7500 5W-30 API Service Symbol
>AMSOIL XL-7500 10W-30 API Certification Mark
>AMSOIL XL-7500 5W-30 API Certification Mark
I was told by an Amsoil dealer that the XL-7500 product is a 'lower
quality' product, targeted specifically for the quickie-lube people.
Apparently their other products are so expensive^H^H^H^H^H^H^HH^Hgood
that they don't need no stinkin' certifications.
While the get-rich-quick wannabees don't seem to care whether or not
the oil is certified, apparently the people who run the quickie-lube
places understand what kind of firestorm they'd create if they started
putting uncertified oils in their customers' cars.
Oh, and now that Amsoil has a licensing agreement with the API, it
won't cost them a single extra penny in licensing fees to amend it
to cover *all* their motor oils. All they have to do is fill out some
paperwork and submit the test results showing that they meet or exceed
the requirements -- that is, assuming they've run the tests.
--
John M. Feiereisen feierejm(at)utrc(dot)utc(dot)com
Saab85900
>Stephen H. Westin wrote:
>for which I have seen *no* supporting test data. If someone has
>results of a controlled comparison where AMSoil, or any other
>synthetic, actually gave better oil longevity than conventional oils
>under similar conditions, please present it.
Would a 17 month test of identical engines on the same boat, one with
petroleum and the other with AMSOIL (same viscosity) qualify? AMSOIL
reduced engine wear by at least a factor of two of=ver the competitor's
AMSOIL Marine oil lasted longer and was in much better condition than the
competition throughout the tes.
AMSOIL was changed once during the test, the petroleum was changed twice.
AMSOIL was still suitable for use after the test period-the petroleum
required changing.
Test done on Yachting Magazine boat.
Wear reduction and better fuel efficiency in 44 vehicle test of fleet
owned by state of Wisconsin. 1,209.993 miles.
New York City cab demo, 16 cabs for 60,000 miles.
Month long test comparing fuel consumption of Class 8 diesel trucks with
AMSOIL vs petroleum---8.2% better fuel economy
That enough for starters? I'd offer to send you copies at your request,
but probably not worth the postages since you mind seems pretty well fixed<g>
Dick in Falls Church, VA
Using and selling AMSOIL (First in Synthetics) over 20 years
Jim McDonald
In article <19970910172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, saab...@aol.com
says...
>
>
>Dick in Falls Church, VA
>Using and selling AMSOIL (First in Synthetics) over 20 years
>
First, huh? Ever hear of Steens?
--
Jim McDonald
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Menlo Park, CA
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~mcduck/
I'm not authorized to hold an opinion
==========================================================
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research"
==========================================================
Stephen H. Westin
saab...@aol.com (Saab85900) writes:
>
> >Stephen H. Westin wrote:
>
> >for which I have seen *no* supporting test data. If someone has
> >results of a controlled comparison where AMSoil, or any other
> >synthetic, actually gave better oil longevity than conventional oils
> >under similar conditions, please present it.
>
> Would a 17 month test of identical engines on the same boat, one with
> petroleum and the other with AMSOIL (same viscosity) qualify?
Not really; I really doubt that the boat was run under conditions that
resemble the worst case use in passenger cars: short trips, cold
starts.
> AMSOIL
> reduced engine wear by at least a factor of two of=ver the competitor's
> AMSOIL Marine oil lasted longer and was in much better condition than the
> competition throughout the tes.
How did they define the "condition" of the oil?
> AMSOIL was changed once during the test, the petroleum was changed twice.
> AMSOIL was still suitable for use after the test period-the petroleum
> required changing.
>
> Test done on Yachting Magazine boat.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever buy a motorboat.
> Wear reduction and better fuel efficiency in 44 vehicle test of fleet
> owned by state of Wisconsin. 1,209.993 miles.
Please give details. Especially the type of duty, and specific
comparisons of how the AMSoil lasted longer than the comparison
conventional oils. Remember, I was talking about "better oil
longevity".
> New York City cab demo, 16 cabs for 60,000 miles.
Not many cold starts there; it's actually pretty easy on the oil,
though it's a quick way to accumulate mileage.
> Month long test comparing fuel consumption of Class 8 diesel trucks with
> AMSOIL vs petroleum---8.2% better fuel economy
Again, I doubt that cold starts were frequent. And fuel economy is not
the issue here: oil change intervals are.
> That enough for starters?
It's not any evidence *at all*. I asked for specifics of AMSoil
vs. conventional tests. I asked about "better oil longevity than
conventional oils." I suppose I should have been more specific that I
don't have a motorboat or a Class 8 Diesel truck, so I don't really
care about how oil performs for them.
Manufacturers' oil-change intervals are based on worst-case longevity
of conventional oils, which I believe is limited by
contamination. I've never seen evidence that AMSoil is less
susceptible to contamination than conventional oils, so it seems risky
to ignore manufacturer's recommendations.
> I'd offer to send you copies at your request,
> but probably not worth the postages since you mind seems pretty well
> fixed<g>
Yes, I'm fixed on seeing some hard evidence before I believe
extraordinary claims.
I'm also fascinated by the apparent reluctance of AMSoil to certify
their lubricants to API standards; that alone would keep me from
trusting my engine to their oils.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Jim Johnson
Stephen H. Westin wrote:
>
> saab...@aol.com (Saab85900) writes:
>
> >
> > >Stephen H. Westin wrote:
> >
> > >for which I have seen *no* supporting test data. If someone has
> > >results of a controlled comparison where AMSoil, or any other
> > >synthetic, actually gave better oil longevity than conventional oils
> > >under similar conditions, please present it.
> >
>
>
>
> > Month long test comparing fuel consumption of Class 8 diesel trucks with
> > AMSOIL vs petroleum---8.2% better fuel economy
>
> Again, I doubt that cold starts were frequent. And fuel economy is not
> the issue here: oil change intervals are.
>
> Stephen:I'm surprised that you say fuel economy is not an issue here. Don't
these OTR trucks use over $15,000 worth of fuel every year? Why isn't
over $1,200 in savings per year of interest?
Jim in Md. (Dealer)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stephen H. Westin
Jim Johnson <jtjo...@ns.erols.com> writes:
>
>
> Stephen H. Westin wrote:
> >
> > saab...@aol.com (Saab85900) writes:
> >
> > >
> > > >Stephen H. Westin wrote:
> > >
> > > >for which I have seen *no* supporting test data. If someone has
> > > >results of a controlled comparison where AMSoil, or any other
> > > >synthetic, actually gave better oil longevity than conventional oils
> > > >under similar conditions, please present it.
<snip>
> Stephen:I'm surprised that you say fuel economy is not an issue here. Don't
> these OTR trucks use over $15,000 worth of fuel every year? Why isn't
> over $1,200 in savings per year of interest?
> Jim in Md. (Dealer)
Two reasons:
1. I was disputing the AMSoil claim of greater oil longevity, and
2. I don't own a Class 8 truck.
The fact remains: I've never seen actual *evidence* that AMSoil lasts
longer in extreme passenger car use. This means lots of short trips
and cold starts.
Again: I don't care about motorboats. I don't care about Class 8
trucks. I don't care about taxicabs, which are really pretty easy on
their oil. Where's the evidence that AMSoil really lasts longer than
conventional oils under extreme use in passenger cars?
Jim Johnson
Stephen, I ran across some info today that says truck fleets can spend
$24,000 on year on fuel so 8% savings could be almost $2,000. Not bad.
I
have had many samples of Amsoil tested after up to 12 months of service
with good results. Since Jiffy Lube/Pennzoil advertises a 3 month 3000
mile life for their oil, I can't get too excited about using their oil
for 6 to 12 months. If I paid for the test, would you be willing to run
Pennzoil for 12 months in your car?
Jim in Md.
Stephen H. Westin
Jim Johnson <jtjo...@ns.erols.com> writes:
> Stephen, I ran across some info today that says truck fleets can spend
> $24,000 on year on fuel so 8% savings could be almost $2,000. Not bad.
But, unfortunately, not relevant. I'm still looking for real data to
show that AMSoil lasts longer in severe use (i.e. lots of cold starts
and short trips) than conventional oils.
> I
> have had many samples of Amsoil tested after up to 12 months of service
> with good results. Since Jiffy Lube/Pennzoil advertises a 3 month 3000
> mile life for their oil, I can't get too excited about using their oil
> for 6 to 12 months.
No, they recommend 3-month/3000 mile intervals for a variety of
reasons, ranging from technical requirements to sales volume.
> If I paid for the test, would you be willing to run
> Pennzoil for 12 months in your car?
I would be no more eager to do that than I would be to trust AMSoil
for the same interval.
Even if I did, it would prove *nothing*, since we don't have another
'91 Escort wagon with similar service history to fill with AMSoil and
drive around Ithaca, New York for a year.
Do you see what I'm looking for? A side-by-side comparison of similar
vehicles under similar and demanding conditions. If AMSoil really
wants to convince us that their oil lasts longer, why don't they fund
something like this?
Of course then they would want to compare their oil to lower-cost
synthetics, to show that it's better than *those*, too.