synthetic oils

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
D

d745

Guest
2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.
I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil. And using
synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials. I don’t know which
oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
appreciated.


 


d745 wrote:
>
> 2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.
> I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil. And using
> synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials. I don’t know which
> oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
> appreciated.

My usggest is that you read your owner's guide. It will tell
you what specifications the oils should meet. Be careful of
some of the Amsoil engine oils. Some are API certified and
some are not. Your owner's guide is going to specifiy that
the engine oil be API certified.

Here are recommendations for the other fluids from the GM
manual -

Automatic Transmission - DEXRON III Automatic Transmission
Fluid

Front Axle - SAE 80W-90 Lubricant (GM P/N 1052271, Canadian
P/N 10950849 or equivalent).

Front and Rear Axle (5 Spd.) - SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Axle
lubricant (GM Part No. 12378261, Canadian Part No. 10953455)
or equivalent meeting GM specification 9986115

Rear Axle (With QS4 Axle only) - SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Axle
Lubricant (GM Part No. 12378557, Canadian Part No. 88901362)
or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 149-NP (One Speed Automatic) - DEXRON
III Automatic Transmission Fluid (GM P/N 12346143, Canada
P/N 10952622) or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 236/246-NP8 (Two Speed Automatic) -
Auto-Trac II Fluid (GM Part No. 12378508, Canada Part No.
10953626) or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 261-NP2 (Two Speed Manual) - DEXRON III
Automatic Transmission Fluid (GM P/N 12346143, Canada P/N
10952622) or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 263-NP1 (Selectable) - DEXRON III
Automatic Transmission Fluid (GM P/N 12346143, Canada P/N
10952622) or equivalent.

Using synthetic fluids is fine, just make sure they reflect
the appropriate GM specifications.

Ed
 
If the Amsoil is API approved, go for it. If not, kiss your warranty
good-bye! Use Lucas oils instead.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:05:39 -0400, "d745" <[email protected]> wrote:

>2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.
>I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil. And using
>synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials. I don’t know which
>oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
>appreciated.
>

 
Peter D. Hipson wrote:

> If the Amsoil is API approved, go for it. If not, kiss your warranty
> good-bye! Use Lucas oils instead.
>
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:05:39 -0400, "d745" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.
>>I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil. And using
>>synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials. I don’t know which
>>oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
>>appreciated.
>>
>
>
Regardless if the Amsoil is API rated or not, it will NOT cause any oil
related engine failures and will likely prevent failures from occuring
do to overheating etc. It is probably the finest oil you can get. Amsoil
*claims* they will warranty against oil related failures as well. I have
been using it in my vehicles for 20 years.

--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510
 
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:42:58 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>>
>Regardless if the Amsoil is API rated or not, it will NOT cause any oil
>related engine failures and will likely prevent failures from occuring
>do to overheating etc. It is probably the finest oil you can get. Amsoil
>*claims* they will warranty against oil related failures as well. I have
>been using it in my vehicles for 20 years.

There are two camps, absolutely opposed. ONe group swears at Amsoil,
the other swears by it. I'd be very reluctant to call it the finest
oil you can get. That is a big claim for a company who can't get their
oil API certified.

As to their claim of warranty coverage, I'd not want to bank on that.
I think in reading your message, you agree, too.

More important than name (within reason!) is frequency of changes.
People who stretch out their oil and filter changes are the people who
are more likely to have a 90K mile car that puffs blue smoke at every
light and stop sign.

I won't debate Amsoil, however. As I say, if you are happy with it, or
want to try it, great. I think it is of sufficient quality that it
will match virtually all other oils. The lack of API certification is
difficult to understand (I know their story: expensive and would make
their product cost more.) Lucas oil (which I use, and am very happy
with) is API certified and is similar price.

For what it is worth, the issue of oil quality is not just in how well
it lubricates. Instead it is more complex, and includes issues in
detergent action, multi-viscosity additives, and such.

Anyway, Rob, you use Amsoil. I'll use Lucas. When one of us has a
failure we'll email the other! (and neither will have to do that...
<bg>)

 
Peter D. Hipson wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:42:58 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Regardless if the Amsoil is API rated or not, it will NOT cause any oil
>>related engine failures and will likely prevent failures from occuring
>>do to overheating etc. It is probably the finest oil you can get. Amsoil
>>*claims* they will warranty against oil related failures as well. I have
>>been using it in my vehicles for 20 years.
>
>
> There are two camps, absolutely opposed. ONe group swears at Amsoil,
> the other swears by it. I'd be very reluctant to call it the finest
> oil you can get. That is a big claim for a company who can't get their
> oil API certified.
>
> As to their claim of warranty coverage, I'd not want to bank on that.
> I think in reading your message, you agree, too.
>
> More important than name (within reason!) is frequency of changes.
> People who stretch out their oil and filter changes are the people who
> are more likely to have a 90K mile car that puffs blue smoke at every
> light and stop sign.
>
> I won't debate Amsoil, however. As I say, if you are happy with it, or
> want to try it, great. I think it is of sufficient quality that it
> will match virtually all other oils. The lack of API certification is
> difficult to understand (I know their story: expensive and would make
> their product cost more.) Lucas oil (which I use, and am very happy
> with) is API certified and is similar price.
>
> For what it is worth, the issue of oil quality is not just in how well
> it lubricates. Instead it is more complex, and includes issues in
> detergent action, multi-viscosity additives, and such.
>
> Anyway, Rob, you use Amsoil. I'll use Lucas. When one of us has a
> failure we'll email the other! (and neither will have to do that...
> <bg>)
>
Wow, that was the most civil Amsoil discussion I have ever seen in a
newgroup.
FWIW, I change my oil and filter once a year and have been doing it that
way for 20 years. I have never had a vehicle that used any oil. It is
much easier for me to pay more for an oil and have to mess with the car
less. I have too much equipment to maintain!

BTW, Amsoil does have an API rated blend - it is just not their best stuff.

--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510
 
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:37:40 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Wow, that was the most civil Amsoil discussion I have ever seen in a
>newgroup.
>FWIW, I change my oil and filter once a year and have been doing it that
>way for 20 years. I have never had a vehicle that used any oil. It is
>much easier for me to pay more for an oil and have to mess with the car
>less. I have too much equipment to maintain!
>
>BTW, Amsoil does have an API rated blend - it is just not their best stuff.

Ah, I aim to please. On my trucks I change at least every six months
(when you are talking a 35K to 130K investment, it is reasonable!) The
boss' car is once a year, like yours.

I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
 
Peter D. Hipson wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:37:40 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Wow, that was the most civil Amsoil discussion I have ever seen in a
>>newgroup.
>>FWIW, I change my oil and filter once a year and have been doing it that
>>way for 20 years. I have never had a vehicle that used any oil. It is
>>much easier for me to pay more for an oil and have to mess with the car
>>less. I have too much equipment to maintain!
>>
>>BTW, Amsoil does have an API rated blend - it is just not their best stuff.
>
>
> Ah, I aim to please. On my trucks I change at least every six months
> (when you are talking a 35K to 130K investment, it is reasonable!) The
> boss' car is once a year, like yours.
>
> I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
> API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
> business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
certification. I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.


--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510
 
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>certification. I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
>about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.

They would not be the first company that guessed that type of decision
wrong. <g> The real issue is that it will void the warranty on the
engine if it is not API certified. That Amsoil says they will cover
any damage their oil causes, it would be practically impossible in
many cases to show what caused the failure. Aside, I've not heard any
horror stories either way about Amsoil. (And I've not heard any such
horror stories about any other brand...) Years ago (and we are
probably talking well before you existed (if you are lucky!) the
issues of sludge buildup was a major point. Oil makers were getting
into 'detergent' motor oil technology, and each had their own ideas
and formulas. Some did well, others did not do as well. There are some
who don't like QS or Pennzoil, because at first there was excessive
sludge buildup in those brands. But that was a *long* time ago. Now,
if you remember cars that didn't even have an oil filter (it's a
relatively new addition to the engine!) or cars that had the cannister
filter (dear god was that a PITA to deal with--messy to no end, and
half of them were mounted upside down so dirty oil and crap went
everywhere when you removed the. Ah, the good old days!

I've got to wonder, why do people really like, or really not like a
certain brand of oil? RBG!

 
2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears. I would appreciate
your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil. And using synthetic oils in
the transmission and differentials. I don't know which oils to use in
the transmission and differentials suggestions would be appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howdy Dave, there's nothing wrong with any of the Amsoil Engine Oils,
other than thier high price. If you are still considering changing Oil
at the Manufacturer recommended intervals, perhaps just go with Mobil 1
instead, and save yourself a few bucks along the way? I've been using
Mobil 1 on my '97 Tahoe since new.

Wally World sells Mobil 1 in 5qt Jugs, and usually sells for $20 a jug.
(not sure how many quarts your engine takes?)

As far as transmission fluids go, I assume your truck has a tranny
cooler from the factory, so this is good.

Amsoil does make a full synthetic Transmission fluid, again not cheap,
and I have this in my Tahoe, and it works fine.

If you are going to do the Transmission Service yourself, I'd make sure
you go to the Chevy Dealer to get the new Pan Gasket, and Filter.
I once bought these parts from an Auto parts store, and although they
were labeled Delco parts, the kit came with a wimpy Cork Gasket, which
was junk, and was not what the Tranny originally used, which was a much
more heavy duty vulcanized/rubberized Fiber/paper gasket.

Definitely use the proper Torque Wrench, proper torque values, and
torque sequence on the pan to eliminate the chances of buckling the
gasket which will cause leaks. (Usually these pan bolts torque at about
18 ft lbs or so)

As far as Differential Fluids go, Mobil 1 full Synthetic gear Lube
should work fine in both front, and rear Differentials, even with the
limited Slip Axle, which you probably have in the rear.

An easy way to do the fluid swap on the Differentials without resorting
to ripping off the covers, is to buy a fluid suction gun, use a length
of rubber hose insert into the fill ports, and remove the old fluids
this way. Mark

 
Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.

 
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Peter D. Hipson wrote:

>> I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>> API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
>> business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.

>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>certification.

According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
members and $1050 for non-members. At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
would exceed the cost of the API rating.

It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.

>I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
>about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.

When you've spent years paying exhorbitant prices for mediocre
products and pushing them on your family and friends, you'll bend over
backward to convince yourself you're not wasting your money.

If Amsoil's products were able to pass the tests, you can bet your ass
they'd get them API rated.


 
Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Glad I could be of some help with your questions.

I understand some of the newer Chevy/GMC vehicles are supposedly coming
with full synth lubes in the differential. By no means would it ever
hurt to swap fluids provided you use a good high quality Lube that
meets, or exceeds manuacturer's recommendations. I myself run Mobil 1
gear lubes in both front, and rear differentials. I originally did the
swap at 2,000mi, and then again at 15,000mi. I'm at 38K with my 97
Tahoe, and running like new.

As far as the transmission goes, this is another area where I believe
one should not take too much time deciding on when to change. I believe
one should'nt wait till a high mileage like 60K before they decided to
service thier tranny.
Good clean fluid (and clean filter) is a Tranny's lifeblood.

My opinion of oils is this: Regardless of the highest quality oils made
in the world, if you're using a factory stock filter, no matter how
good, these little soda can filters which are on most gas engines can
only take so much dirt, and debris, and they do pass quite a bit back
into the engine even when new. By 3K, any oil is filthy. Sure, good oil
like Mobil 1 hasn't broken down by 3K, but the oil is contaminated with
dirt, blow-by contaminants, acids, etc, etc. Larger remote filters, or
an additional by-pass filters are an option one could persue if they
felt they needed it. Mark D.

 
Peter Beerson wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter D. Hipson wrote:
>
>
>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
>>>business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
>
>
>
>>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>>certification.
>
>
> According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
> members and $1050 for non-members. At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
> would exceed the cost of the API rating.
>
> It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.

Clearly it is more complicated than that.
>
>
>>I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
>>about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.
>
>
> When you've spent years paying exhorbitant prices for mediocre
> products and pushing them on your family and friends, you'll bend over
> backward to convince yourself you're not wasting your money.
>
> If Amsoil's products were able to pass the tests, you can bet your ass
> they'd get them API rated.
>
>
Uh, I don't push it at all. In 16 years of beaing a dealer, I have sold
0 products to anyone. I use it because it is the best oil you can buy.

--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510
 
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:37:07 -0600, [email protected] (Mark D) wrote:

>Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
>synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.

I just realized that if you have a limited slip differential, you
should talk to the maker/dealer before using synthetic. There may need
to be an additive (specifically for synthetic oil) you will have to
add.

Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/3500) trucks. No
additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a standard clutch
type limited slip.
 
Peter D. Hipson wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:37:07 -0600, [email protected] (Mark D) wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
>>synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.
>
>
> I just realized that if you have a limited slip differential, you
> should talk to the maker/dealer before using synthetic. There may need
> to be an additive (specifically for synthetic oil) you will have to
> add.
>
> Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
> differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/3500) trucks.
I would be suprised if this was true as a torsen is fairly expensive.



> additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a standard clutch
> type limited slip.


--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510
 
I just realized that if you have a limited slip differential, you should
talk to the maker/dealer before using synthetic. There may need to be an
additive (specifically for synthetic oil) you will have to add.
Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/3500) trucks. No
additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a standard clutch type
limited slip
---------------------------------------------------------------
If I recall correctly, Mobil 1 Gear Lubes are approved for use in both
open, and limited slip differentials. My Tahoe has a limited slip axle.
Make sure you read the bottle first. Mark

 
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:02:07 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Peter Beerson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter D. Hipson wrote:
>>
>>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
>>>>business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
>>
>>>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>>>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>>>certification.
>>
>> According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
>> members and $1050 for non-members. At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
>> would exceed the cost of the API rating.
>>
>> It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.
>
>Clearly it is more complicated than that.

Please explain.

To me, it would appear that it could be one (or more) of the
following:

1) The company doesn't want to spend the money on testing. (Testing
is where the big money is.)

2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.

3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
(depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
justify certifying a formulation that will probably change in a few
months anyway. (See also #1. Imagine the cost of testing
constantly-changing formulations.)

4) They already have a customer base that really doesn't care about
certification and has fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the hype.

If you have any others, I'm all ears.

Sorry if I sound confrontational. I don't mean to. I'm just curious
why a company would eschew such a widely accepted performance
certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
they claim such superior performance.


 
Peter Beerson wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:02:07 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Beerson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter D. Hipson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
>>>>>business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
>>>
>>>>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>>>>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>>>>certification.
>>>
>>>According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
>>>members and $1050 for non-members. At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
>>>would exceed the cost of the API rating.
>>>
>>>It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.
>>
>>Clearly it is more complicated than that.
>
>
> Please explain.
>
> To me, it would appear that it could be one (or more) of the
> following:
>
> 1) The company doesn't want to spend the money on testing. (Testing
> is where the big money is.)
>
> 2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.
Unlikley.
>
> 3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
> (depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
> justify certifying a formulation that will probably change in a few
> months anyway. (See also #1. Imagine the cost of testing
> constantly-changing formulations.)
>
> 4) They already have a customer base that really doesn't care about
> certification and has fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the hype.

It ain't hype. *Most* of their products are excellent. I gurantee you if
you tested them side by side with Lucas, they would come out on top.
>
> If you have any others, I'm all ears.
>
> Sorry if I sound confrontational. I don't mean to. I'm just curious
> why a company would eschew such a widely accepted performance
> certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
> they claim such superior performance.
>
>
I believe it is a cost issue. The costs that a previous poster listed
are signifcantly less than what I had previously heard. Amsoil has been
making synthetic oil longer than anyone (I think). I have never heard of
anyone having a problem with the oil (except maybe the Avoil of the 1980's)

Regards,

--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510
 


Peter Beerson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:02:07 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Beerson wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Peter D. Hipson wrote:
> >>
> >>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
> >>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
> >>>>business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
> >>
> >>>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
> >>>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
> >>>certification.
> >>
> >> According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
> >> members and $1050 for non-members. At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
> >> would exceed the cost of the API rating.
> >>
> >> It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.
> >
> >Clearly it is more complicated than that.
>
> Please explain.
>
> To me, it would appear that it could be one (or more) of the
> following:
>
> 1) The company doesn't want to spend the money on testing. (Testing
> is where the big money is.)
>
> 2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.
>
> 3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
> (depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
> justify certifying a formulation that will probably change in a few
> months anyway. (See also #1. Imagine the cost of testing
> constantly-changing formulations.)
>
> 4) They already have a customer base that really doesn't care about
> certification and has fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the hype.
>
> If you have any others, I'm all ears.
>
> Sorry if I sound confrontational. I don't mean to. I'm just curious
> why a company would eschew such a widely accepted performance
> certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
> they claim such superior performance.

I believe the non-API certified Amsoil motor oils have too
much phosphorus in the oil to meet the API requirements. The
API requirements are driven by the vehicle manufacturers. To
much phosphorous can degrade catalytic convertors. However,
the compound that contains the phosphorous is a good and
relatively inexpensive anti-wear agent. So, you leave out
the stuff to protect the catalytic convertor, but reduce the
cheap wear fighting additives. There are other additives to
fight wear that don't damage catalytic convertors, but they
cost more.

Good discussion at
http://forums.noria.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/616604995/m/645103923

If you trust Amsoil, then go for it. I don't, so I won't. I
suppose using non-API certified Amsoil for 15,000 miles (1
change) probably won't contaminate your catalytic convertor
with any more Phosphorous that changing API certified oil at
5000 mile intervals. At first the Amsoil will introduce more
phosphorous into the system, but as the additives are
depleted the amount will decrease. With three changes of API
certified oil, you'll have three lower level spikes of
phosphorous contamination, probably for a similar long term
result.

Amsoil position on API licensing is at
http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/apilicensing.htm .

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
1998 defender pickup rebuild. I need help.
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
re-volt
R
Kerlaan
2005 TD4 manual trans - cabin rumbles, how to resolve & proceed
Replies
0
Views
142
Kerlaan
Kerlaan
I
L322 Could anyone help with 2005 RR HSE fluids questions?
Replies
0
Views
717
invisible999
I
B
Freelander 2 (LR2) Freelander 2 coolant issues
Replies
6
Views
886
GrumpyGel
GrumpyGel
new to all this
Discovery 2 1999 ES for sale East Sussex
Replies
17
Views
3K
new to all this
new to all this
Back
Top