synthetic oils

C. E. White wrote:

>
> 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
That is a good article and should answer anyone's questions. As it says,
the Amsoil is much less volitile so it won't be putting as much
phosphorus in to the system. Another issue is that Amsoil would have to
reveal their formulation to get liscensed and they are not interested in
doing that.

To each his own.

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:55:57 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Another issue is that Amsoil would have to
>reveal their formulation to get liscensed and they are not interested in
>doing that.

An oil company does NOT have to reveal a formulation to get it
licensed.

As can be seen at http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/FormBGF4SM.pdf
the only formulation information required for certification is various
levels (zinc, phosphorous, etc.) that Amsoil and many other oil makers
often put in their advertising.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:41:29 GMT, Rob Munach <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

If they haven't been tested, how would you know?

>> 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.

I prefer the products I buy (*especially* my motor oil) to be
thoroughly tested *before* I buy them.

>I believe it is a cost issue. The costs that a previous poster listed
>are signifcantly less than what I had previously heard.

And they ($850 for API members, $1050 for non-members) *are* the
correct costs for certification.

>Amsoil has been
>making synthetic oil longer than anyone (I think).

Longevity has nothing to do with quality.

Longevity has *everything* to do with marketing.

I use to hate Amsoil, mostly because of the dealers who act like
zealots. I have since come to realize that it is a very good, stable
'genuine' synthetic oil ... and have met some good people who sell it.
I still don't use it though.

Anyone know why Lucas is supposed to be good? I hear their 'synthetic'
is actually a Group III and that just kills the brand, as far as I'm
concerned. I also wouldn't use their "HD stabilizer" if someone gave
me a case of the stuff.

Most gear oils will say right on the bottle if they are compatible with
limited slip differentials. Still, diffys can be a little picky and
you might need to add some limited slip additive to get the most out of
your rear end.

As for brands of gear oil, I prefer Red Line and Specialty
Formulations:

http://www.specialtyformulations.com/

http://www.redlineoil.com/

For motor oil, I use Schaeffer, a private blender in St. Louis:

http://www.schaefferoil.com/

--- Bror Jace

Rob Munach wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>
> That is a good article and should answer anyone's questions. As it says,
> the Amsoil is much less volitile so it won't be putting as much
> phosphorus in to the system. Another issue is that Amsoil would have to
> reveal their formulation to get liscensed and they are not interested in
> doing that.
>
> To each his own.
>

I've worked in the lubrication business and know that the research for
Phosphorous and ZDDP and their effects on catalytic convertors is not
correlated well enough to convince all oil manufactures of their
detrimental effects. As I understand it, the decision to reduce ZDDP
levels to the number it currently is at (API SM-levels) was a bit arbitrary.

Anyway, as far as Amsoil is concerned, I've had nothing but great
performance from their non-API oils for over 90,000 miles. Also, I
recently purchased this new motor oil software, Engine Oil Selector 2005
(EOS) (http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil
as being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes. The
next highest oil the software ranks is the Valvoline Maxlife Synthetic,
which is not ILSAC-certified (due to lower fuel economy), but meets API
SM and has a better EOS score than Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance.

By the way, I found this comment in the March 2003 issue of
LubesNGreases magazine:

"Most of Shell’s engine oil
products are API licensed,
but in 2000 its Pennzoil division
stepped out of the
bounds and began marketing
unlicensed oils specifically
formulated for cars with higher
mileage, in excess of
75,000 miles. Branded as
Pennzoil High Mileage..."

These high mileage oils generally add more ZDDP to reduce wear in older
cars. So, apparently, Amsoil isn't the only company marketing non-API oil.

In rec.autos.4x4,

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:29:23 GMT, "Joseph P." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anyway, as far as Amsoil is concerned, I've had nothing but great
>performance from their non-API oils for over 90,000 miles. Also, I
>recently purchased this new motor oil software, Engine Oil Selector 2005
>(EOS) (http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil
>as being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes.

In alt.sailing.asa:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:39:36 GMT, Milt <[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, I recently purchased this new motor oil
>software, Engine Oil Selector 2005 (EOS)
>(http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil as
>being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes. Pretty cool.

So, one day after this software ("Engine Oil Selector 2005") is
announced in alt.comp.shareware, two people in two very different
groups post *exactly* the same sentence saying that Amsoil comes out
number one in every grade Amsoil makes.

Mighty suspicious. (Especially since both posts came from the same IP
address 10 minutes apart.)

The only technical person I can find associated with this software is
"M.F. Nigohosian, B.S.M.E", who is identified as the Engine Oil
Selector Software Project Manager at the company that's publishing
this software. Are there any oil company people involved at any
level?

Does anybody know who is actually behind this software? Is it a new
twist in product advertising?

Peter Beerson wrote: > So, one day after this software ("Engine Oil
Selector 2005") is
> announced in alt.comp.shareware, two people in two very different
> groups post *exactly* the same sentence saying that Amsoil comes out
> number one in every grade Amsoil makes.
>
> Mighty suspicious. (Especially since both posts came from the same IP
> address 10 minutes apart.)


And don't miss Gaynzy's post from Saturday the 16th of March, 2005:


~~~~~~~~~~~
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I've been using the Amsoil products for a while... quite happy with them.
~~~~~~~~~~~


What do you make of that????

--
Captain Lon

"Rock stars! Is there anything they don't know?" Homer Simpson


"Peter Beerson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.autos.4x4,
>
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:29:23 GMT, "Joseph P." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, as far as Amsoil is concerned, I've had nothing but great
>>performance from their non-API oils for over 90,000 miles. Also, I
>>recently purchased this new motor oil software, Engine Oil Selector 2005
>>(EOS) (http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil
>>as being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes.
>
> In alt.sailing.asa:
>
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:39:36 GMT, Milt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Also, I recently purchased this new motor oil
>>software, Engine Oil Selector 2005 (EOS)
>>(http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil as
>>being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes. Pretty
>>cool.
>
> So, one day after this software ("Engine Oil Selector 2005") is
> announced in alt.comp.shareware, two people in two very different
> groups post *exactly* the same sentence saying that Amsoil comes out
> number one in every grade Amsoil makes.
>
> Mighty suspicious. (Especially since both posts came from the same IP
> address 10 minutes apart.)
>
> The only technical person I can find associated with this software is
> "M.F. Nigohosian, B.S.M.E", who is identified as the Engine Oil
> Selector Software Project Manager at the company that's publishing
> this software. Are there any oil company people involved at any
> level?
>
> Does anybody know who is actually behind this software? Is it a new
> twist in product advertising?
>
>

Your concerns that will address this issue should be directed to the
corporate office. My opinion is that the source of the page you refer
to does not originate from the corporation unless my eyes are slower
than my fingers. Its validity shoud be measured by its source. If I am
wrong about assuming that its source other than what it looks like,
then I would also assume that the web site may be under construction.

The Parsec Group? That's pretty funny.

After all these years you are still selling this home made goo as space
age stuff.

--- Bror Jace

I have an eaton clutch-type lsd and use mobile1. eaton does suggest that a
friction additive be used. I use equatorque - found atsmost auto parts
stores - it's inia tube like toothepaste.

Reply to message from [email protected] (Mark D) (Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:08:48)
about "Re: synthetic oils":

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




- robert -

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.1