2nd page all ready? That being said I would use Amsoil up to the where Amsoil "guarantees" there oil to preform at. Amsoil has shown for 4 decades that it is a quality product. If I could only get it off the shelf.
Amsoil & Certifications
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Think of it this way. If you are claiming to meet a spec, either Amsoil or their additive supplier should have ran all the tests. If it passed, why say "Recommended for" instead of saying "Meets specification"? It doesn't make sense.
This would apply to any company too that does this.
This would apply to any company too that does this.
(yawn)
Still got that axe to grind?
No matter what Amsoil does it will obviously not please everyone.
It's a "niche" product. It will not be marketed or presented in the same manner as a mass market one.
Think about it. Why would they go to the expense and trouble of certification when it may not really do much for their sales? It's actually good management if they understand who their client is and what they need to appeal to him.
They don't want EVERYONE'S business.
Still got that axe to grind?
No matter what Amsoil does it will obviously not please everyone.
It's a "niche" product. It will not be marketed or presented in the same manner as a mass market one.
Think about it. Why would they go to the expense and trouble of certification when it may not really do much for their sales? It's actually good management if they understand who their client is and what they need to appeal to him.
They don't want EVERYONE'S business.
Where do you expect an answer to satisfy your concerns? From BITOGer's?
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
They don't want EVERYONE'S business.
Exactly. They're not interested in competing with the likes of ExxonMobil as that would require massive resources. Instead, Amsoil has carved out a niche for themselves where they (Amsoil) and ExxonMobil can co-exist without stepping on each other's toes too much. It's all well thought out, me thinks. The customer that only cares about an API logo is just going to buy the cheapest oil that carries it. That is not the type of customer that Amsoil is after.
They don't want EVERYONE'S business.
Exactly. They're not interested in competing with the likes of ExxonMobil as that would require massive resources. Instead, Amsoil has carved out a niche for themselves where they (Amsoil) and ExxonMobil can co-exist without stepping on each other's toes too much. It's all well thought out, me thinks. The customer that only cares about an API logo is just going to buy the cheapest oil that carries it. That is not the type of customer that Amsoil is after.
Originally Posted By: buster
Let me ask you this: why can Mobil make a 15k mile oil that is fully licensed and Amsoil can't? What makes them different?
If it's not ZDP levels, or base oil interchange, then what is it?
BUSTER! WHO SAID AMSOIL CAN"T MAKE A LICENSED 15k OIL?!?!?!
I would GUARANTEE you that Amsoil's SS oils pass the API specs better than M1 EP.
You keep assuming they can't or don't...why won't you accept they have made a FREE choice NOT TO LICENSE the oils???
Let me ask you this: why can Mobil make a 15k mile oil that is fully licensed and Amsoil can't? What makes them different?
If it's not ZDP levels, or base oil interchange, then what is it?
BUSTER! WHO SAID AMSOIL CAN"T MAKE A LICENSED 15k OIL?!?!?!
I would GUARANTEE you that Amsoil's SS oils pass the API specs better than M1 EP.
You keep assuming they can't or don't...why won't you accept they have made a FREE choice NOT TO LICENSE the oils???
YOU DON'T GET IT!!!
IF YOU CLAIM A SPEC THEN EITHER THE ADDITIVE SUPPLIER OR AMSOIL SHOULD RUN THE TESTS. IF IT PASSED THEN SAY SO. SAY IT MEETS IT NOT IS RECOMMENDED FOR.
ADDY YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING.
RUN THE SEQIIIG AND COMPARE OR SOME OTHER WEAR TEST. A BOOSTED TBN AND 4-BALL WEAR TEST TELLS YOU NOTHING.
IF YOU CLAIM A SPEC THEN EITHER THE ADDITIVE SUPPLIER OR AMSOIL SHOULD RUN THE TESTS. IF IT PASSED THEN SAY SO. SAY IT MEETS IT NOT IS RECOMMENDED FOR.
ADDY YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING.
RUN THE SEQIIIG AND COMPARE OR SOME OTHER WEAR TEST. A BOOSTED TBN AND 4-BALL WEAR TEST TELLS YOU NOTHING.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
why won't you accept they have made a FREE choice NOT TO LICENSE the oils???
I think he just wants to know why. Curiosity, I guess.
why won't you accept they have made a FREE choice NOT TO LICENSE the oils???
I think he just wants to know why. Curiosity, I guess.
Yeah, I'm just havin' a go at Buster....apparently, it worked!
Y'okay bud? Good....
To be truthful, I do see the point you are making, that if they are saying they pass a spec with no real proof, it looks bad.
My answer to that would be that I'm sure they have in-house test facilities that can perform, not officially, the API-spec tests. They have probably tested the oils in-house to the specs, know they pass them, they just aren;t going the extra step/expense of having that made official. If someone of some 'clout' suddenly demanded they prove their claims, they could submit to a third party test, KNOWING in advance that the oil will pass when it is done.
That sound reasonable?
Y'okay bud? Good....
To be truthful, I do see the point you are making, that if they are saying they pass a spec with no real proof, it looks bad.
My answer to that would be that I'm sure they have in-house test facilities that can perform, not officially, the API-spec tests. They have probably tested the oils in-house to the specs, know they pass them, they just aren;t going the extra step/expense of having that made official. If someone of some 'clout' suddenly demanded they prove their claims, they could submit to a third party test, KNOWING in advance that the oil will pass when it is done.
That sound reasonable?
Originally Posted By: SargeBB
A famous American once said, "Trust AND verify." Be it API or European or Aisan certification, independent verification by a third party that's internationally recognized is important, not only to vehicle manufacturers, government purchasing agents and businesses, but also to many of us.
I have trusted Amsoil, just as I have trusted Mobil 1 (M1 HM in a girlfriend’s sludge-free 5sfe), Pennzoil (PP previously used in my car (1zzfe) and T6 in my father’s truck (22R) with 348,000 miles), and Castrol (used previously in my car and a friend’s car (3mzfe)), for a while now. I have verified them by using them with no discernible harm to the vehicles, all of which have over 100,000 miles so they are just getting broken in as far as I am concerned.
Just because a company chooses not to pay licensing fees does not mean they are hiding anything. I cannot believe that this website has devolved into discussing conspiracy theories against Amsoil. What I am reading here is that licensing is such a monumental concern that Amsoil not licensing the SS line of oils means they are hiding something. Are you kidding me? Besides, once a product is licensed, is it VERIFIED that each bottle coming off of the production line meets the specifications of the oil originally tested? Of course it doesn’t, and it would be unreasonable to expect such a thing; so now you still have to trust the company producing the oil to always meet the specifications verified by the “third party” company during testing. Why not just use the common sense the good Lord gave us and look at the history of good results produced by a company’s products?
In the end, you have to trust someone, so if licensure is a make or break detail for you, I have a case of Belco motor oil and some OCODs you may be interested in purchasing.
By the way, it is "Trust, BUT verify." Also, that phrase is actually a proverb from another country taught to Ronald Reagan by Suzanne Massie.
A famous American once said, "Trust AND verify." Be it API or European or Aisan certification, independent verification by a third party that's internationally recognized is important, not only to vehicle manufacturers, government purchasing agents and businesses, but also to many of us.
I have trusted Amsoil, just as I have trusted Mobil 1 (M1 HM in a girlfriend’s sludge-free 5sfe), Pennzoil (PP previously used in my car (1zzfe) and T6 in my father’s truck (22R) with 348,000 miles), and Castrol (used previously in my car and a friend’s car (3mzfe)), for a while now. I have verified them by using them with no discernible harm to the vehicles, all of which have over 100,000 miles so they are just getting broken in as far as I am concerned.
Just because a company chooses not to pay licensing fees does not mean they are hiding anything. I cannot believe that this website has devolved into discussing conspiracy theories against Amsoil. What I am reading here is that licensing is such a monumental concern that Amsoil not licensing the SS line of oils means they are hiding something. Are you kidding me? Besides, once a product is licensed, is it VERIFIED that each bottle coming off of the production line meets the specifications of the oil originally tested? Of course it doesn’t, and it would be unreasonable to expect such a thing; so now you still have to trust the company producing the oil to always meet the specifications verified by the “third party” company during testing. Why not just use the common sense the good Lord gave us and look at the history of good results produced by a company’s products?
In the end, you have to trust someone, so if licensure is a make or break detail for you, I have a case of Belco motor oil and some OCODs you may be interested in purchasing.
By the way, it is "Trust, BUT verify." Also, that phrase is actually a proverb from another country taught to Ronald Reagan by Suzanne Massie.
Trust, but verify
"doveryai, no proveryai" (Russian saying )
This applies to many issues. One recent example.
Do you trust the statement below? Has it been verified? If something has never been verified, would you trust it more than something that has been verified?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman has dismissed allegations of nuclear activity at Tehran’s Parchin military site as “propaganda” against the country.
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/No_Nuclear_Activity_in_Parchin_Military_Site.htm
"doveryai, no proveryai" (Russian saying )
This applies to many issues. One recent example.
Do you trust the statement below? Has it been verified? If something has never been verified, would you trust it more than something that has been verified?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman has dismissed allegations of nuclear activity at Tehran’s Parchin military site as “propaganda” against the country.
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/No_Nuclear_Activity_in_Parchin_Military_Site.htm
Last edited:
Ok, let me clear some things up before this goes to far off topic. I don't hate Amsoil. I've used Amsoil, but I make no secret I don't like their marketing and army full of misinformed dealers.
My intention is not to bash Amsoil per se, but rather understand why they use the language they use regarding specifications, and whether they ACTUALLY MEET them and have been TESTED against them either by them or their supplier. If ZDP is NO LONGER AN ISSUE, why not just claim that you MEET IT rather than say RECOMMENDED FOR?
I understand they could make a better oil than what is called for. That's not the point. What I want to know is whether they simply had their products tested against the specs they list.
There is no secret to what they do and who their market is. That is a diversion from the point.
The same goes for Redline. With Redline though, it's also a ZDP issue and this is no longer the case with Amsoil.
It is certainly possible, and likely, that both Redline and Amsoil have certain specific characteristics that are above any off the shelf oil. The question is though do you still meet the required tests of what is called for? Anyone can make a boosted oil. I can do it. LOL. I don't play chemist though.
My intention is not to bash Amsoil per se, but rather understand why they use the language they use regarding specifications, and whether they ACTUALLY MEET them and have been TESTED against them either by them or their supplier. If ZDP is NO LONGER AN ISSUE, why not just claim that you MEET IT rather than say RECOMMENDED FOR?
I understand they could make a better oil than what is called for. That's not the point. What I want to know is whether they simply had their products tested against the specs they list.
There is no secret to what they do and who their market is. That is a diversion from the point.
The same goes for Redline. With Redline though, it's also a ZDP issue and this is no longer the case with Amsoil.
It is certainly possible, and likely, that both Redline and Amsoil have certain specific characteristics that are above any off the shelf oil. The question is though do you still meet the required tests of what is called for? Anyone can make a boosted oil. I can do it. LOL. I don't play chemist though.
Originally Posted By: thrace
Trust, but verify
"doveryai, no proveryai" (Russian saying )
This applies to many issues. One recent example.
Do you trust the statement below? Has it been verified? If something has never been verified, would you trust it more than something that has been verified?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman has dismissed allegations of nuclear activity at Tehran’s Parchin military site as “propaganda” against the country.
Aren’t we talking about motor oil here? If not, I have a question you may be able to answer…how many shooters were on the grassy knoll?
If we are, in fact, still talking about verifying the certifications of motor oil, you do know that a company pays for certifications (via testing), correct? A certification based on decades of the production of quality products and happy end users is worth much more than a purchased certification to me. But hey, if you like your starburst on your oil bottle, have at it.
Trust, but verify
"doveryai, no proveryai" (Russian saying )
This applies to many issues. One recent example.
Do you trust the statement below? Has it been verified? If something has never been verified, would you trust it more than something that has been verified?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman has dismissed allegations of nuclear activity at Tehran’s Parchin military site as “propaganda” against the country.
Aren’t we talking about motor oil here? If not, I have a question you may be able to answer…how many shooters were on the grassy knoll?
If we are, in fact, still talking about verifying the certifications of motor oil, you do know that a company pays for certifications (via testing), correct? A certification based on decades of the production of quality products and happy end users is worth much more than a purchased certification to me. But hey, if you like your starburst on your oil bottle, have at it.
Amsoil could very well be a superior oil, but a higher TBN,4-ball wear testing, higher additives etc. don't necessarily tell me that. Unless you had access to all the engine testing data, I don't see how anyone could really prove what is better, with any brand. I do believe Amsoil is a good oil though.
Shell recently did a comparison with their Ultra and used the Seq IIIG. That is a legitimate comparison IMO.
Quote:
APPLICATIONS
AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil is excellent for use in all types of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It is recommended for all domestic and foreign vehicles requiring any of the listed performance specifications:
5W-20 (ALM): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; GM 6094M; Ford WSS-M2C945-A, WSS-M2C930-A; Chrysler MS-6395
Which ACEA by the way? ACEA-08 is superior to 04. I assume Amsoil meets the 08.
Shell recently did a comparison with their Ultra and used the Seq IIIG. That is a legitimate comparison IMO.
Quote:
APPLICATIONS
AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil is excellent for use in all types of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It is recommended for all domestic and foreign vehicles requiring any of the listed performance specifications:
5W-20 (ALM): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…; ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; GM 6094M; Ford WSS-M2C945-A, WSS-M2C930-A; Chrysler MS-6395
Which ACEA by the way? ACEA-08 is superior to 04. I assume Amsoil meets the 08.
Buster,
I don't think that Amsoil is hiding anything, and I've never even used the stuff, although I do have sixteen quarts of it.
There are a few long drain UOAs of SSO in the UOA forum that show that SSO really does deliver on its long drain claim.
Why would anyone worry about API or any other third party certification when the company has clearly delivered an oil that can do the job it claims to do?
Not everything is a conspiracy, even for those blenders who have avoided the usual retail distribution system.
I don't think that Amsoil is hiding anything, and I've never even used the stuff, although I do have sixteen quarts of it.
There are a few long drain UOAs of SSO in the UOA forum that show that SSO really does deliver on its long drain claim.
Why would anyone worry about API or any other third party certification when the company has clearly delivered an oil that can do the job it claims to do?
Not everything is a conspiracy, even for those blenders who have avoided the usual retail distribution system.
Ever since their PCMO were reformulated something does not seem quite right. I was a stauch Amsoil advocate but with the "OE" and the "XL 10000" going to group III basestocks it is difficult to get excited. My boutique oil has lost its boutiqueness.
Originally Posted By: SargeBB
A famous American once said, "Trust AND verify." Be it API or European or Aisan certification, independent verification by a third party that's internationally recognized is important, not only to vehicle manufacturers, government purchasing agents and businesses, but also to many of us.
1996 Camry V-6, 278,000 miles; Mobil-1 5W-40
2003 Tundra V-8, 4WD, 145,000 miles; Mobil-1 5W-40
2008 Tacoma 2.7L, 4WD, 65,000 miles; Mobil-1 0W-30
Actually it is "Trust but Verify" spoken by the great Ronald Reagan.
A famous American once said, "Trust AND verify." Be it API or European or Aisan certification, independent verification by a third party that's internationally recognized is important, not only to vehicle manufacturers, government purchasing agents and businesses, but also to many of us.
1996 Camry V-6, 278,000 miles; Mobil-1 5W-40
2003 Tundra V-8, 4WD, 145,000 miles; Mobil-1 5W-40
2008 Tacoma 2.7L, 4WD, 65,000 miles; Mobil-1 0W-30
Actually it is "Trust but Verify" spoken by the great Ronald Reagan.
- Status
