So if this is Amsoil's way of sneaky marketing, I guess the similar Mobil 1 test was EXOM's trickery marketing too .. . .
Last edited:
Amsoil Las Vegas Tax Cab Field Study
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: asharris7
So if this is Amsoil's way of sneaky marketing, I guess the similar Mobil 1 test was EXOM's trickery marketing too .. . .
Mobil 1 was used in a fleet of aging, abused Crown Vics. It showed how M1 could do it better and cheaper than conventional oil. It also highlighted the use of extended drain oil.
Amsoil was used in a single new car for a couple of years.
So if this is Amsoil's way of sneaky marketing, I guess the similar Mobil 1 test was EXOM's trickery marketing too .. . .
Mobil 1 was used in a fleet of aging, abused Crown Vics. It showed how M1 could do it better and cheaper than conventional oil. It also highlighted the use of extended drain oil.
Amsoil was used in a single new car for a couple of years.
Quote:
In fact, the taxi company had been experiencing rampant engine failure using synthetic blend motor oil
recommended for API SN/ILSAC GF-5 service requirements and changed every 5,000 miles. Engine failures
occurred predominantly during hot summer months due to excess sludge clogging the oil pickup tubes and
starving the engines of oil
I bolded the above.
Statements of fact are easily provable, going from "rampant" to "adequate" should be readily prove that the product works as advertised...
Thus part 1...transmission...we extended the drains 5 fold...and don't show any of the TRANSMISSION components in the original test regime.
RULER...not for ATF in taxis, not relevant...RULER can still mean sludge and varnish, pretty pics notwithstanding.
Engine test..."rampant failure" versus what ?
Should be easy, pile of failed engines before, versus halos on the bedpost for afters.
In fact, the taxi company had been experiencing rampant engine failure using synthetic blend motor oil
recommended for API SN/ILSAC GF-5 service requirements and changed every 5,000 miles. Engine failures
occurred predominantly during hot summer months due to excess sludge clogging the oil pickup tubes and
starving the engines of oil
I bolded the above.
Statements of fact are easily provable, going from "rampant" to "adequate" should be readily prove that the product works as advertised...
Thus part 1...transmission...we extended the drains 5 fold...and don't show any of the TRANSMISSION components in the original test regime.
RULER...not for ATF in taxis, not relevant...RULER can still mean sludge and varnish, pretty pics notwithstanding.
Engine test..."rampant failure" versus what ?
Should be easy, pile of failed engines before, versus halos on the bedpost for afters.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
How many cars did they test? Was it just one?
Did you guys even read it?
The cab company was having engine failures with the unnamed lube with 5K intervals - failures due to sludge in the pickup and starvation on the top end - they came to Amsoil for help and Amsoil chose them for this study. I don't care that you guys call it marketing, because that IS what it's all about. Why should Amsoil be the ONLY company who is not allowed to use marketing? Why not say this about other oil companies? Read the mileages of both. Suddenly idling in high heat is easy on an engine. Wow.
And really that is heavy varnish? Please.
How many cars did they test? Was it just one?
Did you guys even read it?
The cab company was having engine failures with the unnamed lube with 5K intervals - failures due to sludge in the pickup and starvation on the top end - they came to Amsoil for help and Amsoil chose them for this study. I don't care that you guys call it marketing, because that IS what it's all about. Why should Amsoil be the ONLY company who is not allowed to use marketing? Why not say this about other oil companies? Read the mileages of both. Suddenly idling in high heat is easy on an engine. Wow.
And really that is heavy varnish? Please.
The companies that test their product on Las Vegas Crown Vic' Taxis assume (correctly) that most people think that's the worst thing for a car. In reality, it's probably the best.
Reason being? Most of the taxis there last a LONG time ... even on Cheap lubricants. I was in 3 taxis when I was in Las vegas - A last generation (09 Vintage) Malibu with 200K miles, a Ford Windstar with 430,000 miles!!! and a Ford Edge with >100,000 miles.
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
Reason being? Most of the taxis there last a LONG time ... even on Cheap lubricants. I was in 3 taxis when I was in Las vegas - A last generation (09 Vintage) Malibu with 200K miles, a Ford Windstar with 430,000 miles!!! and a Ford Edge with >100,000 miles.
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Amsoil was used in a single new car for a couple of years.
Please re-read it. This is NOT correct.
Amsoil was used in a single new car for a couple of years.
Please re-read it. This is NOT correct.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Amsoil was used in a single new car for a couple of years.
Please re-read it. This is NOT correct.
All the same,it would be more meaningful if more components were shown (crankshaft, pistons, main bearings, etc.) and measured values were compared to new. For example, when the camshaft is said to have "little wear", what does that mean? Is it based on visual inspection, is it compared to a new camshaft? Amsoil has an iffy marketing rep with many here - but then again, maybe we're no the intended audience.
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Amsoil was used in a single new car for a couple of years.
Please re-read it. This is NOT correct.
All the same,it would be more meaningful if more components were shown (crankshaft, pistons, main bearings, etc.) and measured values were compared to new. For example, when the camshaft is said to have "little wear", what does that mean? Is it based on visual inspection, is it compared to a new camshaft? Amsoil has an iffy marketing rep with many here - but then again, maybe we're no the intended audience.
Quote:
AMSOIL sought a test partner with vehicles used in the most demanding conditions
possible.
It sounds like it was one vehicle and Amsoil was the one that wanted the testing.
The oil part was kind of weak. Mobil showed the entire engine. Nice results though.
I find it hard to believe a Syn Blend was failing every 5k miles. Must have been one of those PQIA alert brands. LOL.
Mobil ran conventional out to 15k and showed you the sludge. But that was after 15k miles.
AMSOIL sought a test partner with vehicles used in the most demanding conditions
possible.
It sounds like it was one vehicle and Amsoil was the one that wanted the testing.
The oil part was kind of weak. Mobil showed the entire engine. Nice results though.
I find it hard to believe a Syn Blend was failing every 5k miles. Must have been one of those PQIA alert brands. LOL.
Mobil ran conventional out to 15k and showed you the sludge. But that was after 15k miles.
Originally Posted By: Danh
All the same,it would be more meaningful if more components were shown (crankshaft, pistons, main bearings, etc.) and measured values were compared to new. For example, when the camshaft is said to have "little wear", what does that mean? Is it based on visual inspection, is it compared to a new camshaft? Amsoil has an iffy marketing rep with many here - but then again, maybe we're no the intended audience.
Well I can ask why those components weren't shown, but it's likely they were not covered in sludge and ground down to nothingness. It would have to be compared to that very camshaft NEW, and of course they did not tear the engine down at the beginning to mic all the parts.
Of course this is not the intended audience. The exact reason I don't post those marketing pieces here. They are fun to read and of course Buster has never been shy about the stirring the Amsoil pot. In all fairness he occasionally does post marketing fluff from the other companies but really most of that is quite unremarkable. Iffy? Guys getting sludge dumped on them or whipping girls with dipsticks, those kind of scientific studies don't usually bring up any controversy. Amsoil? Yeah they have all kinds of shady stuff going on
Mostly I post new product type announcements and leave the marketing pieces for Buster to roll out.
All the same,it would be more meaningful if more components were shown (crankshaft, pistons, main bearings, etc.) and measured values were compared to new. For example, when the camshaft is said to have "little wear", what does that mean? Is it based on visual inspection, is it compared to a new camshaft? Amsoil has an iffy marketing rep with many here - but then again, maybe we're no the intended audience.
Well I can ask why those components weren't shown, but it's likely they were not covered in sludge and ground down to nothingness. It would have to be compared to that very camshaft NEW, and of course they did not tear the engine down at the beginning to mic all the parts.
Of course this is not the intended audience. The exact reason I don't post those marketing pieces here. They are fun to read and of course Buster has never been shy about the stirring the Amsoil pot. In all fairness he occasionally does post marketing fluff from the other companies but really most of that is quite unremarkable. Iffy? Guys getting sludge dumped on them or whipping girls with dipsticks, those kind of scientific studies don't usually bring up any controversy. Amsoil? Yeah they have all kinds of shady stuff going on
Mostly I post new product type announcements and leave the marketing pieces for Buster to roll out.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
You beat me to it! Whether its QS testing in NYC, or anyone else in LV, they all choose fleets that run (near) 24/7/356. No thermal cycling, no cold starts, very little fuel dilution.
These might seem like "torture tests" to Joe & Jane Public, but in reality, they are the easiest conditions for oil and engines. Glad someone else understands this!
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
You beat me to it! Whether its QS testing in NYC, or anyone else in LV, they all choose fleets that run (near) 24/7/356. No thermal cycling, no cold starts, very little fuel dilution.
These might seem like "torture tests" to Joe & Jane Public, but in reality, they are the easiest conditions for oil and engines. Glad someone else understands this!
Originally Posted By: buster
It sounds like it was one vehicle and Amsoil was the one that wanted the testing.
Quote:
Signature Series Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid and Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil were
installed in six of the fleet’s vehicles.
It sounds like it was one vehicle and Amsoil was the one that wanted the testing.
Quote:
Signature Series Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid and Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil were
installed in six of the fleet’s vehicles.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: buster
It sounds like it was one vehicle and Amsoil was the one that wanted the testing.
Quote:
Signature Series Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid and Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil were
installed in six of the fleet’s vehicles.
Unless I am reading it wrong, they only tore apart 1 of the vehicles, which is why everyone is focusing on 1 vehicle. A comparison tear down of a vehicle using ATF+4 and a competitive synthetic would have added some credibility to this. I say ATF+4 and PP would have yielded the same pictures.
Originally Posted By: buster
It sounds like it was one vehicle and Amsoil was the one that wanted the testing.
Quote:
Signature Series Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid and Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil were
installed in six of the fleet’s vehicles.
Unless I am reading it wrong, they only tore apart 1 of the vehicles, which is why everyone is focusing on 1 vehicle. A comparison tear down of a vehicle using ATF+4 and a competitive synthetic would have added some credibility to this. I say ATF+4 and PP would have yielded the same pictures.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Miller88
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
You beat me to it! Whether its QS testing in NYC, or anyone else in LV, they all choose fleets that run (near) 24/7/356. No thermal cycling, no cold starts, very little fuel dilution.
These might seem like "torture tests" to Joe & Jane Public, but in reality, they are the easiest conditions for oil and engines. Glad someone else understands this!
Yep, like I said show me some Arctic testing and we can talk. But lets call it smart marketing on the part of the oil "companies" for not showing it. Why run a test when you know the results might not be so good?
Originally Posted By: Miller88
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
You beat me to it! Whether its QS testing in NYC, or anyone else in LV, they all choose fleets that run (near) 24/7/356. No thermal cycling, no cold starts, very little fuel dilution.
These might seem like "torture tests" to Joe & Jane Public, but in reality, they are the easiest conditions for oil and engines. Glad someone else understands this!
Yep, like I said show me some Arctic testing and we can talk. But lets call it smart marketing on the part of the oil "companies" for not showing it. Why run a test when you know the results might not be so good?
People were criticizing the Mobil 1 study too back in the day when it was posted.
They went into much greather detail though on the engine tear down.
*Here is a difference between M1 and Amsoil.
Mobil 1 SA is only .8.
The Mobil 1 15,000 study was using an oil that met GF-4/SM.
They went into much greather detail though on the engine tear down.
*Here is a difference between M1 and Amsoil.
Mobil 1 SA is only .8.
The Mobil 1 15,000 study was using an oil that met GF-4/SM.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Unless I am reading it wrong, they only tore apart 1 of the vehicles, which is why everyone is focusing on 1 vehicle. A comparison tear down of a vehicle using ATF+4 and a competitive synthetic would have added some credibility to this.
You are correct. I suspect Amsoil limits the funds for such things, but I will also ask why no internal shots of the conventional run engine and AT.
Unless I am reading it wrong, they only tore apart 1 of the vehicles, which is why everyone is focusing on 1 vehicle. A comparison tear down of a vehicle using ATF+4 and a competitive synthetic would have added some credibility to this.
You are correct. I suspect Amsoil limits the funds for such things, but I will also ask why no internal shots of the conventional run engine and AT.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Miller88
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
You beat me to it! Whether its QS testing in NYC, or anyone else in LV, they all choose fleets that run (near) 24/7/356. No thermal cycling, no cold starts, very little fuel dilution.
These might seem like "torture tests" to Joe & Jane Public, but in reality, they are the easiest conditions for oil and engines. Glad someone else understands this!
I want to see the "pizza delivery torture test". Start it up, drive somewhere, turn it off, deliver, start it up again, go back, turn it off..in the winter...
Originally Posted By: Miller88
It's PERFECT for the vehicles. They NEVER cold start, they are ALWAYS up to temperature, they get run hard (which engines like), there isn't much fuel dilution ...
You beat me to it! Whether its QS testing in NYC, or anyone else in LV, they all choose fleets that run (near) 24/7/356. No thermal cycling, no cold starts, very little fuel dilution.
These might seem like "torture tests" to Joe & Jane Public, but in reality, they are the easiest conditions for oil and engines. Glad someone else understands this!
I want to see the "pizza delivery torture test". Start it up, drive somewhere, turn it off, deliver, start it up again, go back, turn it off..in the winter...
My daughter drove 3 blocks to high school, then 3 blocks home later in the day. (Could not walk it due to highway crossing). Then at College, she drove all around the campus all day, toting teaching materials, just blocks apart.
All THAT driving would have been a great test.
All THAT driving would have been a great test.
- Status
Similar threads
