Amsoil TBN versus M1 / RP in ASTM D2896 Testing

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by madeej11
Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil?


Why would Mobil, Shell, Valvoline or any of the other majors bother to compare their API approved and manufacturer certified products with a boutique on the merits of TBN retention?

True, and odds are Mobil and/or Shell is supplying Amsoil with some major component used to make Amsoil's finished product. Does anyone think they're supplying them with something better than they would use themselves? While Amsoil is a fine product I doubt it is as great as many claim it to be.

From their website:
Quote
Answer: First, AMSOIL INC. works closely with major additive companies to select the top-performing, and usually most expensive, passenger car and heavy-duty diesel motor oil additives. These additives have already passed all of the API licensing requirements in a petroleum- or synthetic-based formulation. Then, AMSOIL works with the additive company to maximize the amount of additive used and to boost the additive package in selected performance areas to achieve an optimum performing additive package for the intended application. This is unlike many other oil companies that, because additives are expensive, use the minimum amount of the least expensive additives required to meet the minimum API requirements.

AMSOIL then uses a combination of synthetic base stocks with known performance characteristics as replacements for the petroleum base stocks to optimize performance in areas of lubricity, volatility, viscosity index, oxidation and nitration resistance, pour point, flash point, deposit control, soot handling, emissions and many other areas as well. AMSOIL also uses a high-quality V.I. improver with outstanding viscosity and cleanliness properties. This replaces the inexpensive, low-quality V.I. improver used in standard API-licensed petroleum formulas. AMSOIL does laboratory bench tests and runs field tests to verify the superiority of the synthetic formula. AMSOIL continues to monitor the performance of the oil through close scrutiny of tens of thousands of oil analysis tests per year across a wide variety of vehicles all around North America and the world. AMSOIL INC. has been collecting used synthetic oil samples from passenger cars since 1982. No other oil company has such a vast database of the performance of synthetic lubricants over extended drain intervals. AMSOIL products and formulations outperform API-licensed oils because they are engineered for top performance from the very beginning.


What I'm getting at here is that they are checking for these things and blending accordingly. (at the very bottom: https://www.amsoil.com/frequent.aspx)

 

[StevieC]

Also this since it came up in the thread....

Quote
Why doesn't AMSOIL license all of its synthetic motor oils?

Answer: If all AMSOIL motor oils were API licensed, the company could not source new raw materials from multiple suppliers, which would greatly increase the threat of supply disruption and the likelihood of extraordinarily high prices. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic base stocks just as they have for other base stocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. Furthermore, licensing formulas limits the ability to quickly adopt new technologies as they are discovered; each variation from the originally licensed formula requires re-submission for complete engine testing (see the Ask AMSOIL entry above for more information).


Is there any flexibility in manufacturing an API-licensed formula?

Answer: API licensing was originally developed for mineral-based oils, and it affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils. Conventional oils comprised of petroleum base stocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum base stocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, synthetic base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester base stock from a specific supplier then only that supplier's ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is therefore not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.

There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic base stocks, although the better cold-temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. The read-across guidelines ensure that if a manufacturer properly formulates the lubricant for which all of the API tests have been performed, then the manufacturer may use that same basic formula to make more grades (i.e. 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, etc.) of the same motor oil.

Finally, there is a rule for substitutions in the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) code of practice that allows a small degree of flexibility for all formulas. It allows a company to make changes to certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided that the additives are at the same or higher concentration.

Source: https://www.amsoil.com/frequent.aspx (toward the bottom)

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by madeej11
Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil?


Why would Mobil, Shell, Valvoline or any of the other majors bother to compare their API approved and manufacturer certified products with a boutique on the merits of TBN retention?

True, and odds are Mobil and/or Shell is supplying Amsoil with some major component used to make Amsoil's finished product. Does anyone think they're supplying them with something better than they would use themselves? While Amsoil is a fine product I doubt it is as great as many claim it to be.

From their website:
Quote
Answer: First, AMSOIL INC. works closely with major additive companies to select the top-performing, and usually most expensive, passenger car and heavy-duty diesel motor oil additives. These additives have already passed all of the API licensing requirements in a petroleum- or synthetic-based formulation. Then, AMSOIL works with the additive company to maximize the amount of additive used and to boost the additive package in selected performance areas to achieve an optimum performing additive package for the intended application. This is unlike many other oil companies that, because additives are expensive, use the minimum amount of the least expensive additives required to meet the minimum API requirements.

AMSOIL then uses a combination of synthetic base stocks with known performance characteristics as replacements for the petroleum base stocks to optimize performance in areas of lubricity, volatility, viscosity index, oxidation and nitration resistance, pour point, flash point, deposit control, soot handling, emissions and many other areas as well. AMSOIL also uses a high-quality V.I. improver with outstanding viscosity and cleanliness properties. This replaces the inexpensive, low-quality V.I. improver used in standard API-licensed petroleum formulas. AMSOIL does laboratory bench tests and runs field tests to verify the superiority of the synthetic formula. AMSOIL continues to monitor the performance of the oil through close scrutiny of tens of thousands of oil analysis tests per year across a wide variety of vehicles all around North America and the world. AMSOIL INC. has been collecting used synthetic oil samples from passenger cars since 1982. No other oil company has such a vast database of the performance of synthetic lubricants over extended drain intervals. AMSOIL products and formulations outperform API-licensed oils because they are engineered for top performance from the very beginning.


What I'm getting at here is that they are checking for these things and blending accordingly. (at the very bottom: https://www.amsoil.com/frequent.aspx)


Old news. Their claim to using top performing, expensive, most expensive, the best, etc. you pick the words. Advertising plain and simple. Is a company going to say they use the cheapest additives they can buy, or less of them than someone else? Remember they have to rely on outside sources for just about everything they're blending. They are not getting anything better than anyone else can get.

 

[kschachn]

In reality the API restrictions on ad hoc changes is a safeguard, not a detriment. Just ask ExxonMobil about their post-Katrina formulation.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Old news. Their claim to using top performing, expensive, most expensive, the best, etc. you pick the words. Advertising plain and simple. Is a company going to say they use the cheapest additives they can buy, or less of them than someone else? Remember they have to rely on outside sources for just about everything they're blending. They are not getting anything better than anyone else can get.


And who wouldn't be if it's not Sopus or XOM?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by kschachn
In reality the API restrictions on ad hoc changes is a safeguard, not a detriment. Just ask ExxonMobil about their post-Katrina formulation.

It's a "Minimum" not a "The best it can be" was my point. It's to protect against fraudulent dollar store type oils.

 

[BigShug681]

 

[njohnson]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Ever wonder why Mobil doesn't make similar claims comparing their pcmo to Amsoil?


Why would Mobil, Shell, Valvoline or any of the other majors bother to compare their API approved and manufacturer certified products with a boutique on the merits of TBN retention?

True, and odds are Mobil and/or Shell is supplying Amsoil with some major component used to make Amsoil's finished product. Does anyone think they're supplying them with something better than they would use themselves? While Amsoil is a fine product I doubt it is as great as many claim it to be.

From their website:
Quote
Answer: First, AMSOIL INC. works closely with major additive companies to select the top-performing, and usually most expensive, passenger car and heavy-duty diesel motor oil additives. These additives have already passed all of the API licensing requirements in a petroleum- or synthetic-based formulation. Then, AMSOIL works with the additive company to maximize the amount of additive used and to boost the additive package in selected performance areas to achieve an optimum performing additive package for the intended application. This is unlike many other oil companies that, because additives are expensive, use the minimum amount of the least expensive additives required to meet the minimum API requirements.

AMSOIL then uses a combination of synthetic base stocks with known performance characteristics as replacements for the petroleum base stocks to optimize performance in areas of lubricity, volatility, viscosity index, oxidation and nitration resistance, pour point, flash point, deposit control, soot handling, emissions and many other areas as well. AMSOIL also uses a high-quality V.I. improver with outstanding viscosity and cleanliness properties. This replaces the inexpensive, low-quality V.I. improver used in standard API-licensed petroleum formulas. AMSOIL does laboratory bench tests and runs field tests to verify the superiority of the synthetic formula. AMSOIL continues to monitor the performance of the oil through close scrutiny of tens of thousands of oil analysis tests per year across a wide variety of vehicles all around North America and the world. AMSOIL INC. has been collecting used synthetic oil samples from passenger cars since 1982. No other oil company has such a vast database of the performance of synthetic lubricants over extended drain intervals. AMSOIL products and formulations outperform API-licensed oils because they are engineered for top performance from the very beginning.


What I'm getting at here is that they are checking for these things and blending accordingly. (at the very bottom: https://www.amsoil.com/frequent.aspx)


"Old news. Their claim to using top performing, expensive, most expensive, the best, etc. you pick the words. Advertising plain and simple. Is a company going to say they use the cheapest additives they can buy, or less of them than someone else? Remember they have to rely on outside sources for just about everything they're blending. They are not getting anything better than anyone else can get.

"

This is a very important point, Amsoil is a BLENDER. Yes, they choose what additives they want to use, and they could buy the very best additives the various companies have to sell, but, they still need to purchase them. Amsoil, as far as I know, does not have the manufacturing ability to make their own additives, like ExxonMobil does.
They rely on other companies to sell them the best additives these companies have to offer.

The reason I say this because there is misinformation out there about Amsoil and there are people who stretch the truth when talking about Amsoil.
For example, on Facebook, there was a post from Amsoil or an Amsoil dealer. There were a bunch of people commenting on it, and there were a couple of people who asked what made Amsoil special compared to other oils. There was one gentleman who commented and said that Amsoil had exclusive technology that no one else had, and that was why they were so good. Exclusive lubricant technology that no other motor oil company has, that is what makes Amsoil special.

One gentleman said that Amsoil has motor oil formulas that cause engines to have "ZERO" friction when Amsoil is used.

I can understand being enthusiastic about the oil you chose, especially when it is a premium oil, but, I cringe when reading those statements.

 

[BigShug681]

Did we ever answer why using redline or boasting about redline isn't a big deal compared to using amsoil?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Also this since it came up in the thread....

Quote
Why doesn't AMSOIL license all of its synthetic motor oils?

Answer: If all AMSOIL motor oils were API licensed, the company could not source new raw materials from multiple suppliers, which would greatly increase the threat of supply disruption and the likelihood of extraordinarily high prices. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic base stocks just as they have for other base stocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. Furthermore, licensing formulas limits the ability to quickly adopt new technologies as they are discovered; each variation from the originally licensed formula requires re-submission for complete engine testing (see the Ask AMSOIL entry above for more information).


Is there any flexibility in manufacturing an API-licensed formula?

Answer: API licensing was originally developed for mineral-based oils, and it affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils. Conventional oils comprised of petroleum base stocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum base stocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, synthetic base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester base stock from a specific supplier then only that supplier's ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is therefore not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.

There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic base stocks, although the better cold-temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. The read-across guidelines ensure that if a manufacturer properly formulates the lubricant for which all of the API tests have been performed, then the manufacturer may use that same basic formula to make more grades (i.e. 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, etc.) of the same motor oil.

Finally, there is a rule for substitutions in the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) code of practice that allows a small degree of flexibility for all formulas. It allows a company to make changes to certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided that the additives are at the same or higher concentration.

Source: https://www.amsoil.com/frequent.aspx (toward the bottom)


That's EXACTLY what I've been saying, andyou've been poopoohing…

API certified oils MUST abide by all of the rules, including the base-oil interchange requirements that require them to recertify certain aspecs of the oil that they sell if they change base-stocks....they won't do it because they want to mix and match as they get cheaper (and rumour has it sometimes off spec) supplier.

So when I suggest it...I'm wrong, but here you hold it in our faces as the reason for them not doing it...

StevieC, how can I be wrong in saying it, but you are right in presenting exactly the same thing, and using it for justification ????

BTW, here's the Appendix E requirements...the API requirements, that give you the understanding as to why bringing in the CMA is obfuscation at best...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3660366/Re:_API_Base_oil_interchange_g

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by kschachn
In reality the API restrictions on ad hoc changes is a safeguard, not a detriment. Just ask ExxonMobil about their post-Katrina formulation.

It's a "Minimum" not a "The best it can be" was my point. It's to protect against fraudulent dollar store type oils.


Nobody STOPS any oil manufacturer making a superior product...all of the majors beat the sequence IVA by 60 percent - 2.5 TIMES MORE WEAR PROTECTION if you will.

In the case that you have brought here, amsoil are putting in more S.A. than the rules allow, then crowing about how they've got more if it than their licenced competitors.

Is that "better" than API, who instituted those changes at the recommendation of the people who actually MAKE the engines and emissions control systems ?

 

[Shannow]

I find this, in the context of the thread a little Ironic....It's quite clear here that breaking the fundamental rules of making an oil for Dexos, then claiming superior TBN DOES impress people...

Underlined the part that made me giggle.

Originally Posted by Pablo

quote:

---

I know TBN is the "Total Base Number" of the oil. And I know the higher the TBN, the better. But what exactly is the TBN a measurement of? And how is it measured? What factors directly affect the TBN number? Is there a formula to estimate TBN depletion?

---

As stated we are talking acids and bases here, not base oil. The base number indicates the reserve alkalinity of a lubricating fluid, in mg KOH. In an engine oil, we are of course talking about the ability of the oil to neutralize any acids formed via combustion or even condensation. These neutralizing agents, this reserve alkalinity, usually shows up in UOA's as Ca and Mg compounds.

The techniques to arrive to arrive at the TBN differ as there are two/three ASTM methods (D-2896, D-664, D-4739, and many hybrid and proprietary (mostly portability such as Dexsil's) methods. These methods can and do get different numbers depending on the water phase/solvent phase separation, the acid used for titration. For example, D-2896, uses a stronger Perchloric acid for the tritration and the solvent is Cholorobenzene and acetic acid and will titrate out all the detergent base, the dispersant base, salts, etc and yield a higher TBN.

A new oil could have an artificially high TBN by adding NaOH to just impress people (I guess) but be a terrible lubricant, so higher when new isn't better. On the other hand a well used oil may have a TBN of 0.5 (or even almost zero) and not mean the oil is eating the engine while the engine oil continues to do a great job of protecting and cooling, etc.

A simple pH test strip will not work in a non aqueous system.

Hope this helps.


Not saying they are using caustic, but clearly...more additive, more TBN, more marketing....IS impressing people.

 

[BigShug681]

"they won't do it because they want to mix and match as they get cheaper (and rumour has it sometimes off spec) supplier."

That's a pretty bold statement, do you have any factual evidence supporting either of those claims?

 

[parshisa]

has anyone even looked at the available independent virgin oil analysis of the oil which confirm type of the base stocks (POA+Esters) used for oil manufacturing? Has anyone even looked at the additive package used in this oil? has anyone even looked at the pour point, flash poin, TBN/TAN etc etc etc? Not only they look great but they also perform really well (confirmed by real world use with low wear UOA performed).You all probably have not since all you continue talking about is marketing and bashing on the brand. Cmon guys

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by BigShug681
"they won't do it because they want to mix and match as they get cheaper (and rumour has it sometimes off spec) supplier."

That's a pretty bold statement, do you have any factual evidence supporting either of those claims?


They just said it in the excerpt that stevie C quoted...that they want the capability to change suppliers without doing the testing, to keep costs down.,..there's part a...the other is a rumour that's been circulating for ages about some specific ingredients...I have no other source than to say that's a rumour...happy ?


Here's what the API appendix E says in it's introduction...
Quote
Not all base oils have similar physical or chemical properties or provide equivalent engine oil performance in engine testing. During engine oil manufacture, marketers and blenders have legitimate needs for flexibility in base oil usage. The API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines (BOI) were developed to ensure that the performance of engine oil products is not adversely affected when different base oils are used interchangeably by engine oil blenders. The API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines define the minimum prudent physical and engine testing necessary to ensure that engine oil performance is not adversely affected by substitution of one base oil for another. The Guidelines are based on actual engine test data, using different base oils, for both gasoline and diesel engine oil performance.


Note the part that I underlined...this is the INDUSTRY standard body defining the minimum prudent standards for mixing and matching...

With all the recent emphasis on Amsoil's use of ASTM tests to prove performance, then they need to demonstrate that when they DO mix and match - per the excerpt StevieC provided, in amsoil's own words, that they "meet or exceed" the minimum prudent level of testing.

If they don't then it's "trust us"

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
Also this since it came up in the thread....

Quote
Why doesn't AMSOIL license all of its synthetic motor oils?

Answer: If all AMSOIL motor oils were API licensed, the company could not source new raw materials from multiple suppliers, which would greatly increase the threat of supply disruption and the likelihood of extraordinarily high prices. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic base stocks just as they have for other base stocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. Furthermore, licensing formulas limits the ability to quickly adopt new technologies as they are discovered; each variation from the originally licensed formula requires re-submission for complete engine testing (see the Ask AMSOIL entry above for more information).


Is there any flexibility in manufacturing an API-licensed formula?

Answer: API licensing was originally developed for mineral-based oils, and it affords these oils more flexibility than synthetic oils. Conventional oils comprised of petroleum base stocks may use a simple program called base stock interchange for added flexibility in manufacturing and purchasing. Interchange means that by completing the proper paperwork and running a few minor tests an oil company can choose to buy these petroleum base stocks from many different suppliers. This ensures adequate supply and competitive pricing. However, synthetic base stocks are supplier specific and base stock interchange is not allowed. For example, if a formula was tested with an ester base stock from a specific supplier then only that supplier's ester can be used. Complete engine testing would be required to use that exact same ester from another supplier and is therefore not performed because of the associated costs. This inflexibility makes price negotiations with synthetic base stock suppliers very difficult and increases business risk. Supply disruptions from only one source could shut down production.

There is also something called viscosity grade read-across. Fortunately, this applies to both petroleum and synthetic base stocks, although the better cold-temperature performance of synthetics makes it more difficult to achieve in some situations. The read-across guidelines ensure that if a manufacturer properly formulates the lubricant for which all of the API tests have been performed, then the manufacturer may use that same basic formula to make more grades (i.e. 5W-20, 5W-30, 10W-30, etc.) of the same motor oil.

Finally, there is a rule for substitutions in the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) code of practice that allows a small degree of flexibility for all formulas. It allows a company to make changes to certain components in the formula with limited testing and paperwork requirements, provided that the additives are at the same or higher concentration.

Source: https://www.amsoil.com/frequent.aspx (toward the bottom)


That's EXACTLY what I've been saying, andyou've been poopoohing…

API certified oils MUST abide by all of the rules, including the base-oil interchange requirements that require them to recertify certain aspecs of the oil that they sell if they change base-stocks....they won't do it because they want to mix and match as they get cheaper (and rumour has it sometimes off spec) supplier.

So when I suggest it...I'm wrong, but here you hold it in our faces as the reason for them not doing it...

StevieC, how can I be wrong in saying it, but you are right in presenting exactly the same thing, and using it for justification ????

BTW, here's the Appendix E requirements...the API requirements, that give you the understanding as to why bringing in the CMA is obfuscation at best...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3660366/Re:_API_Base_oil_interchange_g

Where did I "poopoo" this?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by kschachn
In reality the API restrictions on ad hoc changes is a safeguard, not a detriment. Just ask ExxonMobil about their post-Katrina formulation.

It's a "Minimum" not a "The best it can be" was my point. It's to protect against fraudulent dollar store type oils.


Nobody STOPS any oil manufacturer making a superior product...all of the majors beat the sequence IVA by 60 percent - 2.5 TIMES MORE WEAR PROTECTION if you will.

In the case that you have brought here, amsoil are putting in more S.A. than the rules allow, then crowing about how they've got more if it than their licenced competitors.

Is that "better" than API, who instituted those changes at the recommendation of the people who actually MAKE the engines and emissions control systems ?

And we are going to take GM's word for it that SA is a problem? Really from them? Seems to me that lots of OE's get by just fine but GM has to invent a new oil spec to "fix" their engineering.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by parshisa
has anyone even looked at the available independent virgin oil analysis of the oil which confirm type of the base stocks (POA+Esters) used for oil manufacturing? Has anyone even looked at the additive package used in this oil? has anyone even looked at the pour point, flash poin, TBN/TAN etc etc etc? Not only they look great but they also perform really well (confirmed by real world use with low wear UOA performed).You all probably have not since all you continue talking about is marketing and bashing on the brand. Cmon guys

Exactly... Or the UOA's where it's used well past shelf oils in mileage and holds up very well. Must be inferior group III because they no longer tout PAO or just shady marketing because it's easier to use that as the excuse.

 

[BigShug681]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by parshisa
has anyone even looked at the available independent virgin oil analysis of the oil which confirm type of the base stocks (POA+Esters) used for oil manufacturing? Has anyone even looked at the additive package used in this oil? has anyone even looked at the pour point, flash poin, TBN/TAN etc etc etc? Not only they look great but they also perform really well (confirmed by real world use with low wear UOA performed).You all probably have not since all you continue talking about is marketing and bashing on the brand. Cmon guys

Exactly... Or the UOA's where it's used well past shelf oils in mileage and holds up very well. Must be inferior group III because they no longer tout PAO or just shady marketing because it's easier to use that as the excuse.

Yes all that group II & III in the 10w30/SAE 30 is how they got away with using zero VII. So much hate because amsoil doesn't follow the rules and produces an oil that is very good. We can't trust the little guys but trust the companies who could very well be in bed with one another

 

[PimTac]

"Why doesn't AMSOIL license all of its synthetic motor oils?

Answer: If all AMSOIL motor oils were API licensed, the company could not source new raw materials from multiple suppliers, which would greatly increase the threat of supply disruption and the likelihood of extraordinarily high prices. To solve this problem, the API must establish base stock interchange guidelines for synthetic base stocks just as they have for other base stocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too. Furthermore, licensing formulas limits the ability to quickly adopt new technologies as they are discovered; each variation from the originally licensed formula requires re-submission for complete engine testing (see the Ask AMSOIL entry above for more information)."






Valvoline has no problem with this and they use components from the big boys.