Can someone explain Amsoil Test Quality?

[63Avanti]

Does this bother anyone else?
We have had strong confirmation that WIX and Napa Gold are IDENTICAL except for paint jobs. How does one explain the quality/repeatability of AMSOILs "test processes"?

from Dominic:

 

[Pablo]

Maybe the fact that the data is at least 5 years old maybe almost 10 years, (and taken from a dealer's site.) The SDF is no longer sold by Amsoil.

I'm not sure who made the Napa Gold back then but the data is probably within margin of experimental error. No two filters are exactly the same.

Not sure how the tone of your thread is intended.

 

[labman]

Good question. As I have said before, made by doesn't mean the same as.

 

[dwendt44]

Exactly, Labman.
Wix makes the NAPA filters to NAPA specs.
Those specs. may be the same as, or slightly better than, or even slightly worse than, the stock Wix filter.
Same with Champion Labs. They make a lot of different company's filters. The filters are made to those customers demands. Maybe better, maybe worse that another company's filter.

 

[MADMIKE]

Pete C. insists that Wix and Napa Gold are exactly the same filter, the only difference being the canister label. Could it be that the things that are being measured here are so fine, minute and exacting that they are difficult to measure reliably?

 

[Pablo]

Pure speculation is often different from fact, Gary. People often take your words for "gospel". Please use some qualifier words in your post. As in "could be", "maybe" "I'm only guessing here...."

In other words...you sir are probably full of "doo".

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, nothing I said is in any way any indication of the level of quality of an Amsoil filter. I'm sure they are totally top shelf. A permier offering with a distinctive edge over common filters.

However, do you think that you would ever see this test appear in sales promotional advertisements if it showed that a cheaper PureOne or a comparable M1 would have performed better? Hence the testing, however performed, assured this outcome.

It's not something that is any more (or less) underhanded or "unethical" then Purolator or whomever uses in their advertising methods... "90% of wear occurs at startup" is a favorite Castrol slogan. They don't tell you that "startup" is defined as the first 20 minutes or xxx number of miles.

No, I'm sure that Amsoil filters are of the highest quality in terms of performance and longevity. When you get at that level, I would imagine that the process/production variable is the defining line in many cases when comparing M1 and the like to Amsoil's offerings.

I'm simply saying that when you're looking at "independent testing" ..just see how independent the tester really is.

..and my main point of the comment was to suggest why the Wix and NAPA GOLD appeared to vary in performance to such a significant degree. They should have been nearly identical. That leads me to believe that there was cherry picked results from a mulititude of tests.

 

[Pablo]

I guess I looked at it a bit differently. I actually don't see the two varying all that much. Especially in capacity. That could easily be filter media difference, etc.

Given the fact this test was run 10 years ago and Amsoil (and the other filter manufacturers as well) have changed their designs (significantly in the case of Amsoil) the data is moot at best.

You used the word "manipulation" like it was factual. I take umbrage.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
I take umbrage.

---

..and I flatulate in your jenerale direc'cion!

 

[Gary Allan]

This is a sales promotional test. It's intended to show you that Amsoil filters are the best. It is going to be manipulated, as much as possible, to assure that Amsoil's filter is #1. In the course of that testing manipulation, the Wix/Napa/Fram had variables that cause them to show less performance.

For all you know it took a thousand tests to get these results to publish as "truth".

(visions of techs in lab)
"Whew ..boy that took a long time. How many filters did we have to go through until we got ours to have an edge on everyone else? ...

 

[Mike_dup1]

Every watch an IROC race? They are all indentically prepared cars driven by top notch drivers. They all should come across the finish line tied.

Just because the 2 filters should be indentical is by no means proof they are. For all you know they could have been mfg years apart, in completely different plants in different countries or have slighly different media due to improvements.

Everything is a conspiracy to some.

 

[Gary Allan]

Mike. The difference is between Chevy testing the competition against itself ..or paying for an "independent lab" (that is dependent upon someone else's revenue) to perform a test. This is unlike Cosumer's Union buying stuff off the shelf and doing side by side comparisons. It's not a "conspiracy" ..but anyone who assumes that self initiated data is going to reflect other then a favorable outcome for the person paying for the testing ..or performing the testing, is being naive. You just wouldn't publish the data. There's nothing sinister about it ..it's just plain common competitive business sense. I'd slap the jack@@@ up side the head that was working for me who suggested putting data that showed that a competitor actually offered a superior product to ours.

This is just "hit you in the head with a baseball bat" common sense. It has nothing to do with the absolute quality or value of any given product offered by any given vendor/producer. It's not an "Amsoil thing". It's a GM, Purolator, Castrol, Mobil, Ford, or anyone else that compares their products to others.

Anyone have another take on it? Would you buy my product if I told you that it's not as good as another offering? Would you buy it because you admire my ethics and upright honesty ..or just because I'm a nice guy?

Now sure, there are going to be process/production variables in all products ..and you can expand the differences in the way you express your data to make them look significant. But if that process/production variable exists (and it surely does) would you publish the data that showed that your process variable allowed a competitor to actually perform better in your testing ..of which you're using the data for an advertising aid?? No, you would continue testing until your competitors process/production variable/variance put them at a disadvantage and would be wise to use the worst showing of their product and the best showing of yours.


So, AGAIN, Amsoil surely offers filters of the highest quality that end up being "competitive" in terms of value with other premium offerings in the market.

What doesn't anyone like about that statement

 

[TooSlick]

Pablo,

According to 63 Avantis profile, he's an engineer of some sort. If that's true, I have to assume this is a rhetorical question. The second possibility - which is sad to contemplate - is that there are practicing engineers in the Great State of Texas who have no understanding of things like test to test variation, or the variability in manufacturing quality associated with a cheap, throw away engine part.

So to review:

1) 63 Avanti knows the answer and is just trolling...

2) He's as dumb as a post and wouldn't understand the answer even if it was presented to him...

TS

 

[Pablo]

Thanks TS - I don't usually check folk's bios. But your post is hilarious!

Gary - I never thought you were attacking the quality of the filter. Flatulance or not. Of course what you say happens, your choice of words was a bit strong for the situation. In reality we don't know the root cause of the delta.

 

[Gary Allan]

Oh

Okay.

Did I have an "over the top" episode again

My bad

 

[63Avanti]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The second possibility - which is sad to contemplate - is that there are practicing engineers in the Great State of Texas who have no understanding of things like test to test variation, or the variability in manufacturing quality associated with a cheap, throw away engine part.

---

Naw, I am a licensed professional engineer (PE), but not in Automotive/Lubrication Specialties.

Part of being a good engineer is an insatiable curiosity. The original posts on the AMSOIL site had no qualifiers about potential variability in the test. The charts were suspicious for several reasons. For example, if the test to test variability explains the difference between WIX and NAPA Gold, which have been stated here several times by WIX as identical, then what IS the variability? Is the variability large enough to explain the difference between WIX and AMSOIL? For this reason, I never post results without my best shot at quantifying both alpha and beta error stats to ensure that the results are not erroneously extrapolated. (I also carefully date all data, including graphics, for the same reason). I consider this to be minimal professionalism.

If the units under test are that variable, it is the height of unprofessionalism to only test and report on one test. If I, as a licensed PE, signed/sealed a document with that type of flaw, I would be subject to fines and/or loss of my license.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:

So to review:
1) 63 Avanti knows the answer and is just trolling...
2) He's as dumb as a post and wouldn't understand the answer even if it was presented to him...
TS

---

When lacking a real argument with stats, tests, whatever, launch the ad hominem. A review of certain persons’ posts reveal a fondness for this approach.

 

[Pablo]

63Avanti - did you read any of the other posts?

I will say this. Your thoughts are based on an assumption. And your thought process went no deeper than to question Amsoil. You just assume Amsoil is wrong.

We maybe know with some certainty that at some period of time Napa Gold began to be assembled at WIX's factory, probably still is. This does NOT mean they are identical. I fixed a time frame on this old data for you. Is this coming through to you at all?

You don't even address the other comments. Do you know how much test variability there is? Do you know how much media variability there is? You know NOTHING and you make assumptions. THAT scares me.

Lastly this is NOT from the "Amsoil site". It's from an old dealer's site. Here is Amsoil's Site

[ September 15, 2006, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Pablo ]

 

[sootyoil]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 63Avanti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
The second possibility - which is sad to contemplate - is that there are practicing engineers in the Great State of Texas who have no understanding of things like test to test variation, or the variability in manufacturing quality associated with a cheap, throw away engine part.

---

Naw, I am a licensed professional engineer (PE), but not in Automotive/Lubrication Specialties.

Part of being a good engineer is an insatiable curiosity. The original posts on the AMSOIL site had no qualifiers about potential variability in the test. The charts were suspicious for several reasons. For example, if the test to test variability explains the difference between WIX and NAPA Gold, which have been stated here several times by WIX as identical, then what IS the variability? Is the variability large enough to explain the difference between WIX and AMSOIL? For this reason, I never post results without my best shot at quantifying both alpha and beta error stats to ensure that the results are not erroneously extrapolated. (I also carefully date all data, including graphics, for the same reason). I consider this to be minimal professionalism.

If the units under test are that variable, it is the height of unprofessionalism to only test and report on one test. If I, as a licensed PE, signed/sealed a document with that type of flaw, I would be subject to fines and/or loss of my license.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:

So to review:
1) 63 Avanti knows the answer and is just trolling...
2) He's as dumb as a post and wouldn't understand the answer even if it was presented to him...
TS

---

When lacking a real argument with stats, tests, whatever, launch the ad hominem. A review of certain persons’ posts reveal a fondness for this approach.

---

hey MR. baseball bat engineer,
your words of wisdom dont show any follow through with fact's It is easy enough to question advertising, especially Amsoil asvertising, but to throw some common sense into the diamond you need BALLS. something you forgot to bring to the BALL PARK.
Maybe if you said something like I purchased some of the products and the products looked of poor quality something to that nature yes maybe some may hear your side but you didn't do that

instead you only question one product based on two other product's tested more than 10 yrs ago.

where was your license issued to you at and for what? this should be interresting

 

[LargeCarMan]

Quote from Gary:

"..and my main point of the comment was to suggest why the Wix and NAPA GOLD appeared to vary in performance to such a significant degree. They should have been nearly identical. That leads me to believe that there was cherry picked results from a mulititude of tests."

With that being said, I am sure many of you will remember when car manufactures rated their own cars for crash tests. I remember the gentleman whom started the (Institute of Highway Safety Crash Tests) funded by insurance company's and a non-profit company. It now, (the Institute) is the main stream for crash tests data and ratings.

Gary...I agree with your thought on this matter!

 

[TooSlick]

63Avanti,

As I suspected, you already knew the answer. So why not just come out and present the argument?

I totally agree they should post the accuracy/repeatability of these tests. I'm sure they would if this was presented in a peer reviewed technical paper. However the average consumer looking at this data doesn't have a clue how to interpret engineering data, so they keep it simple.

If you're interested, you can download the test procedures for SAE tests and ASTM tests off their respective websites. However they charge a fair amount to do this.

I do know this test uses a weighted mixture of 1-40 um, "AC Fine Dust". I don't recall the actual particle size distribution, except that 55% of the particles by weight are < 20 um. I'd suspect that there's some variation on how well this material is dispersed in the oil sump on every test run. So even the exact same filter media would load up slightly differently each time and this could change the "as-tested" capacity/efficiency. Combine that with variations in the manufacturing quality of the respective filters and you get the variance you see here.

Given the accuracy of this test, I'd rate the 1st-3rd filters the same in terms of efficiency; I'd rate 4th-6th filters the same; I'd rate the 7th-8th filters the same. In terms of capacity, I'd rate the SDF the highest; I'd rate the 2nd-4th filters the same; I'd rate the 5th-6th filters the same; I'd rate the 7th-8th filters the same.

TS