When I say controlled tested, I mean approval test like Porsche, MB , VW, etc... So to say ignorance is ridiculous
As I have read on this time an time again, Brand is irrelevant if it has the approvals. But yet you are following blindly based on " trust" and no approval.
And to state a major company like Exon/Mobil would cut corners is laughable. They have deep pockets and millions of users making their libialilty exposure quite large. It is possible they could cut corners but not likely.
Show me a manufacturer approval for HPL which was my point.
My point it which has been missed HPL may be a good oil, but so are many others that get discounted because the use terms like " suitable for", recommended for. Etc.
The post was not to knock HPL but to point out the hypocrisy of some members who have become appear to have become sycophants and for some reason have abandoned their mantra of approvals matters because they "visited the faculty", " Know of or met Dr. Rudnick', " knows the owner personally", etc. While this may all be true and oil could be better than unicorn tears. It still does not mean the oil has any approvals which is I thought was Paramount to these same members in evaluation any oil.
I know I've explained this before, but I'm OK with the concept of a company taking an approved additive package (which both HPL and AMSOIL do) and then using that with a superior base oil blend and performing some (expensive) top treatment to improve certain aspects of the product.
Fundamentally, the AW chemistry present did indeed go through the testing in question, and there is direct and considerable knowledge of the constituents and base oils, and there is testing involved, so it's not similar to just using an additive to increase the quantity of a certain component.
As you know, I'm a big fan of the A3/B4 LL-01, A40, 229.5, 502/505...etc additive package and oils like M1 FS 0W-40 that carry those approvals. It's a robust suite of approvals from a variety of euro manufacturers with a focus solely on performance, since there aren't any limits on phosphorous or other constituents. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with that same additive package being blended with PAO, AN's and esters, with some additional attention given to FM performance (not part of the approvals) by one of the foremost authorities on tribology and who was behind the development of that very base oil blend. Others may not be, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But, I think it's important to note that the approach HPL has taken here is quite different from that of Redline for example, who, historically, used what appeared to be the same additive package in all the white bottle oils (Euro, PCMO, HDEO...etc), which was a racing-style chemistry with no approvals out the gate. That doesn't make it a bad product, but it does make their approach considerably different.
AMSOIL produces many actual approved products, and their approach to chemistry in their SS lineup is much more like HPL's. They've embraced Group III and GTL in their premium products however, without coming right out and saying it (and, even per Dave, Group III is not a bad choice and may even be advantageous to blend with vs PAO in some respects, depending on the grade), while HPL is very transparent on their base oil blend composition for their different product lines.
I also appreciate the lack of outrageous claims. No "this oil contains friction eliminator 9000! this isn't your grandma's chemistry, we don't just reduce wear, we ELIMINATE IT! We free those horses, STUD HORSES! SO MANY HORSES!!! BRAHHHHHHHH!!!!"
