Interesting claim by Amsoil

[buster]

I'm not trying to stir up an argument here, but this caught my attention. This is not the first time I've read something like this.

https://blog.amsoil.com/amsoil-crushes-sequence-iiih-engine-test/

"When a competitor’s oil easily passes an industry-standard test, they often reformulate to reduce cost and performance to where it barely passes the test."

 

[chris719]

This has always been my concern with the majors. If you’re a product manager for one and your engineers tell you that they could cost reduce your product but still pass all required tests, you do it and then cite it as evidence for a promotion or raise. Since there is zero published data comparing actual oil performance, what incentive is there to crush the tests unless that’s your angle like most of the boutique vendors?
I’m sure the flagship oils are passing by good margins, but it’s kind of crazy there’s no source of actual performance data on motor oils.

 

[SuperSalad]

That would entirely depend on the cost difference and what quantitative benefit there is to "crushing" a spec.

 

[Zee09]

Yeah ain't that the truth on just about everything made these days. I would think Amsoil has a big enough profit margin to carry onward I would hope.

 

[kschachn]

Pretty much the typical nonsense where you say how well your product performed (including an unsubstantiated and spurious claim about reformulation) yet they include no comparative test results for those competitors. From what was written it is possible some competitor products could have done just as well or even better than the Amsoil product.

I suppose if it wows the crowd then what does it matter if it is short on substance? Not to disparage Amsoil but it's they that are making comparisons to other brands yet offer nothing in comparison.

 

[SuperSalad]

Let me clarify a bit of what I said above.

If an oil I formulated 'crushed' a spec, I would not dumb it down to 'just good enough' unless: it meant significant cost savings (as well as having no off-setting benefit for marketing the oil);

or, if it only meant a marginal cost savings, but beating the test did not translate to any real world benefit to the user.

 

[tessaseveride]

Just more baseless marketing.

 

[KGMtech]

Is it just me, or does this thread smell of conspiracy theory?

 

[buster]

Is it just me, or does this thread smell of conspiracy theory?

LOL maybe a little bit

 

[chris719]

Let me clarify a bit of what I said above.

If an oil I formulated 'crushed' a spec, I would not dumb it down to 'just good enough' unless: it meant significant cost savings (as well as having no off-setting benefit for marketing the oil);

or, if it only meant a marginal cost savings, but beating the test did not translate to any real world benefit to the user.

Do you always control that? I'm an engineer in another field and frequently see groups get interfered with to cost "optimize" designs.

It would be great if there were publicly available test data on oils, especially things like race oils or oils that claim to go beyond OEM specifications. For the most part the specs obviate the need, but it would be nice.

 

[Passport1]

Sports analogy; All you need is one more run/point/goal than the other team for a win.

 

[Pablo]

I'm not trying to stir up an argument here, but this caught my attention. This is not the first time I've read something like this.

https://blog.amsoil.com/amsoil-crushes-sequence-iiih-engine-test/

"When a competitor’s oil easily passes an industry-standard test, they often reformulate to reduce cost and performance to where it barely passes the test."

It's not baseless, it IS true - but such statements can never be standalone.

It's part of formulation in most any industry. If you are ,say, a formulating chemist, you won't go to the boss with something that knocks it out of the park and cost $100/qt. Products need to be within a given set of parameters and cost IS a parameter.

If I had written such a thing, I would have added, something like; "...however most reputable blenders leave enough margin that satisfies the requirement in the finished product"

 

[buster]

I have to hand it to Amsoil though, they give you: Seq IIIH, Seq IVA, GM Turbo, LSPI and Noack volatility figures.

 

[UG_Passat]

Pretty much the typical nonsense where you say how well your product performed (including an unsubstantiated and spurious claim about reformulation) yet they include no comparative test results for those competitors. From what was written it is possible some competitor products could have done just as well or even better than the Amsoil product.

I suppose if it wows the crowd then what does it matter if it is short on substance? Not to disparage Amsoil but it's they that are making comparisons to other brands yet offer nothing in comparison.

If you compare to the competitors, then there are always concerns of Amsoil purposely rigging the test samples to show their superiority. This is why they compare it to the test sequence only.

Amsoil is a medium size business, not a large business like Exxon-Mobil, BP, etc, so they don't have shareholders to keep happy to maximize profits.

 

[buster]

An engineer I once knew that worked for an oil company in the 80's/90's told me that they would advertise higher detergency in their fuels when marketing a new gasoline, but then lower the detergent levels to regular without reducing the price. Essentially, they were fraudulent. And there would be no way for a customer buying it to know. Things like that infuriate me.

 

[Zee09]

By the way Pabby has been eating lately, I knew something was up

 

[Brian123]

I'm not trying to stir up an argument here, but this caught my attention. This is not the first time I've read something like this.

https://blog.amsoil.com/amsoil-crushes-sequence-iiih-engine-test/

"When a competitor’s oil easily passes an industry-standard test, they often reformulate to reduce cost and performance to where it barely passes the test."

Buster, you are onto something here, and my next oil that I use will be HPL. If a company is doing a test it will show there product 2 be the best. We had a member here who was using Amsoil Signature Series and then started using HPL's oil and they saw carbon material in there oil filter. We have had other members who have used various synthetic oils and they have reported seeing carbon deposits in there oil filters after using HPL. We have also seen where various synthetic oils have looked good on paper and then they were cheapened later.

 

[OilUzer]

Speaking of the price, I'm letting their marketing team know that if they reduced the price of SS 10w30 to $8/qt, they will get one more customer.

I can use it in one my cars instead of the $6/qt Valvoline Extended Protection that its been getting.

 

[wpod]

Since the 1970's Amsoil has always reported it exceeded the specs. That being said most any mid to upper tier oil will have a properly maintained engine out last the trans or chassis. Barring any mechanical difficulties that oil will not help

 

[Malo83]

Just more baseless marketing.

Exactly.