Interesting claim by Amsoil

Hall said:
Not if you believe some people. Some suggest that when an oil needs to meet a "10" value for something, the oil producer hits 10.1 and calls it good. Or they need to be a "5" for something else and 5.1 it is ! Just barely squeak by.....
Click to expand...
Approved by and recommended for is two different worlds
 
TiGeo said:
If only Project Farm could answer this...Amsoil vs. HPL death match.
Click to expand...
1683641423556.png


OR VICE-VERSA
 
chris719 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I stepped away after my response yesterday.

Of course there is a balance between the formulators, the financially minded folks, and management. But that's kinda what I was talking about when I mentioned the marketability of the 'overperformance' or the cost justifications for either reducing or increasing performance.

If it is worth it, companies will likely do it. If they can't market the higher performance, it doesn't make much sense for them to spend the extra. If the higher performance in the test rig doesn't translate to the real world application, it doesn't make much sense for them to spend the extra. And the same is true for the inverse of those two things.

As a formulator, I saw it as my job to advocate for the highest performance possible. At the same time, I understood there would be compromises required due to costs and whatnot. In the end, they are businesses and financials rule the day in one way or another.
 
Last edited:
wareze said:
Approved by and recommended for is two different worlds
Click to expand...
Where did I use the word "recommended" ? If a spec requires "10" units of whatever for approval, if the product has "10" or "10.1", it would be approved. The oil producer can say they "meet or exceed" the requirements for approval too.
 
Hall said:
Where did I use the word "recommended" ? If a spec requires "10" units of whatever for approval, if the product has "10" or "10.1", it would be approved. The oil producer can say they "meet or exceed" the requirements for approval too.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you. Some oil bottles will say recommended for but not approved which means they didn't pay for the approval process but claim it meets it
 
wareze said:
I didn't say you. Some oil bottles will say recommended for but not approved which means they didn't pay for the approval process but claim it meets it
Click to expand...
I've often wondered why people will pay more for an oil that claims to meet a spec after bypassing a cheaper oil that does meet the spec and manufacturer approvals. ?
 
Pablo said:
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"
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if OE and XL lines crushes the Sequence IIIH engine test or not, or did Amsoil do the exact thing they accuse others of.
 
MSCH said:
I've often wondered why people will pay more for an oil that claims to meet a spec after bypassing a cheaper oil that does meet the spec and manufacturer approvals. ?
Click to expand...
No clue lol Alot of people on here really love the M1 EP but the Castrol Edge EP has more approvals for the same price
 
Bill7 said:
The only supercar I would ever want is an Acura NSX. There is one on youtube with 400,000 miles and still going strong (with Honda reliability). You don't see many other supercar brands ever have cars that exceed 100,000 miles. Perhaps it's due to the cost of repairs. At 21,000 for an oil change every 4k miles, it would cost $500,000 for oil changes for the first 100,000 miles LOL.
Click to expand...
Or having to send the wheels and tires to Switzerland to have new tires put on. Can’t go to the local town fair tire

I highly doubt most even make 20K miles total with their supercars. I would never buy one
 
I've used a lot of different oils over the years and regularly do a UOA on my vehicles. I do 5000 change intervals on my performance oriented cars and 10,000 mile intervals on my grocery getters. Every UOA I've gotten back says the same thing, "Looks good...extend interval if you like".

In a daily driver that isn't beaten on, the most important thing you can do is change the oil regularly. On performance engines that are pushed hard, you may be able to make an argument that a higher quality oil will offer better protection and longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
13K
weaponoffreedom
M
Centrifuging used gearbox oil increased viscosity?
Replies
4
Views
795
RDMgr
buster
What are the chances these practices go on within the oil industry?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Gene K
dnewton3
carry insurance - rates of coverage and denials obscured
Replies
4
Views
675
jhellwig
I
Down the Gear Oil rabbit hole again: for Eaton Torsen “upgrade”
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Impatient
Back
Top