Interesting endorsements from four large automakers.
Not really a contraction, just an abreviation. It's roughly the equivalent of "Incorporated" and "Inc."quote:
Originally posted by Ray H:
Oh, OK, so then Mercedes-Benz AG is merely a contraction of Mercedes-Benz Actiengesellschaft? Thanks for clearing that up, but, upon reviewing your initial response . . . Freakin'!
The source has already been posted: It's in the very first post in this thread.quote:
Originally posted by Ray H:
Since you neglected to post a link to your source,
Ray, I'm not attacking re-refined oil, but I smell a fish here. Maybe the letters aren't fraudulent, but they're certainly outdated. Check this link, from a US Military web site. There is an exact reprint of that letter, dated 12/1/1994. There's also a letter from Ford dated 9/9/1994. There's no date on the Chrysler letter, but I'd suspect the same time frame. I'd like to see a more-recent recommendation than that, considering how technology changes. Having said that, if they show the API starburst and meet GM6049M, GM should be OK with it for its current vehicles. It wouldn't be my choice, but it would be a valid one.quote:
Originally posted by Ray H:
So, Matt, do you have unambiguous evidence to dispute those letter reprints? Are you implying that the use of re-refined motor oil is really forbidden under the terms of the powertrain warranties and that neither GM nor Mercedes-Benz use some percentage of re-refined oil as factory fill? [snip]