Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
For a lack of better terms, this oil is a "decontented" version so that people who want to use Amsoil brand (either for bragging rights or some other emotional response) can still do so, and not have to spend as much money.
Of course, for normal OCIs, you can very likely get away with any "normal" oil and save even more money, but then there would be no Amsoil aura to enjoy ...
Very interested in seeing a VOA on this to see just what's "missing" from the other forumlations.
"decontented"
Wow.........are we at it again?
Glad you completely reworded your answer, some would have thought you have something against Amsoil. Your word choice of "missing" is interesting - just remember this is a CJ-4 oil so compare fairly. I doubt you will spot any thing "missing" in a $25 used oil analysis. But still we await your valuable input.
I think addyguy and mikedup1 (quoted from Amsoil as you noted) provided good early answers. Thanks.
It is marketed as a CJ-4 lube, but I already linked the official API site page that shows it's not a licensed lube. You can call it what you want, but I don't buy into the whole "misrepresenation" of calling something API approved when it's clearly not. It is a marketing strategy; nothing more or less. I fully understand that the lack of API certification and license do not make a lube inferior, but it's disingenuous to infer this is a CJ-4 lube, when it's clearly not licensed in HDEO form, and I linked that proof earlier. Unless it's been updated at the API site in the last day or so, it's more of Amsoil's marketing games. This is a product that is marketed to CJ-4 environments, but it is NOT CJ-4 approved via the entity that issues that CJ-4 license, and nothing you or Amsoil can say alters that truth. I accept it, and agree, that the lack of API certification does not make this a bad oil; it is likely a very good oil. What this comes down to is the fact that Amsoil calls this a CJ-4 lube, but the issuing entity does not. Amsoil takes "poetic license" in the use of the API term. Nothing new here. And, to be fair, they are certainly not the only one to use this marketing approach. But, to be sure, this is NOT a "API CJ-4 licensed" lube. I would say this is a non-licensed product aimed at a licensed market; that is 100% accurate, nothing more or less.
As for the "decontented" comment, I stand by it. It's a generic description. I have not seen the VOAs yet, but I am comfortable in the presumtion that the product is not the same (either in base stocks or add-pack, or both) than some of their other more "premium" offerings such as DEO, etc. If nothing else, the reduction of OCI duration is a "decontented" conceptual characteristic contrasted to the other products, is it not? What would be your basis that you presume it's NOT "decontented"? If this product is not "decontented", then what would be the logic to sell a product that would be (essentially) the same as their other products, but at a lesser cost? Would that not erode the sales of the other products such as DEO, etc?
Or, perhaps just the opposite it true? Mabye this product is 100% the same as all the other HDEOs they have, but they are going after sales from a different angle. Perhaps they want people to buy MORE Amsoil by making the OCIs no greater than other "normal" oils, and that drives up their proffit margin by getting higher volume sales via greater frequency of purchases; in essence, the volume increase overcomes the lower price point? I don't know what the answer is; I didn't sit in the marketing meetings; I wasn't invited.
I applaud Amsoil for now exploring a market niche they previously ignored; that's good business. I HIGHLY suspect this new product is decontented in one or more areas. But I certainly agree that does not make it unworthy of the intended application.
I think it's fair to contend that all Amsoil's products will be capable of fully protecting against wear for the intended OCI. IOW - for the stated OCI limit, any Amsoil product will provide at least a minimum wear protection that would assure a very safe and healthy long life of the equipment. Amsoil has too good of a product reputation to risk putting out a product that would result in poor wear performance.
Here's what I know for sure by viewing the Amsoil site:
* the OE HDEO price is about 33% less than the other HDEO products they offer
* the OCI is 66% lower (a 1x factor vs. a 3x factor)
So, conceptually, I lose 66% capability (defined as the loss of OCI, but with no risk in wear protection) but only save about 33% money? I lose 2/3 of the OCI, but only save roughly 1/3 the money, for the same wear protection. For the sake of your side of the debate, let's say there is zero difference in base stock and add-pack. Even the OCI reduction is a "decontented" characteristic. I save 33% money, but loose 66% of capability in OCI? That, in my mind, is a "reduction of content". Why? Because when I pay for any product, I consider the actual performance of the product as part of the "content". The resulting "effects" of the use of a product are most certainly what I am paying for. In fact, that is my typical contention with the whole "dino vs syn" debate anyway. Syns are great products, but only if you use them in a manner that exceeds the break-even point vs some other option. And performance (wear reduction, cold cranking, life span, etc) are a BIG part of that "content" that I pay for. In fact, I am MUCH more concerned about RESULTS than I am VOAs. I'm sure this OE oil from Amsoil results in good wear protection at normal OCIs. Contrasted to the other lubes from Amsoil, if I pay a little less money for a lot less OCI, that is a loss of content, and if you cannot see that, then you and I simply don't agree on how to measure the value of life's offerings. This OE oil prouduct in HDEO form offers 2/3 less OCI for only 1/3 less money. Is that not a loss of content?
And I admit I have no proof, but I VERY MUCH SUSPECT that Amsoil ALSO reduced the factors that put cost into the oil, such as lesser cost base stocks, additives, etc. It would be foolish of Amsoil to NOT reduce their cost factors in this product, would it not? So the reality is that we KNOW there is a loss of content in regard to OCI versus cost, and at least some of us suspect there is also a physical elemental input reduction as well.
This is a good market strategy for Amsoil. They make more money via higher sales frequency for a product that will very likely provide no more wear protection than a competing oil over normal operations in OEM OCIs, and quite possibly costs them less money to make due to the likely reduction of physical inputs.
Hmm,some valid points that are only answered by
A) being a hater
B) being a hater thats also a MOD
???????????????????????????????????????????????
