Originally Posted By: Pablo
Specifications are minimums, and by sticking with a spec you are sometimes safe yes, but not optimum.
So, the spec represents that the oil at least meets the minimum standard... I agree there. But how then would a person do better by using an oil that has not proven that it meets the minimum requirements?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I think any oil company in business for 20-30+ years that recommends an oil for an application sure just like ALL oil companies want to sell oil (yeah the guys with specs don't!) - however they are not going to recommend a SUPERIOR oil without: a) knowing the specification and b) testing to the specification. The oil companies won't stick their necks out like that.
Well, I think we can all agree that longevity in business these days proves nothing more than your marketing, accounting, and legal departments are earning their wages. That aside, if the companies that recommend the oil where a spec is required have actually tested to the spec then why not go ahead and get the official "real deal." Surely a company that has been in business for 20-30+ years can afford to pay the licensing. To simply believe what you are saying about "recommended" oils is to have faith in an oil company. I'd rather not.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Maybe you can cite some examples where "recommended for use" was inferior?
No, but every lubricant that says 'recommended for use' may be cited as an example of a company using a legal loophole to trick a consumer ignorant of such jargon into believing that their product officially meets specs that it in fact does not.