Provide your own links. Any I would provide would be argued endlessly for their validity anyway. Depending on whose info you believe M1 had a tick over 60% of the market in 2000. From one report alone it is estimated that Castrol's Syntec product alone has dented M1's share by double digits. If the market share was not being impacted by "boutique" and mainstream synthetic products you would not see a new synthetic oil product pop up almost monthly. Do you really think for a second M1 would have produced the "extended life" 15K mile oil were it not for losses they were feeling to others such as Amsoil? This product has 50% more "supersyn" than the regular M1 offering. Maybe Supersyn is a $10 word for PAO.
Rigorous Field Testing
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I was surprised how much real world, rigorous testing Amsoil did on Toyota engines. They opened a LOT of oil filters after long OCI's.
To imply that an oil is inferior, or that the company doesn't do "Rigorous Field Testing" because they use a 4 ball test bench test as just one test is disingenuous and shady.
Was that before or after toyota owners were experiencing low oil pressure warning lights and serious problems due to the EAO filters not holding up to annual change intervals and therefor Amsoil shortening their filter change times or discontinuing offering eao filters for certain toyotas?
I was surprised how much real world, rigorous testing Amsoil did on Toyota engines. They opened a LOT of oil filters after long OCI's.
To imply that an oil is inferior, or that the company doesn't do "Rigorous Field Testing" because they use a 4 ball test bench test as just one test is disingenuous and shady.
Was that before or after toyota owners were experiencing low oil pressure warning lights and serious problems due to the EAO filters not holding up to annual change intervals and therefor Amsoil shortening their filter change times or discontinuing offering eao filters for certain toyotas?
Originally Posted By: buster
Put it this way, if your oil was not performing superior on the 4-ball wear test for over 7 years,(based on Amsoil advertising) wouldn't you have fixed it?
I wouldn't, unless that test had a well-documented and useful relationship to how my oils would perform in the real world that my real-world testing wasn't catching.
Put it this way, if your oil was not performing superior on the 4-ball wear test for over 7 years,(based on Amsoil advertising) wouldn't you have fixed it?
I wouldn't, unless that test had a well-documented and useful relationship to how my oils would perform in the real world that my real-world testing wasn't catching.
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I was surprised how much real world, rigorous testing Amsoil did on Toyota engines. They opened a LOT of oil filters after long OCI's.
To imply that an oil is inferior, or that the company doesn't do "Rigorous Field Testing" because they use a 4 ball test bench test as just one test is disingenuous and shady.
Was that before or after toyota owners were experiencing low oil pressure warning lights and serious problems due to the EAO filters not holding up to annual change intervals and therefor Amsoil shortening their filter change times or discontinuing offering eao filters for certain toyotas?
Before and during (to confirm), that's why they issued the warnings.
It wasn't annual change intervals, it was at the end of 25K intervals.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I was surprised how much real world, rigorous testing Amsoil did on Toyota engines. They opened a LOT of oil filters after long OCI's.
To imply that an oil is inferior, or that the company doesn't do "Rigorous Field Testing" because they use a 4 ball test bench test as just one test is disingenuous and shady.
Was that before or after toyota owners were experiencing low oil pressure warning lights and serious problems due to the EAO filters not holding up to annual change intervals and therefor Amsoil shortening their filter change times or discontinuing offering eao filters for certain toyotas?
Before and during (to confirm), that's why they issued the warnings.
It wasn't annual change intervals, it was at the end of 25K intervals.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: buster
Put it this way, if your oil was not performing superior on the 4-ball wear test for over 7 years,(based on Amsoil advertising) wouldn't you have fixed it?
I wouldn't, unless that test had a well-documented and useful relationship to how my oils would perform in the real world that my real-world testing wasn't catching.
Right that is what I meant. They haven't so it apparently doesn't mean much.
Originally Posted By: buster
Put it this way, if your oil was not performing superior on the 4-ball wear test for over 7 years,(based on Amsoil advertising) wouldn't you have fixed it?
I wouldn't, unless that test had a well-documented and useful relationship to how my oils would perform in the real world that my real-world testing wasn't catching.
Right that is what I meant. They haven't so it apparently doesn't mean much.
Hi,
buster - I would have to disagree with you - Mobil are very poor Markets IME
I have had extensive field testing exerience with four Major Oil Companies (two in Particular) that extends back several decades. The field tesing included various engine Manufacturers and engines types and configurations!
Lubricants do get released prematurely from time to time (the original GC Formula SLX 0w30 was one IMO) and others fail to meet expectations and need constant up grade AFTER extensive field tesing in the hands of users!
Personally that is why I stay clear of those products promoted by some on here as the answer to all and sundry - no magic lubricants are yet available - anywhere!
Castrol (especially before being hobbled by BP) produced some very enduring and great products - and some bombs too. They had always been good Global marketers (via Burmah) because they ONLY sold lubricants. Motor sport was their field!! BP now capitalise on that. That said, the level of field testing still done by Castrol is quite amazing. The level of TV advertising here is at an all time high too (OZ users may remember Formula SLX 0w30 (GC) in the mid 1990s?) - the Edge range however seems to be a good one
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world. That is eventually shown in the longevity and durability of it and the components it is meant to lubricate - extensive pre release field testing helps immensely
API and more importantly the ACEA test protocols are an excellent performamce base line. Many use engine "donkeys" that were hard on lubricants so results can be quantified from user inspired field testing. I believe all lubricants should be tested-certified to either or both Standards as a prerequiste to sale Worldwide! However, the Manufacturer's tests are where its actually at - now more so than when CAT started it all off in the late 1930s!
And a question - funny isn't it that the World's owners of DI petrol engines are not being asked to return them en-mass for Warranty modifications! And those out of Warranty just keep on going..........!
buster - I would have to disagree with you - Mobil are very poor Markets IME
I have had extensive field testing exerience with four Major Oil Companies (two in Particular) that extends back several decades. The field tesing included various engine Manufacturers and engines types and configurations!
Lubricants do get released prematurely from time to time (the original GC Formula SLX 0w30 was one IMO) and others fail to meet expectations and need constant up grade AFTER extensive field tesing in the hands of users!
Personally that is why I stay clear of those products promoted by some on here as the answer to all and sundry - no magic lubricants are yet available - anywhere!
Castrol (especially before being hobbled by BP) produced some very enduring and great products - and some bombs too. They had always been good Global marketers (via Burmah) because they ONLY sold lubricants. Motor sport was their field!! BP now capitalise on that. That said, the level of field testing still done by Castrol is quite amazing. The level of TV advertising here is at an all time high too (OZ users may remember Formula SLX 0w30 (GC) in the mid 1990s?) - the Edge range however seems to be a good one
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world. That is eventually shown in the longevity and durability of it and the components it is meant to lubricate - extensive pre release field testing helps immensely
API and more importantly the ACEA test protocols are an excellent performamce base line. Many use engine "donkeys" that were hard on lubricants so results can be quantified from user inspired field testing. I believe all lubricants should be tested-certified to either or both Standards as a prerequiste to sale Worldwide! However, the Manufacturer's tests are where its actually at - now more so than when CAT started it all off in the late 1930s!
And a question - funny isn't it that the World's owners of DI petrol engines are not being asked to return them en-mass for Warranty modifications! And those out of Warranty just keep on going..........!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world.
LOL that's hysterical! Doug, I genuinely enjoy your voice of reason on here.
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world.
LOL that's hysterical! Doug, I genuinely enjoy your voice of reason on here.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world. That is eventually shown in the longevity and durability of it and the components it is meant to lubricate - extensive pre release field testing helps immensely
Of course it does. I was just giving an example of how many engines including the filters were examined - in cars and trucks used in REAL world testing. Finding the filters quite full of debris, in multiple engines and multiple oils used, was quite eye opening. I think you knew that.
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world. That is eventually shown in the longevity and durability of it and the components it is meant to lubricate - extensive pre release field testing helps immensely
Of course it does. I was just giving an example of how many engines including the filters were examined - in cars and trucks used in REAL world testing. Finding the filters quite full of debris, in multiple engines and multiple oils used, was quite eye opening. I think you knew that.
Hi,
Pablo - I may have even cut open as many filters as Amsoil did....?
You know the point I was making and it is very clear that rigorous field testing is a systemetic process that rarely includes cutting open filters! It will usually include engine (or component) tear downs though!!
Pablo - I may have even cut open as many filters as Amsoil did....?
You know the point I was making and it is very clear that rigorous field testing is a systemetic process that rarely includes cutting open filters! It will usually include engine (or component) tear downs though!!
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world.
LOL that's hysterical! Doug, I genuinely enjoy your voice of reason on here.
Even though our motor oil is the most expensive in the world, we simply can't afford to have it certified. Instead we cut open 10 oil filters, which leading experts in the field agree is a more accurate indicator of performance. After extensive analysis we concluded that we should cut open another 10 oil filters.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world.
LOL that's hysterical! Doug, I genuinely enjoy your voice of reason on here.
Even though our motor oil is the most expensive in the world, we simply can't afford to have it certified. Instead we cut open 10 oil filters, which leading experts in the field agree is a more accurate indicator of performance. After extensive analysis we concluded that we should cut open another 10 oil filters.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world.
LOL that's hysterical! Doug, I genuinely enjoy your voice of reason on here.
Even though our motor oil is the most expensive in the world, we simply can't afford to have it certified. Instead we cut open 10 oil filters, which leading experts in the field agree is a more accurate indicator of performance. After extensive analysis we concluded that we should cut open another 10 oil filters.
Product cost is not related to revenue or profit.
Gonna lump Redline and Royal Purple in there too, they cost more?
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Lab tests alone (or cutting open filters on Toyotas? (Pablo)) is NOT a true measure of the lubricant's performance in the real world.
LOL that's hysterical! Doug, I genuinely enjoy your voice of reason on here.
Even though our motor oil is the most expensive in the world, we simply can't afford to have it certified. Instead we cut open 10 oil filters, which leading experts in the field agree is a more accurate indicator of performance. After extensive analysis we concluded that we should cut open another 10 oil filters.
Product cost is not related to revenue or profit.
Gonna lump Redline and Royal Purple in there too, they cost more?
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Product cost is not related to revenue or profit.
Gonna lump Redline and Royal Purple in there too, they cost more?
Bob, it's meant as a joke. A little entertainment is a good lubricant too don't you think?
Product cost is not related to revenue or profit.
Gonna lump Redline and Royal Purple in there too, they cost more?
Bob, it's meant as a joke. A little entertainment is a good lubricant too don't you think?
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Pablo - I may have even cut open as many filters as Amsoil did....?
You know the point I was making and it is very clear that rigorous field testing is a systemetic process that rarely includes cutting open filters! It will usually include engine (or component) tear downs though!!
Indeed it does, Doug indeed it does. And you know the point I was making, sometimes field testing goes beyond the conventional. Going the extra distance during field testing to assure your customer a quality product.
Hi,
Pablo - I may have even cut open as many filters as Amsoil did....?
You know the point I was making and it is very clear that rigorous field testing is a systemetic process that rarely includes cutting open filters! It will usually include engine (or component) tear downs though!!
Indeed it does, Doug indeed it does. And you know the point I was making, sometimes field testing goes beyond the conventional. Going the extra distance during field testing to assure your customer a quality product.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Product cost is not related to revenue or profit.
Gonna lump Redline and Royal Purple in there too, they cost more?
Bob, it's meant as a joke. A little entertainment is a good lubricant too don't you think?
Ah sorry, yes it is. Hard to tell serious from joking with just text without using emoitcons.
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Product cost is not related to revenue or profit.
Gonna lump Redline and Royal Purple in there too, they cost more?
Bob, it's meant as a joke. A little entertainment is a good lubricant too don't you think?
Ah sorry, yes it is. Hard to tell serious from joking with just text without using emoitcons.
Hi,
Pablo - You said this:
"And you know the point I was making, sometimes field testing goes beyond the conventional. Going the extra distance during field testing to assure your customer a quality product."
Cutting open filters "...beyond the conventional..."and "...going the extra distance..." ? - now that would surely have included an accurate particle analysis then. Any results??
Pablo - You said this:
"And you know the point I was making, sometimes field testing goes beyond the conventional. Going the extra distance during field testing to assure your customer a quality product."
Cutting open filters "...beyond the conventional..."and "...going the extra distance..." ? - now that would surely have included an accurate particle analysis then. Any results??
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Pablo - You said this:
"And you know the point I was making, sometimes field testing goes beyond the conventional. Going the extra distance during field testing to assure your customer a quality product."
Cutting open filters "...beyond the conventional..."and "...going the extra distance..." ? - now that would surely have included an accurate particle analysis then. Any results??
Yes, it sure did. Yes, they have results.
Hi,
Pablo - You said this:
"And you know the point I was making, sometimes field testing goes beyond the conventional. Going the extra distance during field testing to assure your customer a quality product."
Cutting open filters "...beyond the conventional..."and "...going the extra distance..." ? - now that would surely have included an accurate particle analysis then. Any results??
Yes, it sure did. Yes, they have results.
Hi,
Pablo - Why didn't the filter supplier carry out durability tests - surely Amsoil is only the marketer?
Were they Donaldson filters, and was the problem a "media" collapse issue?
Can't wait to see the particle analysis results - bring them on!
Pablo - Why didn't the filter supplier carry out durability tests - surely Amsoil is only the marketer?
Were they Donaldson filters, and was the problem a "media" collapse issue?
Can't wait to see the particle analysis results - bring them on!
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Pablo - Why didn't the filter supplier carry out durability tests - surely Amsoil is only the marketer?
Were they Donaldson filters, and was the problem a "media" collapse issue?
Can't wait to see the particle analysis results - bring them on!
Not sure if WIX or Clarcor or Donaldson were involved. Amsoil is more than a "marketer".
No media collapse. The problem was a Toyota problem.
Tech Service Bulletin
Hi,
Pablo - Why didn't the filter supplier carry out durability tests - surely Amsoil is only the marketer?
Were they Donaldson filters, and was the problem a "media" collapse issue?
Can't wait to see the particle analysis results - bring them on!
Not sure if WIX or Clarcor or Donaldson were involved. Amsoil is more than a "marketer".
No media collapse. The problem was a Toyota problem.
Tech Service Bulletin
Hi,
Pablo - Love to see the particle analysis.........
Pablo - Love to see the particle analysis.........
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked