Royal Purple now dexos1 certified, no Amsoil???!!

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: salesrep
My post clearly says,compliant.


Nothing against Schaeffer's but there's a big difference between compliant and certified.

Certified means the manufacturer, GM in this case, certifies that this engine oil is compliant with the specifications GM has established for their engines. Compliant means that Schaeffer's Manufacturing states that their engine oil is compliant with the specifications GM has established for their engines.


So if I read this correctly Schaffer's says their oil is compliant, and GM said nothing at all about it?

 

[salesrep]

I am confused. Schaeffers doesn't claim certified or licensed. Clearly stating their oil is Compliant. Compliant is defined by Merriam Webster : agreeing with a set of rules, standards, or requirements.
It is that simple. One can choose to believe Schaeffer ( or not), that their oil is compliant OR IN OTHER WORDS, meets or exceeds OEM specs.
Schaeffer has a stellar reputation in the marketplace and this oil is run in thousands of cars without any oil related failures.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
I am confused. Schaeffers doesn't claim certified or licensed. Clearly stating their oil is Compliant. Compliant is defined by Merriam Webster : agreeing with a set of rules, standards, or requirements.
It is that simple. One can choose to believe Schaeffer ( or not), that their oil is compliant OR IN OTHER WORDS, meets or exceeds OEM specs.
Schaeffer has a stellar reputation in the marketplace and this oil is run in thousands of cars without any oil related failures.

While under warranty I'll stick with Certified and Licensed, its easier, at least for me.

 

[ExMachina]

salesrep will never admit to getting it: The real world requires some kind of independent 3rd party proof. Just common sense. Nobody knows if Schaeffer actually ran the dexos tests, or if its just a "yeah, we probably meet dexos we think".

 

[Tom NJ]

I have seen several brands that either use a Dexos approved additive package or have run the Dexos tests, but choose not to pay GM for the right to display the Dexos certification mark. Such brands instead state that their oils "meet the requirements of..." or "are recommended for (or are compliant with...)" Dexos, which is a legitimate claim provided the tests were done and passed. Of course without the official Dexos certification mark one is trusting the integrity of the oil manufacturer.

Tom NJ

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in nearly every case, when an oil says they are SN GF-5 for example, then ILSAC & API hold some kind of proof from an independent certified lab.



No, and let's be careful of the language here and not do "group" piling."

From the Mobil Website:

Quote:


Specifications and approvals

Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-30 synthetic motor oil meets or exceeds the requirements of:
ILSAC GF-5
API SN, SM, SL, SJ
ACEA A1/B1
Ford WSS-M2C946-A
Ford WSS-M2C929-A
Honda HTO-06
Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-30 has the following builder approvals:
General Motors dexos1™ (license number GB1B0216015)
According to ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W-30 is of the following quality level:
General Motors 4718M
General Motors 6094M
API CF


Another Oil:

Quote:
SAE 5W-30 meets and exceeds the following
specifications and manufacturers’ requirements: MIL-PRF-46152E; CID A-A-52039B, API Service Classification SN, Resource Conserving; ILSAC GF-5;


If the oil has the API and/or dexos approvals and certifications, then the labeling can reflect that with the dexos logo or the API starburst or the ILSAC statement.

You CAN claim the oil meets or exceeds certain specifications without certification and testing, but the labeling cannot contain or reflect the dexos or API or ILSAC certifications.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
salesrep will never admit to getting it: The real world requires some kind of independent 3rd party proof. Just common sense. Nobody knows if Schaeffer actually ran the dexos tests, or if its just a "yeah, we probably meet dexos we think".


Ridiculous. How do you know what salesrep is going to say in the future?


We're relying on a number of things even when Mobil says what they say.

1. They actually did the testing and,

2. hold the certification papers,

3. have testing results in their files,

3. relying on the company's reputation, experience, and history.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

You CAN claim the oil meets or exceeds certain specifications without certification and testing, but the labeling cannot contain or reflect the dexos or API or ILSAC certifications.


Exactly you can claim anything you want, [although you won't get the label] in which case the buyer of said product puts his faith and trust in the company. There can be instances where such products are actually better, although that would be tough and expensive to prove. Schaeffer's has a great reputation and I doubt it would harm an engine.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Has Schaeffer and Amsoil actually run the dexos tests? Likely not. They won't tell, only confusing misleading language coming from the sales literature.


Not that I ever want to agree with you in this case I have to.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: salesrep
My post clearly says,compliant.


Why yes of course it does. You posted the marketing statement to a question about certification in an attempt to obfuscate the truth of the matter.

You would have gotten a lot more mileage out of your post had you clearly explained what "compliant" meant, a lot of people would not have a problem running such an oil based on the seller's reputation - as do many people with Amsoil. But that's not what you meant in your post, nor implied.
.

Exactly.

You copy and paste like you are trying to prove your point,but in doing that you actually prove otherwise.

Funny actually. In trying to make your point hoping no one would notice you actually prove the opposite,but play it off like you meant it.

You should be a politician. Talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Has Schaeffer and Amsoil actually run the dexos tests? Likely not. They won't tell, only confusing misleading language coming from the sales literature.


And this is where, IMO, that marketing departments can obfuscate and confuse an oil's coverage of claimed applications, in spite of the fact that the oil may well "meet or exceed" specifications.

The average Joe probably doesn't have the knowledge, or may even care, about the oil as long as it has the "colloquial" language in the literature or on the bottle, and as long as it meets the "grade" in his user's manual, assuming he has ever read the "FLUIDS" section.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
salesrep will never admit to getting it: The real world requires some kind of independent 3rd party proof. Just common sense. Nobody knows if Schaeffer actually ran the dexos tests, or if its just a "yeah, we probably meet dexos we think".


Ridiculous. How do you know what salesrep is going to say in the future?


We're relying on a number of things even when Mobil says what they say.

1. They actually did the testing and,

2. hold the certification papers,

3. have testing results in their files,

3. relying on the company's reputation, experience, and history.


Here's a quiz to go along with Molecule's comments:

Which oil company has been caught selling oil that did not met the certifications they claimed?

A. Schaeffer
B. Mobil
C. Ashland
D. Amsoil
E. Amsoil and Schaeffer
F. Mobil and Ashland

Ed

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Nobody knows if Schaeffer actually ran the dexos tests, or if its just a "yeah, we probably meet dexos we think".

It's simple. If you don't trust the product, don't buy it. If you do trust that it would meet dexos1 standards, without an official license, go right ahead.

 

[ExMachina]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Nobody knows if Schaeffer actually ran the dexos tests, or if its just a "yeah, we probably meet dexos we think".

It's simple. If you don't trust the product, don't buy it. If you do trust that it would meet dexos1 standards, without an official license, go right ahead.


Instead of just only saying "dexos1 compliant" they should put an asterisk by it and say "We don't have any proof of this with any papers filed with and inspected by the API or ILSAC as its usually done in the industry, nor GM, nor any other independent authority for verification, and we won't tell you which lab we used, our own lab or an independent lab."

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
I am confused. Schaeffers doesn't claim certified or licensed. Clearly stating their oil is Compliant. Compliant is defined by Merriam Webster : agreeing with a set of rules, standards, or requirements.
It is that simple. One can choose to believe Schaeffer ( or not), that their oil is compliant OR IN OTHER WORDS, meets or exceeds OEM specs.
Schaeffer has a stellar reputation in the marketplace and this oil is run in thousands of cars without any oil related failures.

Out of everything you said, the last thing I think you are is confused.

 

[Garak]

I don't think any oil company is going to say all that, and if GM isn't worried about it, no one else is going to go after them, unless they were well outside of SN/GF-5 and got the PQIA in a ruffle.

 

[Snoman002]

Well, remember, if an oil claims to meet or exceed a certain certification (without actually paying for said certification) they do open themselves up for a lawsuit. It may be difficult to prove, but if there is a oil related failure (or fringe case) the consumer could push the issue.

Now, who has 10k to drop on a bunch of testing to prove the oil they were using didn't meet the specification it said it did?

 

[userfriendly]

So in other words, an oil company can state in their sales literature that a HDMO 0W40 meets or exceeds CJ-4/SM, but the API logo is not displayed on the product container, then the oil is neither certified or licensed?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Snoman002
Well, remember, if an oil claims to meet or exceed a certain certification (without actually paying for said certification) they do open themselves up for a lawsuit. It may be difficult to prove, but if there is a oil related failure (or fringe case) the consumer could push the issue.

Now, who has 10k to drop on a bunch of testing to prove the oil they were using didn't meet the specification it said it did?


No worries about a law suit at all for an oil mfg as long as the oil actually does meet or exceed the spec and trust me they know if it does or not before saying so. As long as what they have claimed is true they are not subject to being sued over it.

No company, in their right mind, is going to claim something untrue. If they do then they are stupid and won't be in business very long. You can pretty well bet the farm that a name brand oil company like Mobil, SOPUS, Ashland, Conoco-Phillips, etc... and even name brand boutique oils like RP, Redline, Schaefers, etc... know what the spec is and know how their oil tests out under it if they claim it meets/exceeds.

If an engine fails using an oil that only claims to meet/exceed vs being officially certified, and the car mfg denies the claim saying it doesn't meet the spec, you can bet your last dollar when you go to the oil company looking to get your engine fixed they will have the documentation ready to show you their oil does in fact meet and/or exceed the spec in question as they claim. It will be up to the car mfg to prove it doesn't via testing. They can't just say it isn't certified so denied. Meets/exceeds in the US satisfies all legal requirements as long as it actually does.

If a name brand well known oil company tells me their oil meets such and such a spec I tend to believe them because it would be too risky for them to claim it if untrue. Does that mean it can't be false? No, some oil companies have lied certainly. I could name a big one that did about API certification it did not have but I don't want to rile up that brands fans. Even being officially certified and on the list is no guarantee though. All that means is on the day the test was conducted the oil submitted for testing passed.

I think it was Castrol GTX a few years ago that was tested for a certain spec( might have been API spec but can't remember specifics ), got certified, but then had it pulled because random testing of bottles on the shelf later showed it no longer met the spec due to a reformulation( they quickly corrected it and I feel it was a good faith error and not intentional ). So again, certification doesn't always mean much although it is safer for you the consumer of course.

IMO, people get too hung up on "official" certification. If the oil mfg claims it meets/exceeds that is all you need legally. All you need to do is decide if you trust that oil mfg. As long as it is a name brand with a well established reputation I will. To each his own however.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: ExMachina


Instead of just only saying "dexos1 compliant" they should put an asterisk by it and say "We don't have any proof of this with any papers filed with and inspected by the API or ILSAC as its usually done in the industry, nor GM, nor any other independent authority for verification, and we won't tell you which lab we used, our own lab or an independent lab."


You can not be serious.

 

[Snoman002]

NHHEMI, exactly my point. If an oil manufacture claims something to prove to be untrue then they are open to a suit. So just claiming to meet a spec without knowing if its true or not us a big risk.

As far as officially certification goes, well that's 1/2 a money grab (and IMO 100% a money grab on GM's part). If its an certification levied by a respected independent organization then I can see some sort of fee's, they have to keep the doors open after all. But GM, they could have asked for a specification to meet their needs, but decided to make their own and then charge manufactures for the privilege of putting the seal on the bottle. You can't tell me DEXOS is superior to all the other standards out there. Maybe, MAYBE, if they were using some unique 3 way catalyst, or something similar, and had to ensure that an oil without a certain addative was used, but I doubt this was the case.