Great Pablo, that link helped me understand it better. I actually still have not put the lube in yet, so maybe my guy will be able to swap me to the 110. Thanks again...
RP Maxgear poor?
- Thread starter hooperswish1
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't let the Amsoil white paper shake you up at all. I believe it is just marketing "fluff". That said, Amsoil makes really good products. I have never used them but know several people who are fairly intelligent who use them religiously. But your RP should hold up fine. If you are worried just shorten the OCI by 10%.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
They have made claims in the past that at least one of their oils was really API certified when it was not for one thing( believe it was an 0W-## oil). The President of Amsoil himself put a statement on their web site apologizing( this would have been around 04-05 +/- ). Also, they were making very specific claims that RP contained a harmful chemical/mineral/additive( or whatever it actually is )and in amounts it did not contain anwyay back in 05 when I was on the HEMI truck club site.
I have been a dealer for many years and do not remember anything like the first case you mention. I'd love to read the facts. The second example I remember something remotely like that. However, this was not an official claim by Amsoil at all. I think it was a dealer website claiming RP had MoS2
The words in blue italics aren't even in the paper. It's typical marketing hoopla, no different that RP or any other oil blender uses.
They have made claims in the past that at least one of their oils was really API certified when it was not for one thing( believe it was an 0W-## oil). The President of Amsoil himself put a statement on their web site apologizing( this would have been around 04-05 +/- ). Also, they were making very specific claims that RP contained a harmful chemical/mineral/additive( or whatever it actually is )and in amounts it did not contain anwyay back in 05 when I was on the HEMI truck club site.
I have been a dealer for many years and do not remember anything like the first case you mention. I'd love to read the facts. The second example I remember something remotely like that. However, this was not an official claim by Amsoil at all. I think it was a dealer website claiming RP had MoS2
The words in blue italics aren't even in the paper. It's typical marketing hoopla, no different that RP or any other oil blender uses.
I had a co-worker get a little paranoid when he saw how Redline performed on the tests, but Redline outperformed several other options that he could have chosen.
I have never used Redline or Royal Purple, but from the testimonials on here, I'd conclude that they are great products. I wouldn't be paranoid about using Royal Purple for a 30,000 mile OCI, as Royal Purple doesn't appear to aim at the extended oil changes like Amsoil does.
The white papers were used as marketing, however the test are standardized and are NOT manipulated between oils. So the numbers recorded are facts, or else Amsoil would be in for some serious legal trouble for false claims. Batch number recording ensures better accuracy if the competitors decide to fight back (which I haven't heard about any responses just yet). Now, if people still want to believe that Amsoil manipulated the actual ASTM tests, then they can believe it all they want, it will only prove who the true nay-sayers are.
I have never used Redline or Royal Purple, but from the testimonials on here, I'd conclude that they are great products. I wouldn't be paranoid about using Royal Purple for a 30,000 mile OCI, as Royal Purple doesn't appear to aim at the extended oil changes like Amsoil does.
The white papers were used as marketing, however the test are standardized and are NOT manipulated between oils. So the numbers recorded are facts, or else Amsoil would be in for some serious legal trouble for false claims. Batch number recording ensures better accuracy if the competitors decide to fight back (which I haven't heard about any responses just yet). Now, if people still want to believe that Amsoil manipulated the actual ASTM tests, then they can believe it all they want, it will only prove who the true nay-sayers are.
I've been a long time Redline gear oil user, and have had it in several manual trannies and numerous differentials. I've been happy with the shift performance and have never seen anything abnormal with the oil, even after running it 60K.
Last summer, I filled the rear end of my Tacoma with Royal Purple 75W-90. Toyota specifies conventional SAE90 for this diff, which everyone knows is tough to find. Looking at gear oil viscosities, my synthetic alternatives were Royal Purple SAE 90 (only available in 5 gallon +), Amsoil SVG 75W-110 (internet only), and Royal Purple 75W-90 (cheapest, and available locally).
This Amsoil whitepaper has my curiosity peaked. Yes RP is technically out of spec new, but I am shocked that it sheared so severely. I think I currently have about 20K+ on the fluid. If I can find the cash (that's a big IF right now) , I'll send a sample off and we'll have a second datapoint.
I agree that RP 75W-90 should be labeled 75W-110. However, they would have to reformulate to meet the new spec. Otherwise, the average oil consumer will pass up RP since it would no longer be labeled 90wt.
Last summer, I filled the rear end of my Tacoma with Royal Purple 75W-90. Toyota specifies conventional SAE90 for this diff, which everyone knows is tough to find. Looking at gear oil viscosities, my synthetic alternatives were Royal Purple SAE 90 (only available in 5 gallon +), Amsoil SVG 75W-110 (internet only), and Royal Purple 75W-90 (cheapest, and available locally).
This Amsoil whitepaper has my curiosity peaked. Yes RP is technically out of spec new, but I am shocked that it sheared so severely. I think I currently have about 20K+ on the fluid. If I can find the cash (that's a big IF right now) , I'll send a sample off and we'll have a second datapoint.
I agree that RP 75W-90 should be labeled 75W-110. However, they would have to reformulate to meet the new spec. Otherwise, the average oil consumer will pass up RP since it would no longer be labeled 90wt.
Score another win for Amsoil's dubious marketing! Amsoil white papers are advertising dressed up in pseudo-engineering clothing.
It is advertising, not information. I'm not a Royal Purple fanboy, but I doubt that Maxgear is a bad lube.
It is advertising, not information. I'm not a Royal Purple fanboy, but I doubt that Maxgear is a bad lube.
Indeed. Amsoil just made the numbers up. You win!!
I stand corrected. The Amsoil Gear Lube white paper is far more detailed than previous Amsoil blurbs on other topics. My cynicism about marketing claims got the best of me. My apologies.
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
I had a co-worker get a little paranoid when he saw how Redline performed on the tests, but Redline outperformed several other options that he could have chosen.
I have never used Redline or Royal Purple, but from the testimonials on here, I'd conclude that they are great products. I wouldn't be paranoid about using Royal Purple for a 30,000 mile OCI, as Royal Purple doesn't appear to aim at the extended oil changes like Amsoil does.
The white papers were used as marketing, however the test are standardized and are NOT manipulated between oils. So the numbers recorded are facts, or else Amsoil would be in for some serious legal trouble for false claims. Batch number recording ensures better accuracy if the competitors decide to fight back (which I haven't heard about any responses just yet). Now, if people still want to believe that Amsoil manipulated the actual ASTM tests, then they can believe it all they want, it will only prove who the true nay-sayers are.
So are we to conclude RP made up their test data which is different in many areas of that study than what Amsoil is reporting? How do you reconcile such difference and especially that completely out of range Brookfield test data? Amsoil has made false statements in the past and stretched or manipulated the truth before so I see no reason not to doubt the complete accuracy and validity of this new study of theirs. Certainly some healthy sketicisim is warranted.
Yes, I am an Amsoil naysayer. When it comes to their honesty, truthfulness, and claims made about their product and the competition. I believe very little of what they say just because they have been caught not telling the truth in the past( on more than one occassion ). Why should I believe what they say when they have not told the truth or have made false statements before? Intentional or otherwise they don't always report the facts to people so how do you decided what is accurate and what is not when they say soemthing?
I am not a naysayer about their products themselevs just simply don't believe what they say because, again, they have been caught telling falsehoods. That is the only reason I dislike the company. I am sorry if that upsets people who like the products.
I don't care which product you like( Amsoil, RP, RL, PP, etc... )when you see such a vast difference in performance test data being offered up by MFG A about MFG B's product compared to what MFG B provides it has to make you wonder does it not? Put Amsoil vs. RP aside. If Mobil made claims XYZ about Penzoil Platinum and PP made different XYZ claims who would you believe? Would you at least have doubts about the etsts conducted and how accuratly and fair they were reported? Just curious not starting anything.
I don't want to beat this to death but when is someone going to comment on the fact so much of that test data provided by Amsoil conflicts with the test data of RP( remember this post was about RP to begin with - I am not trying to take it there )? I have had my ethics questioned and been told Amsoil would never falsify test data but everyone seems to be ignoring data I provided that is inconflict with the report? Do you believe Amsoil strictly because you like their product so in some way that makes everything they say accurate? Just asking not being sarcastic.
I had a co-worker get a little paranoid when he saw how Redline performed on the tests, but Redline outperformed several other options that he could have chosen.
I have never used Redline or Royal Purple, but from the testimonials on here, I'd conclude that they are great products. I wouldn't be paranoid about using Royal Purple for a 30,000 mile OCI, as Royal Purple doesn't appear to aim at the extended oil changes like Amsoil does.
The white papers were used as marketing, however the test are standardized and are NOT manipulated between oils. So the numbers recorded are facts, or else Amsoil would be in for some serious legal trouble for false claims. Batch number recording ensures better accuracy if the competitors decide to fight back (which I haven't heard about any responses just yet). Now, if people still want to believe that Amsoil manipulated the actual ASTM tests, then they can believe it all they want, it will only prove who the true nay-sayers are.
So are we to conclude RP made up their test data which is different in many areas of that study than what Amsoil is reporting? How do you reconcile such difference and especially that completely out of range Brookfield test data? Amsoil has made false statements in the past and stretched or manipulated the truth before so I see no reason not to doubt the complete accuracy and validity of this new study of theirs. Certainly some healthy sketicisim is warranted.
Yes, I am an Amsoil naysayer. When it comes to their honesty, truthfulness, and claims made about their product and the competition. I believe very little of what they say just because they have been caught not telling the truth in the past( on more than one occassion ). Why should I believe what they say when they have not told the truth or have made false statements before? Intentional or otherwise they don't always report the facts to people so how do you decided what is accurate and what is not when they say soemthing?
I am not a naysayer about their products themselevs just simply don't believe what they say because, again, they have been caught telling falsehoods. That is the only reason I dislike the company. I am sorry if that upsets people who like the products.
I don't care which product you like( Amsoil, RP, RL, PP, etc... )when you see such a vast difference in performance test data being offered up by MFG A about MFG B's product compared to what MFG B provides it has to make you wonder does it not? Put Amsoil vs. RP aside. If Mobil made claims XYZ about Penzoil Platinum and PP made different XYZ claims who would you believe? Would you at least have doubts about the etsts conducted and how accuratly and fair they were reported? Just curious not starting anything.
I don't want to beat this to death but when is someone going to comment on the fact so much of that test data provided by Amsoil conflicts with the test data of RP( remember this post was about RP to begin with - I am not trying to take it there )? I have had my ethics questioned and been told Amsoil would never falsify test data but everyone seems to be ignoring data I provided that is inconflict with the report? Do you believe Amsoil strictly because you like their product so in some way that makes everything they say accurate? Just asking not being sarcastic.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know someone posted on here that Redline was going to retest their oils to see how they compared to Amsoil's numbers, but haven't heard a finalized statement yet. I'm sure Royal Purple is aware of the white papers, and I'd like to hear what their statement is.
Now as to how numbers could be different, perhaps poor quality control among blends. I'm not sure, it is odd that the technical specs would vary greatly. I am just saying that the numbers aren't altered from the tested numbers, they never have been. I'm sure you understand that legal issues would arise if the numbers were all false and untested.
Again, I'd like to hear Royal Purple's statement on the white papers, do you know of any statements made by them?
Now as to how numbers could be different, perhaps poor quality control among blends. I'm not sure, it is odd that the technical specs would vary greatly. I am just saying that the numbers aren't altered from the tested numbers, they never have been. I'm sure you understand that legal issues would arise if the numbers were all false and untested.
Again, I'd like to hear Royal Purple's statement on the white papers, do you know of any statements made by them?
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
I know someone posted on here that Redline was going to retest their oils to see how they compared to Amsoil's numbers, but haven't heard a finalized statement yet. I'm sure Royal Purple is aware of the white papers, and I'd like to hear what their statement is.
Now as to how numbers could be different, perhaps poor quality control among blends. I'm not sure, it is odd that the technical specs would vary greatly. I am just saying that the numbers aren't altered from the tested numbers, they never have been. I'm sure you understand that legal issues would arise if the numbers were all false and untested.
Again, I'd like to hear Royal Purple's statement on the white papers, do you know of any statements made by them?
No. I have not heard anything but plan on writing in and asking to see what they say.
I know someone posted on here that Redline was going to retest their oils to see how they compared to Amsoil's numbers, but haven't heard a finalized statement yet. I'm sure Royal Purple is aware of the white papers, and I'd like to hear what their statement is.
Now as to how numbers could be different, perhaps poor quality control among blends. I'm not sure, it is odd that the technical specs would vary greatly. I am just saying that the numbers aren't altered from the tested numbers, they never have been. I'm sure you understand that legal issues would arise if the numbers were all false and untested.
Again, I'd like to hear Royal Purple's statement on the white papers, do you know of any statements made by them?
No. I have not heard anything but plan on writing in and asking to see what they say.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
No. I have not heard anything but plan on writing in and asking to see what they say.
When you receive an answer, please share.
No. I have not heard anything but plan on writing in and asking to see what they say.
When you receive an answer, please share.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I`ve tried M1 75W90 and RP Max Gear 75W90 in the rear differential of my car and the Max Gear definitely was smoother/quieter than the M1,which leads me to my question. Would Max Gear 75W140 be too thick for my car (which has 59k miles) and would the 75W90 be better (OEM requirement is 80W90 GL5)? I even pondered on 1 quart 75W90 and then topping off with 75W140 Max Gear mixture (diff. holds close to 2 quarts).
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I`ve tried M1 75W90 and RP Max Gear 75W90 in the rear differential of my car and the Max Gear definitely was smoother/quieter than the M1,which leads me to my question. Would Max Gear 75W140 be too thick for my car (which has 59k miles) and would the 75W90 be better (OEM requirement is 80W90 GL5)? I even pondered on 1 quart 75W90 and then topping off with 75W140 Max Gear mixture (diff. holds close to 2 quarts).
Whenever I have had a diff call for 80W-90 I have always swapped it to MaxGear 75W-90. IMO stick with the 90 weight.
I`ve tried M1 75W90 and RP Max Gear 75W90 in the rear differential of my car and the Max Gear definitely was smoother/quieter than the M1,which leads me to my question. Would Max Gear 75W140 be too thick for my car (which has 59k miles) and would the 75W90 be better (OEM requirement is 80W90 GL5)? I even pondered on 1 quart 75W90 and then topping off with 75W140 Max Gear mixture (diff. holds close to 2 quarts).
Whenever I have had a diff call for 80W-90 I have always swapped it to MaxGear 75W-90. IMO stick with the 90 weight.
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
When you receive an answer, please share.
I have actually written to more than just RP about it to see what the opinion is out there from the various companies this study slams the products of. I haven't received much back yet but I have received a little feedback so far. What I have received has basically echoed what I have posted about Amsoil and how they conduct themselves so read into the study what I will.
There was one very interesting thing that was pointed out to me/claimed however. That would be that the "independant lab" used for the testing is actually an Amsoil dealer's own lab. Also, the Notary(s) that signed the affidavits were/are Amsoil dealers.
This does not mean the test was not legit but it certainly raises some more questions about this study in my mind anyway "IF" this is true. IF the so called "independant lab" was in fact a lab owned and run by an Amsoil dealer how can that be called independant? Also, why did Amsoil not provide the name of the Lab doing these tests - they gave us just about everything else right down to what the tester had for lunch? Was it because of this connection and the obvious conflict of interest that would be present?
How can any study be considered "independant" when the lab used is owned and operated by an Amsoil dealer and the study was commissioned by Amsoil? IF true, to make things worse, those there who certified it was all on the up and up were also Amsoil dealers? Again, IF this is true it casts a cloud of bias and doubt on the entire study to anyone who is honest about it. It can NOT be an independant test if the outside "independant lab" was actually owned by an Amsoil dealer and the Notoary(s) were also dealers. Very inappropriate IF true.
***DISCLAIMER - I am not the one making this claim. I have no idea one way or the other to verify it as Amsoil has no provided the name of the Lab used in the study nor acknowldged any affiliation with any of those involved.***
I wonder if any of the Amsoil dealers on here would be A) - able to and B) - willing to find out and post the name of the "independant lab" used in this study so we can find out if an Amsoil dealer actually does own the lab. I would also like to know if the Notary/Notaries and/or witnesses to these tests that are shown in Appedix I and II on the study were also Amsoil dealers? That too would be helpful to know the truth about if a dealer here can find out the "truth" about it.
If and when I hear more back from any more of these mfg's I will post. I have receievd a brief reply from RP in response to my inquiry but at this time there is nothing extra to post about. More from them should be forth coming I hope as I replied back with further questions.
When you receive an answer, please share.
I have actually written to more than just RP about it to see what the opinion is out there from the various companies this study slams the products of. I haven't received much back yet but I have received a little feedback so far. What I have received has basically echoed what I have posted about Amsoil and how they conduct themselves so read into the study what I will.
There was one very interesting thing that was pointed out to me/claimed however. That would be that the "independant lab" used for the testing is actually an Amsoil dealer's own lab. Also, the Notary(s) that signed the affidavits were/are Amsoil dealers.
This does not mean the test was not legit but it certainly raises some more questions about this study in my mind anyway "IF" this is true. IF the so called "independant lab" was in fact a lab owned and run by an Amsoil dealer how can that be called independant? Also, why did Amsoil not provide the name of the Lab doing these tests - they gave us just about everything else right down to what the tester had for lunch? Was it because of this connection and the obvious conflict of interest that would be present?
How can any study be considered "independant" when the lab used is owned and operated by an Amsoil dealer and the study was commissioned by Amsoil? IF true, to make things worse, those there who certified it was all on the up and up were also Amsoil dealers? Again, IF this is true it casts a cloud of bias and doubt on the entire study to anyone who is honest about it. It can NOT be an independant test if the outside "independant lab" was actually owned by an Amsoil dealer and the Notoary(s) were also dealers. Very inappropriate IF true.
***DISCLAIMER - I am not the one making this claim. I have no idea one way or the other to verify it as Amsoil has no provided the name of the Lab used in the study nor acknowldged any affiliation with any of those involved.***
I wonder if any of the Amsoil dealers on here would be A) - able to and B) - willing to find out and post the name of the "independant lab" used in this study so we can find out if an Amsoil dealer actually does own the lab. I would also like to know if the Notary/Notaries and/or witnesses to these tests that are shown in Appedix I and II on the study were also Amsoil dealers? That too would be helpful to know the truth about if a dealer here can find out the "truth" about it.
If and when I hear more back from any more of these mfg's I will post. I have receievd a brief reply from RP in response to my inquiry but at this time there is nothing extra to post about. More from them should be forth coming I hope as I replied back with further questions.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I`ve tried M1 75W90 and RP Max Gear 75W90 in the rear differential of my car and the Max Gear definitely was smoother/quieter than the M1,which leads me to my question. Would Max Gear 75W140 be too thick for my car (which has 59k miles) and would the 75W90 be better (OEM requirement is 80W90 GL5)? I even pondered on 1 quart 75W90 and then topping off with 75W140 Max Gear mixture (diff. holds close to 2 quarts).
Whenever I have had a diff call for 80W-90 I have always swapped it to MaxGear 75W-90. IMO stick with the 90 weight.
Thanks Silverado. Probably going to grab 2 quarts in the morning. I like M1`s motor oil better,but I like RP`s gear oil better. RP definitely is "in the know" when it comes to gear oils.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I`ve tried M1 75W90 and RP Max Gear 75W90 in the rear differential of my car and the Max Gear definitely was smoother/quieter than the M1,which leads me to my question. Would Max Gear 75W140 be too thick for my car (which has 59k miles) and would the 75W90 be better (OEM requirement is 80W90 GL5)? I even pondered on 1 quart 75W90 and then topping off with 75W140 Max Gear mixture (diff. holds close to 2 quarts).
Whenever I have had a diff call for 80W-90 I have always swapped it to MaxGear 75W-90. IMO stick with the 90 weight.
Thanks Silverado. Probably going to grab 2 quarts in the morning. I like M1`s motor oil better,but I like RP`s gear oil better. RP definitely is "in the know" when it comes to gear oils.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
There was one very interesting thing that was pointed out to me/claimed however. That would be that the "independant lab" used for the testing is actually an Amsoil dealer's own lab. Also, the Notary(s) that signed the affidavits were/are Amsoil dealers.
This does not mean the test was not legit but it certainly raises some more questions about this study in my mind anyway "IF" this is true. IF the so called "independant lab" was in fact a lab owned and run by an Amsoil dealer how can that be called independant? Also, why did Amsoil not provide the name of the Lab doing these tests - they gave us just about everything else right down to what the tester had for lunch? Was it because of this connection and the obvious conflict of interest that would be present?
How can any study be considered "independant" when the lab used is owned and operated by an Amsoil dealer and the study was commissioned by Amsoil? IF true, to make things worse, those there who certified it was all on the up and up were also Amsoil dealers? Again, IF this is true it casts a cloud of bias and doubt on the entire study to anyone who is honest about it. It can NOT be an independant test if the outside "independant lab" was actually owned by an Amsoil dealer and the Notoary(s) were also dealers. Very inappropriate IF true.
***DISCLAIMER - I am not the one making this claim. I have no idea one way or the other to verify it as Amsoil has no provided the name of the Lab used in the study nor acknowldged any affiliation with any of those involved.***
I wonder if any of the Amsoil dealers on here would be A) - able to and B) - willing to find out and post the name of the "independant lab" used in this study so we can find out if an Amsoil dealer actually does own the lab. I would also like to know if the Notary/Notaries and/or witnesses to these tests that are shown in Appedix I and II on the study were also Amsoil dealers? That too would be helpful to know the truth about if a dealer here can find out the "truth" about it.
First all this paper "slams" no one. I don't mind having a good intelligent conversation, but please tone down the language. In some ways I feel like I should not dignify your post with a reply, but honestly your "information" came from another oil company? Makes me wonder who is making this sort of stuff up. I am glad you qualified it as not YOUR claim, but maybe you should tell us who is saying this stuff, because it's simply not true. All your additional questions after that company's claim are really not helping your case. Notaries didn't sign the docs, the Notary stamped them, for example. The names of the two signatories are clearly readable. Another company is lying to you and you continue to insult Amsoil. Amazing! I think you have already made your mind up, so I do wonder what your point really is.
Amsoil states in the paper that AMSOIL performed the tests for physical data only, all other tests were done at independent labs and NOT OAI (which is owned by AMSOIL.) Nor at some dealer's lab (nice mental picture painted there, thanks). AMSOIL Dealers were in no way associated with any of the in-house physical tests or any independent tests. The White Paper was assembled by AMSOIL corporate employees with exacting figures from the independent labs, nothing was changed and all tests were standard tests without modifications. As for letting you know who the independent test labs are we don't have permission from the labs to give out that information, sorry. I can tell you that Amsoil often uses SWRI.
The two signatures at the end of the white paper are Kevin's (technical head of powertrain products division) and the lab director. Kevin certified that the pricing was true and the lab director certified that the tests done were what was used in the paper. Neither one of them are AMSOIL Dealers! As I said earlier you are 100% free to contact Kevin via email (or phone.) I really don't mind you challenging the paper. That's the spirit of BITOG. But I give a direct person to contact and you make no effort to do so. Please answer this question: Why the reluctance to contact Kevin?
There was one very interesting thing that was pointed out to me/claimed however. That would be that the "independant lab" used for the testing is actually an Amsoil dealer's own lab. Also, the Notary(s) that signed the affidavits were/are Amsoil dealers.
This does not mean the test was not legit but it certainly raises some more questions about this study in my mind anyway "IF" this is true. IF the so called "independant lab" was in fact a lab owned and run by an Amsoil dealer how can that be called independant? Also, why did Amsoil not provide the name of the Lab doing these tests - they gave us just about everything else right down to what the tester had for lunch? Was it because of this connection and the obvious conflict of interest that would be present?
How can any study be considered "independant" when the lab used is owned and operated by an Amsoil dealer and the study was commissioned by Amsoil? IF true, to make things worse, those there who certified it was all on the up and up were also Amsoil dealers? Again, IF this is true it casts a cloud of bias and doubt on the entire study to anyone who is honest about it. It can NOT be an independant test if the outside "independant lab" was actually owned by an Amsoil dealer and the Notoary(s) were also dealers. Very inappropriate IF true.
***DISCLAIMER - I am not the one making this claim. I have no idea one way or the other to verify it as Amsoil has no provided the name of the Lab used in the study nor acknowldged any affiliation with any of those involved.***
I wonder if any of the Amsoil dealers on here would be A) - able to and B) - willing to find out and post the name of the "independant lab" used in this study so we can find out if an Amsoil dealer actually does own the lab. I would also like to know if the Notary/Notaries and/or witnesses to these tests that are shown in Appedix I and II on the study were also Amsoil dealers? That too would be helpful to know the truth about if a dealer here can find out the "truth" about it.
First all this paper "slams" no one. I don't mind having a good intelligent conversation, but please tone down the language. In some ways I feel like I should not dignify your post with a reply, but honestly your "information" came from another oil company? Makes me wonder who is making this sort of stuff up. I am glad you qualified it as not YOUR claim, but maybe you should tell us who is saying this stuff, because it's simply not true. All your additional questions after that company's claim are really not helping your case. Notaries didn't sign the docs, the Notary stamped them, for example. The names of the two signatories are clearly readable. Another company is lying to you and you continue to insult Amsoil. Amazing! I think you have already made your mind up, so I do wonder what your point really is.
Amsoil states in the paper that AMSOIL performed the tests for physical data only, all other tests were done at independent labs and NOT OAI (which is owned by AMSOIL.) Nor at some dealer's lab (nice mental picture painted there, thanks). AMSOIL Dealers were in no way associated with any of the in-house physical tests or any independent tests. The White Paper was assembled by AMSOIL corporate employees with exacting figures from the independent labs, nothing was changed and all tests were standard tests without modifications. As for letting you know who the independent test labs are we don't have permission from the labs to give out that information, sorry. I can tell you that Amsoil often uses SWRI.
The two signatures at the end of the white paper are Kevin's (technical head of powertrain products division) and the lab director. Kevin certified that the pricing was true and the lab director certified that the tests done were what was used in the paper. Neither one of them are AMSOIL Dealers! As I said earlier you are 100% free to contact Kevin via email (or phone.) I really don't mind you challenging the paper. That's the spirit of BITOG. But I give a direct person to contact and you make no effort to do so. Please answer this question: Why the reluctance to contact Kevin?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
First all this paper "slams" no one.
I respectfully disagree
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I don't mind having a good intelligent conversation, but please tone down the language.
What language? It offends you that someone dare say anything negative about Amsoil? Sorry but I have toned down my language and stopped using terms like liars and other comments that offended you as we agreed to earlier. However, if the term fits I feel it is appropriate and there is nothing to "tone down". I certainly consider that report as SLAMMING the competition. If you don't fine but that is how I took it and NOT just about RP. They slam many other company's products in that test/study.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
In some ways I feel like I should not dignify your post with a reply
Welcome to my world and all the stuff that is posted on here about RP and other brands not as popular as Amsoil, M1, and PP. Lot's of responses not worth a reply. Guess mine is not worth anything because I have stepped up and chanllenged the all mightly Amsoil company claims and don't back down when being called out over it. Or does it just not warrant a response because I am hitting a sore nerve with you by being at least partially right and you don't wish to admit it?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
but honestly your "information" came from another oil company?
So we are to believe what Amsoil says about other companies and their products BUT we are not to believe what they say in return about Amsoil? Okay I got it now thanks. THAT is the exact Amsoil arrogance that so turns me off. They are a bright and shining light out there just telling the truth and making the best products ever and all others are wrong and inferior.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Makes me wonder who is making this sort of stuff up.
Again, welcome to my world in regards to everything Amsoil says.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I am glad you qualified it as not YOUR claim, but maybe you should tell us who is saying this stuff, because it's simply not true.
Anyone here has the abiility to write these companies and receive the answers I did. I am not speaking for any other company. I merely am commenting on what I was told. Don't believe it? That is your right.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
All your additional questions after that company's claim are really not helping your case.
Nor does continued claims Amsoil never lies or makes false statements help yours. Nor does implying we should believe all of Amsoils claims and data and not do the same for the other companies.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Notaries didn't sign the docs, the Notary stamped them, for example. The names of the two signatories are clearly readable. Another company is lying to you and you continue to insult Amsoil. Amazing!
Nit picking and Notary's have to sign when they apply their stamp. Here in my state anwyay. Maybe not in WI or wherever it was the test was run?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I think you have already made your mind up, so I do wonder what your point really is.
And YOU have't already decided Amsoil is the best and never tells any untruths, stretches the truth, lies, makes false claims, etc...? Man that is a riot. Hello Pot this is the kettle and guess what you are black too.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil states in the paper that AMSOIL performed the tests for physical data only, all other tests were done at independent labs and NOT OAI (which is owned by AMSOIL.) Nor at some dealer's lab (nice mental picture painted there, thanks).
I was told that independant lab was owned by an Amsoil dealer. You seem to know what lab they used so which one was it? Oh, how conveniant, the lab won't let you tell us. What a bunch of horse hooey. Are the hiding something or fear a law suit for the test data they came up with? If they truly are "independant", and merely ran a test commissioned by Amsoil, what reason is there to keep their name hidden. Sorry I call foul on that. Something fishy there IMO. I never said it was true that the lab was owned by an Amsoil dealer either btw just what I was told. The fact the lab won't allow, or so you say, it's name to be revealed does not lend any credibility to their test results. If it was all on the up and up then stand up and be accountable for the data and stand behind your results. Don't hide your name. That is LAME!
Originally Posted By: Pablo
AMSOIL Dealers were in no way associated with any of the in-house physical tests or any independent tests. The White Paper was assembled by AMSOIL corporate employees with exacting figures from the independent labs, nothing was changed and all tests were standard tests without modifications.
Again, I was just repeating what I had been told. However you beating to death the dealer name applied to it is a good smoke screen to distract from the fact Amsoil "employees and affiliates" were involved in the test process and certification process. So okay no "dealers" were but the same question of impropriety is still there and maybe worse. Employee vs a retailer/dealer? HMM I know who I would question more.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
The two signatures at the end of the white paper are Kevin's (technical head of powertrain products division) and the lab director. Kevin certified that the pricing was true and the lab director certified that the tests done were what was used in the paper. Neither one of them are AMSOIL Dealers!
You are kidding me right? The head of Amsoil tech certifies it as legit and the indepoendant lab that won't reveal their name also certifies it was legit and I am supposed to think "oh okay that makes all my questions and concerns go away". Wow that is a riot.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
As I said earlier you are 100% free to contact Kevin via email (or phone.) I really don't mind you challenging the paper. That's the spirit of BITOG. But I give a direct person to contact and you make no effort to do so. Please answer this question: Why the reluctance to contact Kevin?
And as I said earlier I wouldn't believe Amsoil telling me the sun rose in the AM and set in the PM. What is Kevin going to tell me you haven't? Is he going to refuse to answer my questions about the differences in test data between their claims and RP's on the RP product like you have time and again? Will he also try and divert the focus to what others are telling me about Amsoil and their products so we forget the questionable Amsoil claims? Is he going to tell me I should believe Amsoil and not others saying something different like youy have? I mean come on dude. I have tried talking to their tech dept in the past as well, which I have already stated, and it was like talking to a lawyer. Nothing but double talk and half truths/misdirections. Would have been easier to get a straight answer out of Bill or Hillary Clinton on Whitewater.
Look, bottom line here is this...
#1 - there are some glaring inconcistancies in that study being reported vs what RP claims for their product. I don't see how you can say otherwise as Amsoil posted test data and RP posted test data on the same product and they tested nothing alike in many areas. I haven't checked the other products to see if the same issues are there but just maybe I will.
#2 - this was in no way an "independant" test. Commissioned by Amsoil and Amsoil "employees/affiliates" ( okay happy - not dealers - think that may be what was meant in what I was told and the wrong term was used )ran parts of the tests and certified the reults. Top that off with the so called independant lab refusing to identify themselves( highly questionable ).
Call me what you want in regards to my distrust of Amsoil( which is earned through experience and I admit said mistrust and dislike )but that wouldn't fly with ANY test for any product. I don't buy for a secoond this was an "independant test". Too much Amsoil associated with it to be truly independant IMO. You certainly can feel otherwise.
I don't want to keep arguing with you over and over and over. We have both made our points clear and we won;t change the other guy's mind either. Have the last word. I am done arguing it with you. You tow the Amsoil line to a fault and I question it. BTW - I have questioned RP before even though I admit I am favorable to their products and they have always answered and shown to be honest otherwise I would hold them in the same light I do Amsoil( remember it is not about Amsoil's products but about the company business ethics with me). I can't say the same for Amsoil hence my distrust of them. You are affiliated with Amsoil as well, even if just as a distributor( is it more? )which I can honestly say I am not. I am in no way affiliated with RP. This started for ONE reason only and that is the post was about RP( I didn;t make it so )and the test shows diffferent data than the RP does. I questioned that( heresey around here to question Amsoil )and it was off.
Nuff said( to you ). Regards and have a good one.
First all this paper "slams" no one.
I respectfully disagree
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I don't mind having a good intelligent conversation, but please tone down the language.
What language? It offends you that someone dare say anything negative about Amsoil? Sorry but I have toned down my language and stopped using terms like liars and other comments that offended you as we agreed to earlier. However, if the term fits I feel it is appropriate and there is nothing to "tone down". I certainly consider that report as SLAMMING the competition. If you don't fine but that is how I took it and NOT just about RP. They slam many other company's products in that test/study.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
In some ways I feel like I should not dignify your post with a reply
Welcome to my world and all the stuff that is posted on here about RP and other brands not as popular as Amsoil, M1, and PP. Lot's of responses not worth a reply. Guess mine is not worth anything because I have stepped up and chanllenged the all mightly Amsoil company claims and don't back down when being called out over it. Or does it just not warrant a response because I am hitting a sore nerve with you by being at least partially right and you don't wish to admit it?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
but honestly your "information" came from another oil company?
So we are to believe what Amsoil says about other companies and their products BUT we are not to believe what they say in return about Amsoil? Okay I got it now thanks. THAT is the exact Amsoil arrogance that so turns me off. They are a bright and shining light out there just telling the truth and making the best products ever and all others are wrong and inferior.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Makes me wonder who is making this sort of stuff up.
Again, welcome to my world in regards to everything Amsoil says.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I am glad you qualified it as not YOUR claim, but maybe you should tell us who is saying this stuff, because it's simply not true.
Anyone here has the abiility to write these companies and receive the answers I did. I am not speaking for any other company. I merely am commenting on what I was told. Don't believe it? That is your right.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
All your additional questions after that company's claim are really not helping your case.
Nor does continued claims Amsoil never lies or makes false statements help yours. Nor does implying we should believe all of Amsoils claims and data and not do the same for the other companies.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Notaries didn't sign the docs, the Notary stamped them, for example. The names of the two signatories are clearly readable. Another company is lying to you and you continue to insult Amsoil. Amazing!
Nit picking and Notary's have to sign when they apply their stamp. Here in my state anwyay. Maybe not in WI or wherever it was the test was run?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I think you have already made your mind up, so I do wonder what your point really is.
And YOU have't already decided Amsoil is the best and never tells any untruths, stretches the truth, lies, makes false claims, etc...? Man that is a riot. Hello Pot this is the kettle and guess what you are black too.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil states in the paper that AMSOIL performed the tests for physical data only, all other tests were done at independent labs and NOT OAI (which is owned by AMSOIL.) Nor at some dealer's lab (nice mental picture painted there, thanks).
I was told that independant lab was owned by an Amsoil dealer. You seem to know what lab they used so which one was it? Oh, how conveniant, the lab won't let you tell us. What a bunch of horse hooey. Are the hiding something or fear a law suit for the test data they came up with? If they truly are "independant", and merely ran a test commissioned by Amsoil, what reason is there to keep their name hidden. Sorry I call foul on that. Something fishy there IMO. I never said it was true that the lab was owned by an Amsoil dealer either btw just what I was told. The fact the lab won't allow, or so you say, it's name to be revealed does not lend any credibility to their test results. If it was all on the up and up then stand up and be accountable for the data and stand behind your results. Don't hide your name. That is LAME!
Originally Posted By: Pablo
AMSOIL Dealers were in no way associated with any of the in-house physical tests or any independent tests. The White Paper was assembled by AMSOIL corporate employees with exacting figures from the independent labs, nothing was changed and all tests were standard tests without modifications.
Again, I was just repeating what I had been told. However you beating to death the dealer name applied to it is a good smoke screen to distract from the fact Amsoil "employees and affiliates" were involved in the test process and certification process. So okay no "dealers" were but the same question of impropriety is still there and maybe worse. Employee vs a retailer/dealer? HMM I know who I would question more.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
The two signatures at the end of the white paper are Kevin's (technical head of powertrain products division) and the lab director. Kevin certified that the pricing was true and the lab director certified that the tests done were what was used in the paper. Neither one of them are AMSOIL Dealers!
You are kidding me right? The head of Amsoil tech certifies it as legit and the indepoendant lab that won't reveal their name also certifies it was legit and I am supposed to think "oh okay that makes all my questions and concerns go away". Wow that is a riot.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
As I said earlier you are 100% free to contact Kevin via email (or phone.) I really don't mind you challenging the paper. That's the spirit of BITOG. But I give a direct person to contact and you make no effort to do so. Please answer this question: Why the reluctance to contact Kevin?
And as I said earlier I wouldn't believe Amsoil telling me the sun rose in the AM and set in the PM. What is Kevin going to tell me you haven't? Is he going to refuse to answer my questions about the differences in test data between their claims and RP's on the RP product like you have time and again? Will he also try and divert the focus to what others are telling me about Amsoil and their products so we forget the questionable Amsoil claims? Is he going to tell me I should believe Amsoil and not others saying something different like youy have? I mean come on dude. I have tried talking to their tech dept in the past as well, which I have already stated, and it was like talking to a lawyer. Nothing but double talk and half truths/misdirections. Would have been easier to get a straight answer out of Bill or Hillary Clinton on Whitewater.
Look, bottom line here is this...
#1 - there are some glaring inconcistancies in that study being reported vs what RP claims for their product. I don't see how you can say otherwise as Amsoil posted test data and RP posted test data on the same product and they tested nothing alike in many areas. I haven't checked the other products to see if the same issues are there but just maybe I will.
#2 - this was in no way an "independant" test. Commissioned by Amsoil and Amsoil "employees/affiliates" ( okay happy - not dealers - think that may be what was meant in what I was told and the wrong term was used )ran parts of the tests and certified the reults. Top that off with the so called independant lab refusing to identify themselves( highly questionable ).
Call me what you want in regards to my distrust of Amsoil( which is earned through experience and I admit said mistrust and dislike )but that wouldn't fly with ANY test for any product. I don't buy for a secoond this was an "independant test". Too much Amsoil associated with it to be truly independant IMO. You certainly can feel otherwise.
I don't want to keep arguing with you over and over and over. We have both made our points clear and we won;t change the other guy's mind either. Have the last word. I am done arguing it with you. You tow the Amsoil line to a fault and I question it. BTW - I have questioned RP before even though I admit I am favorable to their products and they have always answered and shown to be honest otherwise I would hold them in the same light I do Amsoil( remember it is not about Amsoil's products but about the company business ethics with me). I can't say the same for Amsoil hence my distrust of them. You are affiliated with Amsoil as well, even if just as a distributor( is it more? )which I can honestly say I am not. I am in no way affiliated with RP. This started for ONE reason only and that is the post was about RP( I didn;t make it so )and the test shows diffferent data than the RP does. I questioned that( heresey around here to question Amsoil )and it was off.
Nuff said( to you ). Regards and have a good one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Serves my Jeep quite well too. Previously had M1, then redline 75w90 and I like RP the best. However, I'm sure the previous two are as good a quality but I'll stick to RP in my diffs, transfer, tranny, and crankcases.
Originally Posted By: unDummy
RoyalPurple makes good fluids. Real world is different then bench testing.
Stick with a 30k intervals and regardless of fluid brand, you shouldn't have any issues with normal usage.
Synchromax and Maxgear will serve your Jeep well.
Originally Posted By: unDummy
RoyalPurple makes good fluids. Real world is different then bench testing.
Stick with a 30k intervals and regardless of fluid brand, you shouldn't have any issues with normal usage.
Synchromax and Maxgear will serve your Jeep well.
- Status
Similar threads
