I still say that about Amsoil.That's what many here said about Amsoil 15 years ago
What would you look at on the VOA that is an appropriate substitute for approvals and licenses?Run a VOA on said oil and take a look maybe ok and just a lot of hand wringing over it without facts.
Many many oils are not Licensed and held in the highest standard and raved about.What would you look at on the VOA that is an appropriate substitute for approvals and licenses?
Yeah, lots of people live and die by marketing.Many many oils are not Licensed and held in the highest standard and raved about.
Yeah I suppose. When "holding in the highest standard" and "raved about" is all you got then that's what you go with.Many many oils are not Licensed and held in the highest standard and raved about.
I guess so you trash a product without a single fact to support anything you claim I'm not saying its great or not I dont know cause I lack facts.Yeah I suppose. When "holding in the highest standard" and "raved about" is all you got then that's what you go with.
I guess so you trash a product without a single fact to support anything you claim I'm not saying its great or not I dont know cause I lack facts.
The facts are the approvals, licenses and certifications an oil has or does not have. Anything else is opinion, especially when the blender tries to make it look otherwise.I guess so you trash a product without a single fact to support anything you claim I'm not saying its great or not I dont know cause I lack facts.
Again show the proof the oil suggested will not perform or has not performed. I'm done till you gather the the proof.The facts are the approvals, licenses and certifications an oil has or does not have. Anything else is opinion, especially when the blender tries to make it look otherwise.
You are 180 degrees from where you should be but you have no clue. Why on earth should I be required to prove something does not perform when it's the blender's duty to show that it does? It's their responsibility not mine. There's a way blenders and formulators prove things and it's not by weasel wording on PDS sheets.Again show the proof the oil suggested will not perform or has not performed. I'm done till you gather the the proof.
Again show the proof the oil suggested will not perform or has not performed. I'm done till you gather the the proof.
Again show the proof the oil suggested will not perform or has not performed. I'm done till you gather the the proof.
How would you know?That's what many here said about Amsoil 15 years ago
I have to wonder about that as well.Are we getting spammed here? Multiple posts on Triax from very low post count members.
How would you know?
Well, no. At least not from me. I was one of the earlier members on BITOG when Bob was still around and Terry Dyson. I joined I think in 1997 ... yes, 1997. My handle was Alex D. So I have been around this forum for a while. I was inactive for a few years ... long story and could no longer log in with my original handle, so I assumed it was purged from the record and I had to sign up anew. My interest in Triax was genuine and I don't subscribe to the bashing. It has good reviews across the internet. Fine if you don't agree. I remember the Amsoil bashing over the years. Waas not much different. Anyway, no spamming here.There was a recent UOA of Triax posted here, it was simply awful:
VW507 OCI CATA
I have a 2010 Audi Q7 with a (CATA) 3.0 V6 TDI. Blackstone Labs recommended I dial back my oil change interval from 10,000 to 7,500 due to above average Iron and aluminium. Has anyone been able to get a healthy UOA using the 10,000 mile OCI? If so with what oil?bobistheoilguy.com
UOA has been deleted since OP inadvertently included all his personal information on the post. But the "wear numbers" were sky high and the supposed "Euro 5w30" had a cst@100 in the 9's.
Are we getting spammed here? Multiple posts on Triax from very low post count members.
I have to wonder about that as well.