Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:10:31 -0500 From: "Roger Zoul" <rzoulnopsamouse.com> Subject: Re: Does anyone use synthetic oils?
> >Why don't you bother to read the posts more carefully? I'm not posting any > >tests as facts, I'm the one asking questions trying to get to the truth. Of > >course, you are such a Dan flunky that you don't even bother to read what > >has been written. > > If that wasn't you, then I apologize. Someone posted some "tests", > putting different oil weights against each other and claiming that it > proved something and I recalled your name from the discussion. Yes, I saw the data too. However, I did not post it. I am not a blind supporter of Amsoil, even though I know people personally who swear by it and never try to push the oil. They are dealers just so that can buy the oil at a lesser cost. > > I do enjoy reading Dan's posts because I often find them to be either > fact filled or funny, sometimes both, but a "flunky"? No, I don't > think so. Well, I still am not sure I believe the "facts." Remember, facts aren't necessarily truths. However, I do find that Amsoil oils not having API certification to be a big problem for me, if that is true. Since they claim to be the first company to get API certs on a synthetic oil in 1972, it doesn't make sense that their products don't have API certs. Someone posted results from a website search, which we are supposed to consider as fact. However, can we be sure of the veracity of a website? Does it contain complete info? Did anyone here bother to verify that this website has complete information for all of the other API cert'ed oils on the market? > > I'm not really reading the whole thread because I'm not even > considering using Amsoil. The bottom line is this: They may have a > good oil, that's irrelevant, what matters is that the price of that > oil is inflated to pay for the commissions of your sales person and a > ways up the chain. > Perhaps. They do claim that their oil is the best synthetic on the market. Of course, the truth of those claims is at what is at question here. > The fact that Amsoil posts tests comparing non equivalent products as > proof of their superiority just drives home the fact that there is > more than just an oil at stake here. I don't think you can say that Amsoil posted those results. It was a rep. I have seen many other Amsoil tests results where they do compare apples to apples, and if a number is included for an oil of a different weight or grade, that stated that clearly, and is usually only for a single case. Since they have been around since 1972, I think they are at least smart enough to do a better scam than that. I don't think that the information branded about in this newsgroup can be considered reliable either. Most of it is simply opinion and seems brought about largely because of a dislike of the Amsoil business model, and the fact that it assumes "salesdriods" who can be any tom, dick, and harry. Since anyone can be a Amsoil salesperson, it is no wonder the oil and the company has a bad rep among some. If you read Amsoil's literature, they claim that their and other oils are all tested by the ASTM (American Society of Testing Materials, or something like that), and that this is the only body that is approved for oil testing. API and SAE are not testing bodies, they are standards writing bodies, is also part of the claim. I did find some evidence for this claim at the API website, btw, where they do state clearly that they write more standards than anyone. Amsoil does sell a few oils that are supposedly API approved. In particular, this XL-7500 oil is, in my own words now, downengineered to only be used for 7500 miles, which, btw, is the recommended drain interval by Toyota for most drivers. It seems strange to me that Amsoil would go to all the trouble to down engineer an oil. More likely, it seems to me, is that this stuff is just their regular oil given a new name, sold at lower price, and offered with a claim of lesser performance. This would be done to keep their oil change intervals in line with car makers suggested drain intervals, so as not to make new car owners feel that are going to void their warranty from use of a superior oil. If this were the case, then this could easly mean that their other oils could get, and may even have, API certs, too. Perhaps they don't want to call too much attention to this fact so that can continue to try to sell an oil that has performance claims that are far superior to regular oils, and even synthetics. Also, remember that the more frequently you change your oil, the more often you are buying new oil too. So why would the Mobil and others want to lose out on that extra money? Also, why is it that Jiffy Lube and others recommend oil changes every 3000 miles, when Toyota, who has to warranty their cars, recommends 7500 miles? Could it be that perhaps the oil change industry, along with the oil companies, want more frequent oil changes? When there is a profit motive about, how can we be so confident of what we are told? Perhaps since little Amsoil has such a small peice of the pie, they are willing to admit to the public that drain intervals for synthetics can be greatly extended over regular oils if you simply keep it clean, so that they can get just a little peice. Finally, since any and most oils you can buy have API certs, this must mean that these certs are a minimum standard. My guest is that all synthetic oils will exceed these standards, and most state this on the bottle. So who, then, is in a position to provide meaningful performance results for synthetic oil? It seems to me that Amsoil, through their posting of ASTM results for their and others oils, is at least attempting to do something. Yes, it is true that their oils seem superior to others when measured under this light, but for the Mobils of the world, who get a bigger peice of pie, it is better that you change your oil more frequently so that they keep getting more money. Perhaps little tiny saledroid-promoted Amsoil is unnoticed and unrespected in a sea full of sharks. The truth is out there somewhere, but I doubt it is in this newsgroup.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
