Huw

"CJB" <colonyparkwagon@excite.com> wrote in message
news:db6If.20030$0H1.11772@trnddc04...
>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45c57vF62fgfU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "tom" <tjctransport@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:9g2If.22$hI1.5@fe11.lga...
>>> my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to
>>> sell
>>> it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different
>>> oils,
>>> and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when
>>> compared to
>>> all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
>>> pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those
>>> ratings
>>> don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that
>>> I
>>> had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.
>>
>> The API have traditionally set a *lower* limit on oil quality below which
>> is unacceptable. There are always two current ratings, one being the
>> latest and improved while the other is the previous standard which is
>> being run-out.
>> Besides there being a cost to being certified a lack of certification
>> might be because a higher level of certain elements are included in the
>> oil than are set by the standard. This might not be a bad thing for
>> engine wear but might be detrimental to catalyst life if used and burnt
>> in a worn engine for instance.
>>
>> In general there are plenty of superior oils that do meet and exceed API
>> ratings. There is no better oil than Mobil1 0w/40. Other viscosity grades
>> of M1 do not have the same chemistry and are therefore not quite as good
>> for long drain intervals. The 15w/50 is also superior but the viscosity
>> is not suitable for most engines. This advice only holds good for M1 and
>> other brands differ but plenty of brands do produce equivalent oils.
>>
>> Huw
>>
>
> Your post implies that Mobil 1 does not meet or exceed API ratings. That
> is simply not true.

No No I didn't mean to imply that at all. It was obviously clumsily written.
On the contarary, Amsoil is the only oil I know of that doesn't meet minimum
API standards.



You do so because you're trying to bring AmSoil up to the
> level of Mobil 1. You mention the inferiority of AmSoil, then try to say,
> essentially, that Mobil 1 is the same. That's just not accurate.

See above.
Although not all M1 grades are to the same standard all meet API but not all
meet the exacting extended drain interval standards of mainly European
manufacturers. All M1 oils have a superb base oil and quality standard but
do not have the additive package to disperse contaminants for those extended
intervals of 15000 miles and above.

>
> Your argument in defense of AmSoil is that it doesn't meet API ratings
> because it's better. That's silly. That's why the term is "meet or
> exceed."

I am not a defender of amsoil but do know something of their oil. They may
well exceed the API standard by some margin except for a specific area that
I explained which prevents accreditation. Just because it cannot be approved
for the API standard does not automatically infer that it is inferior
[though some oils might well be inferior so watch out].


AmSoil may have more "stuff" than the ratings require, but it
> doesn't meet the minimums for protection, and therefore doesn't even
> submit its snakeoil for approval.
>

I believe Amsoil is better oil than most API approved oil but I have no
reason to suppose it is any better than the latest high performance oils
from other manufacturers that meet mb229.5 or equivilent. Personally I would
use these in preference to any Amsoil product.

Absolutely no reason to use any of these superior oils [amsoil, M1 0w/40 or
otherwise] unless their potential can be and is exploited.

Huw