Huw

tom wrote:
> "That AmSoil doesn't even meet minimum specs was entirely my point.
> We agree. CJB"
>
> and that was the reason for my snake oil comment also

Just because it doesn't meet API specifications does not mean that it cannot
be leagues better than it. It is different in that it doesn't conform. It
might be a far superior lubricant but if used in an already worn engine it
might damage the catilyst. I'm not saying that is the reason for non
conformation but it could be, so the 'snake oil' comment is not valid. It is
true that conformation and accreditation to API standards prevents snake oil
being sold and is therefore a 'good thing' but for oil enthusiasts who may
want the very best without compromise then different standards may be more
important.
Remember that the API have traditionally set the lowest standard for oil
below which is unacceptable. Nothing to stop somebody producing a far
superior oil though it would be better if the superior oil also passed all
parameters required to pass the API standard as well. This would stop any
confusion. All standards are a compromise, none more so than the API minimal
standards. Amsoil use a different set of compromises for some of their
range. Hooray for variety and nonconformity.
And I will probably never use their oil.


Huw
Huw