tom

your logic is over my head. if api certification is "the lowest standard
for oil below which is unacceptable. ", and amsoil does not meet api
certification, how can it be a far superior oil??

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45hkjkF6r4buU1@individual.net...
> 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
>
>