>> Amsoil is a ponzi scheme like Amway soap. It might work, but that
>> isn't the IDEA behind it. The IDEA behind it is to sell inventory to
>> some other sucker ( eh...associate ) so they can find a sucker (
>> eh...customer ) or another associate to fall into the same TRAP!
>>
>> If it *works,* that's icing on the cake.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>WELL SAID. Ill ditto that! If you want to here how great it is just ask
>someone who sells it.
Ok, I don't SELL Amsoil but I use it, and I think it's great. I never
had anyone beating down my door to sell me more product, I don't have
someone hounding me to join or purchase more product, I order it
directly from the .com. I use Series 2000 0w-30 year round and Amsoil
oil filters. Change at Amsoil's rec'd intervals, 6mo/filter
1yr/oil/filter. Been doing this for years no problem, and I can
safely say that if nothing else, my winter starts are like butter now
compared to the old dino oil (where the car may or may not have
started). Just my $0.02.
my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to sell
it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different oils,
and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when compared to
all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those ratings
don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that I
had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:QQ0If.5497$rL5.2503@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:dso83t22mvg@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> > > She ran hers to 15,000 miles between changes. No glycol
contamination,
> > > no condensation.....just Amsoil. And, as it was her car, and her
> > > philosophy,
> > > I didn't choose to interfere.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > With OCIs that long I would be real nervous without either periodic (5K
> > miles?) filter changes and/or a bypass filter. But that said a good
> > synthetic really should be able to go 15K miles without issues, I
> > suspect other problems with that engine like a nonfunctional PCV valve?
> >
> > Personally, I change my oil every 5K (Porsche 944) with either Mobil 1
> > 5W40 or Rotella T syn 5W40 even though the owner's manual says 7500.
> > Maybe I'm being over-cautious, but I can't be arsed to mess with used
> > oil analyses and without same I just get nervous.
>
> I don't waste my time with oil analyses either.
>
> No, she had no PCV problems. Nothing wrong with the engine, just 15,000
> mile change intervals, as far as I could determine.
>
> Amsoil must have a heavy additive package load. I think I may have read
> that
> somewhere. Lots of oils will 'cook' and decompose with time and
> temperature,
> we are led to believe. A lot of the damage caused to Toyota, VW, and
> similar
> engines has been laid to this, although some suggest that the engine
design
> and PCV specifications play a strong part.
>
> Anyone who wants can use Amsoil and a lot swear by it. Many of the snake
> oil comments on this group are based on hearsay, I suspect, rather than
> first
> hand experience with the product. I am fairly open minded on the subject,
> but
> choose not to use the product myself.
>
>
>
>
>
That is like on their website where it says when your engine blows up
because of using bad or 'unapproved' oil and the maker refuses the
warranty because you used 'snake oil', you can ship the engine to them
and 'if' they decide it was indeed crappy oil, they will honor the
warranty. LOL!
Ya right, I'll bet 'their' diagnosis will always be a bad part, never
their crappy oil.
Mike
tom wrote:
>
> 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.
> <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message
> news:QQ0If.5497$rL5.2503@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> > news:dso83t22mvg@news4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > > She ran hers to 15,000 miles between changes. No glycol
> contamination,
> > > > no condensation.....just Amsoil. And, as it was her car, and her
> > > > philosophy,
> > > > I didn't choose to interfere.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > With OCIs that long I would be real nervous without either periodic (5K
> > > miles?) filter changes and/or a bypass filter. But that said a good
> > > synthetic really should be able to go 15K miles without issues, I
> > > suspect other problems with that engine like a nonfunctional PCV valve?
> > >
> > > Personally, I change my oil every 5K (Porsche 944) with either Mobil 1
> > > 5W40 or Rotella T syn 5W40 even though the owner's manual says 7500.
> > > Maybe I'm being over-cautious, but I can't be arsed to mess with used
> > > oil analyses and without same I just get nervous.
> >
> > I don't waste my time with oil analyses either.
> >
> > No, she had no PCV problems. Nothing wrong with the engine, just 15,000
> > mile change intervals, as far as I could determine.
> >
> > Amsoil must have a heavy additive package load. I think I may have read
> > that
> > somewhere. Lots of oils will 'cook' and decompose with time and
> > temperature,
> > we are led to believe. A lot of the damage caused to Toyota, VW, and
> > similar
> > engines has been laid to this, although some suggest that the engine
> design
> > and PCV specifications play a strong part.
> >
> > Anyone who wants can use Amsoil and a lot swear by it. Many of the snake
> > oil comments on this group are based on hearsay, I suspect, rather than
> > first
> > hand experience with the product. I am fairly open minded on the subject,
> > but
> > choose not to use the product myself.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
"tom" <tjctransport@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9g2If.22$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.
I certainly wasnt making light of your comment. Their claims are one thing,
their documentation somewhat less.
Some oil 'tests' were being run and were available online. As I remember
it,
the Amsoil was holding its own pretty well, BUT tests like that should be
run by a certified testing laboratory to have any real credibility.
As I said, I am open minded (but not empty headed;>)
"John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1139801586.213899.119110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> fweddybear wrote:
>> "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139783348.126809.197720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > fweddybear wrote:
>> >> "I Love Edsels" <henry@ford.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:r7htu15e0jd7v80af3ck86uc2cn21kqnbd@4ax.com...
>> >> > any opinions on Amsoil?
>> >>
>> >> This also bring up another good question..... how is their gear oil,
>> >> say
>> >> the
>> >> 90 weight. It was recommended (and used by) the mechanic at the
>> >> Harley
>> >> shop
>> >> for aftermarket transmission fluid changes. Any opinions on this?
>> >>
>> >> Fwed
>> >
>> > What does Harley recommend for the transmission.
>>
>> Its not a harley tranny....but for their trannys, they of course
>> recommend harley tranny fluid..... i had a baker tranny put in, and the
>> mechanic (a harley mechanic) said he uses amsoil 90 weight gear oil in
>> that....so since the discussion of amsoil oil wasn't getting high
>> reviews,
>> if the gear oil was similar in ratings....
>>
>
> No matter who made it, I would follow the manufacturers recommendation
> first. I think they would be in the best position to determine which
> lubricant meets the technical requirements of the gearbox. There are
> not many other people who would be able to accurately answer your
> question.
Well, in the case of Harley Davidson, they recommend harley oil, and
tranny fluid, but I've never known them to make their own fluids. It is
more than likely made by someone else with their name on it, and of course
their brand is so god damn expensive, you could go out and buy some other
oil (gear or regular) and use it and it might even be better unless they use
the wording "or equivilent". Most people would think even the cheapest of
oils would qualify for being "equivilent", but equivilent is really a broad
definition....
I guess any oil would "work". I am inclinded to use even an inexpensive
filter only because I am anal about changing my oil at the 2000 mile mark
(abouit once a month)..... even 1000 in my truck (which turns out to be
about 3 times a year in the truck)
"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f5hvu15uc5r4ms6snp2n5jc1ctomv09r76@4ax.com...
>
> Amsoil is a ponzi scheme like Amway soap. It might work, but that
> isn't the IDEA behind it. The IDEA behind it is to sell inventory to
> some other sucker ( eh...associate ) so they can find a sucker (
> eh...customer ) or another associate to fall into the same TRAP!
>
> If it *works,* that's icing on the cake.
>
> Lg
>
Bub, that is an uninformed, offensive and insulting statement. As a former
Amway distributor, it was a standard tenet of the organization of which I
was a part that in order to build a successful business it was *absolutely
necessary* to build, grow and maintain a retail customer base. Merely adding
downline distributors without an equivalent or greater focus on retail would
result in an unreliable and unstable business, and was an all but guaranteed
recipe for failure, not to mention mention a poor profit/income model. I
serviced customers who were over-joyed to find out that I was a distributor
because their former distributor had moved on*** and they *wanted* product
and didn't know where else to get it.
***(Moved, or quit the business when they realized that it was too much like
WORK when what they really wanted was to get rich without actually DOING
anything.)
"Inventory loading" had been discouraged and eliminated before I became
involved in the business. The "upline direct" was *required* to repurchase
any unused and saleable inventory (if they had any, despite policies against
it) from any distributor who wished to discontinue, and, failing that, the
corporation would repurchase the inventory (and sanction the "direct" who
failed to do so). That old "My friend's second cousin's brother knew a
feller that tried that thang and he's got a basement fulla that stuff" has
been bovine excrement for a long, long time.
Now, if you want to argue that MLM business model tends to attract
unscrupulous and/or lazy people who think that they can get rich quick
without really working at it, and who try to "shortcut" the business model
by focusing their efforts on "sponsoring" others (that they hope will do the
real work *for* them) and thereby doom themselves and their downline) to
failure, then I would have to agree wwith you.
If you also wanted to argue that there were some of the same type of people
who also focused more of their efforts on selling independently produced
"tools" (books, tapes, functions, not re-saleable to retail customers
outside the "system") as their primary income stream (which possibly
*could* be perceived as a "Ponzi scheme", or close enough), to the near
exclusion and detriment of the *real* business model, then I would have to
agree with that, too.
MLM is a legitimate business model and there are many good companies selling
many good products using it. People who like Amsoil or "Amway"*** products
and want to buy them are entitled to their opinion, as are you entitled to
your opinion if you *dislike* a particular product, but to paint them all in
a defamatory color of illegality is either misinformed, uneducated or
patently dishonest.
***(The Amway company no longer exists in the same form as it once did.
Technology in general, and the Internet in particular, have led to a
reformation of business practices and marketing. In addition, the advent of
the Internet which has facilitated widespread communication which could not
be "controlled" by unscrupulous people within the various "motivational
systems" has led to their exposure and, in some cases, prosecution,
resulting in a decrease in abuses [some of which were known to exist as far
back as 1982 though pressure from the ADA board inhibited resolution] and a
re-focus on the core business which is, and was always supposed to be,
selling consumable products to customers.)
Disclaimer: I resigned my Amway distributorship in 1999 due to disagreements
with "Upline" "leaders" and their abuses of the "system". I am not
soliciting or offering sponsorship in any MLM opportunity to any reader. I
am currently an inactive participant (read: glorified customer) in something
which is "just like Amway, only better" which provides a certain convenince
in shopping. The income, general business knowledge and financial management
techniques gained as an Amway distributor enabled me to start and run a
different business with less "people" contact and at this time I am
semi-retired (and under 50). Just as in almost any other [legitimate]
business, you aren't going to "make it to the top" without an extreme amound
of dedication and effort, but you *can* make a good income...as good as
you're willing to work for, anyway...and it can open your eyes and provide a
[financial] stepping-stone to new opportunities.
"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.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:15:05 -0500, "tom" <tjctransport@optonline.net>
wrote:
>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.
Valvoline AllFleet is one oil I used a LOT of when in "the business".
Also used a lot of Shell - Rotella on the farm, fleet, and industrial
equipment and their premium normal oil (can't remember the name any
more) on a lot of other vehicles.
Also used a lot of HAvoline, Gastrol GTX, and Kendall GT1.
Never much of a fan of Quaker State or Penzoil.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
"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. 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.
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." 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.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:09:42 GMT, "Arthur Dent" <uce@fcc.gov> wrote:
>
>"Lawrence Glickman" <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:f5hvu15uc5r4ms6snp2n5jc1ctomv09r76@4ax.com...
>>
>> Amsoil is a ponzi scheme like Amway soap. It might work, but that
>> isn't the IDEA behind it. The IDEA behind it is to sell inventory to
>> some other sucker ( eh...associate ) so they can find a sucker (
>> eh...customer ) or another associate to fall into the same TRAP!
>>
>> If it *works,* that's icing on the cake.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>
>Bub, that is an uninformed, offensive and insulting statement. As a former
>Amway distributor
*former distributor* because you were scammed, just like the rest of
the people I know personally who became involved with that
organization.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
