Do you know an AMSOIL Skeptic?
Is AMSOIL a scam, too-good-to-be-true?
Is AMSOIL just MLM marketing bullshit?
What’s the truth about AMSOIL and synthetic engine oils?
Does AMSOIL really deliver ultimate performance,
or just “scamsoil” BS?
Here are “scamsoil” Comments and Questions that we’ve been e-mailed from AMSOIL skeptics and those concerned about a possible scam,
with Answers from real Engineers.
(As you’ll see, we haven’t pulled punches.
We give the bold answers that are deserved by bold questions.)
“scamsoil” or “scams oil”
Click these individual questions to go straight to those answers,
or just scroll down to read all Questions and Answers:
- “You don’t really believe all that Scamsoil bullshit do you?”
(We haven’t found any BS from AMSOIL yet — just marketing hype and deception from competitors.)
- “If Scamsoil filters are really so great, how do you explain this [link to filter testing results]?” (Not too tough. Just follow the logic and become an informed consumer, rather than a hoodwinked consumer…)
- “Isn’t Amsoil really just the “Amway” of oil – more MLM hype?“
- “I have no problems with Scamsoil’s bypass filters, probably a legitmate quality product. But the “Amway of oil” is utterly ridiculous in their testing of air filters and their motor oils. I do believe that you are a firm believer though, and that is cool if its your thing. I hope you can make some cash out of it. I’m sure Scamsoil is better than Trop Artic dino.”
- As a “engineer” haven’t you at least ever wondered why Amsoil just hasn’t caught on to the mainstream car guy in masses? You guys don’t even make up 1% of the market. I know…it’s because big oil is keeping ya down right? And all those non-scamsoil sponsored tests that are bogus right?
Hell, what does your oil line have? one or two API certified oils? Because the certifications costs too much? (A lot of familiar questions & concerns, and we cover ’em in order.)
- “I have read the data and find your companies claims preposterous. The scar ball test scamsoil so highly touts can be passed with common houseld 4% bleach. The claims that you are making about a 20% fuel mileage increase with just a Scamsoil oil change couldn’t be farther from reality. Does a scamsoil oil change actually change the gear ratio in transmissions and rear ends? In my opinion ( just as you have your own) I can only conclude that dubious testing procedures were invented by the company you represent, nothing personal.”
(A key problem: this guy has no working comprehension of the content, value and authority of “standardized tests” that are created, reviewed and refined by a broad industry group of top engineers, and performed by independent certified labs in strict accordance with the test standards that are carefully designed to force accurate and repeatable test data that can be directly compared. And he doesn’t understand that the API uses most of the identical tests in their licensing (certification) program. We explain it in common English… and cover his other concerns, too.)
- “Please note <see his link below to home-garage oil tests by a couple of guys on one car, where Amsoil didn’t look like a better product>. I’m sure that Exxon-Mobil put them up to it. What are we non “engineers” supposed to gather from such real world tests as these? That Scamsoil is a superior product? That their additive package isn’t out of date?”
(Yeh, how do you make sense of it all and separate facts from invalid assumptions? That’s work even for a trained and experienced engineer. For most people, because they lack the scientific training of an engineer, it’s nearly impossible. We helped him out, pointing out some key facts and data that they missed.)
- “I would also like to see some data on the claim of ” 90% of nascars teams whom actually use scamsoil lubricants.
In reference to Fram products past performance with their line of filters, they are not even in the ball park, for filterization, design or quality.”
- When I changed to Amsoil motor oil, it improved my fuel economy a lot. My friends hardly believe an engine oil can do that, and I don’t understand… how is that possible?
“scamsoil” Questions with Answers:
“You don’t really believe all that Scamsoil bullshit do you?” ^return to Q Index
I’ve never gotten such a bold question, but I’m glad you asked. I hope that you’ll appreciate an honest answer, because I don’t know how to do marketing BS.
I’m a full-time engineer in industry, and I work and talk with engineers every day. Maybe they’re with Bobcat, some with Ford, some with GM, Polaris, John Deere… as well as many companies you’ve never heard of. True, some people sell AMSOIL. I’ve never been a good salesman, and I prefer to just educate people and let them sell themselves. I even had a boss tell me to never go into sales because I’d never make it. I’m most interested in the truth, and the best possible recommendations, not in schmoozing people to do what I want. To me, that’s not responsible engineering.
There are several products on the market that I think would be far more honestly labeled as “scamsoil”, but AMSOIL products are on the entire opposite end of the spectrum. Over the years, people have asked me about several products/brands that are supposed to be really great. What they’re great at is marketing and misleading with slogans and gimmicks. But when you start talking real performance data from standardized tests, and actual chemical content, the truth comes out fairly quickly.
I don’t believe in AMSOIL because I sell it. I haven’t retired from a job, desperately trying to make ends meet by selling something. Not at all. Rather, I sell AMSOIL products “on the side” (sometimes at a loss), because I believe in them and stand behind them and use them, and because I think people like you deserve to know the truth.
My Duramax diesel truck really does have AMSOIL’s BMK-17 Dual Remote Bypass filtration kit on it that I really installed myself side-by-side with a GM design engineer. I really did my last oil change when I converted it to AMSOIL at 43,000 miles, I really do have 111,000 miles on it now, and I really can scan and send you the oil sampling analysis report showing that the oil performance is still great, the oil is very clean, and the engine wear rate is very low. I’ve really gotten an 8% fuel economy improvement. I’ve really saved hundreds of dollars in oil changes and hundreds of dollars in fuel costs. That’s as real as “reality” can get.
In the engineering discipline areas of my greatest expertise, I’ve created new standards in world-class performance areas several times in manufacturing, in several industries including automotive. If you care to look at the exhaust system under a Ford Focus, you’ll see one of the best examples of robotic welding performance in the world, primarily due to my work, accomplishing what many experts and worldwide companies said couldn’t be done. I can recognize world-class. And I know that world-class never happens by using what everyone else does and following what everyone “knows”. It takes understanding the science & physics and doing the hard work to identify truly innovative potential for performance advantages, and using those to create greater profitability. I recommend AMSOIL products as a way to share what I’ve learned from my own personal research and experience, because I feel that’s the responsible thing to do. After all, not one in 100,000 people will research and analyze this subject to the extent I’ve done. So this is a way for me to give to people some tangible everyday benefits from my engineering training and research.
I don’t purchase a dime of pay-per-click advertising, and I don’t have time to invest in “viral marketing” approaches: the internet simply provides a way for people to find what I’ve learned, and new AMSOIL users pass along that information to help others.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that auto mechanics know better. The best ones are essentially trained by the OEM car-company service techs, to be good at wrenching – efficiently and correctly. They’ve never had training in the sciences of fluid mechanics, heat transfer, boundary lubrication, tribology, metallurgy, fatigue stress fractures, or Root Cause determination with Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) or other tools used throughout the engineering world that forms the core of automotive design and manufacturing. Engineers are the ones who design the cars, and the ones who determine much of the content that goes into the service manuals. Engineers design the manufacturing process equipment. Engineers are the ones who aid and advise the world’s top racing teams.
My professional reputation as an engineer is far more important to me than selling some oil, which is why I tell everyone about being a Preferred Customer to buy at wholesale and cut out my retail profits. I believe it’s far more important for people to benefit from current lubrication and filtration technology than for me to make money. And with AMSOIL, everyone wins except the big oil companies and the car companies: you win, I win, AMSOIL wins, the environment wins, and your pocketbook wins.
Lubrication industry insiders know that AMSOIL products are the worldwide benchmark performance standard, and all the test data and accolades attest to that fact. OEM engineers know that professional racing performance is silently, quietly dominated by AMSOIL lubrication. And major trucking and construction companies also hold their AMSOIL secrets closely to their chest because of the competitive advantages it gives them. Marketing is an entirely different subject from performance.
Many engineers I’ve worked with have switched to AMSOIL. Every single one has noted and measured performance improvements, and to my knowledge none has gone back. The most measurable difference is in fuel economy, and while it ranges from 3 to 20%, a 7 to 8% improvement is typical [if you change all the drivetrain fluids, including engine oil, transmission fluid, and differential oil]. It’s not surprising to me. I knew the results I would get before I ever tried AMSOIL: the technology is world-class, so it naturally produces world-class performance.
As far as I can make it, my website is a bullshit-free zone that is data-driven. Study the research White Papers on gear lubrication and motorcycle engine oils, and you’ll begin to understand the importance and the science behind measuring real performance in the lubrication industry. If you find anything you question, please feel free to ask and I’ll dig into it and either explain myself or correct it. If there’s any way I can help you, let me know. Call me if you like: my cell number is below.
But please accept this challenge to be a true skeptic – identify the products for your vehicle, buy them at wholesale as a Preferred Customer and use the products yourself, to prove to yourself whether or not they really work.
THAT is why AMSOIL continues to grow so quickly: it’s rare for someone who knows their vehicle to try AMSOIL and ever go back to anything else. Most people are skeptics: they don’t believe it until they investigate and prove it to themselves. Some never investigate, but it’s not accurate to call them skeptics: those are merely people who choose to be ignorant – too lazy or busy to research the facts.
How do we know AMSOIL oil and filter technology really works in real life? Simple. AMSOIL produces real results in real vehicles. Like this semi-truck with a 400,000 mile oil change and engine teardown analysis [archived field testing]. And like the engine teardown report on this 1999 Chevy Express expedited delivery van, [test archives] with one million miles on the original engine and transmission. He got those results using 25,000 mile AMSOIL oil changes (0W-30 SSO) and 150,000 mile AMSOIL synthetic ATF transmission fluid exchanges, yet only the last half of it’s life was using AMSOIL’s nanofiber filters. Can you imagine the results with nano fiber filters, which research shows can reduce wear rates by 70%? Can you see how conservative we’re being when we say AMSOIL doubles your remaining engine and transmission life?
“If Scamsoil filters are so great, how do you explain this [link to filter testing results]? http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm “ ^return to Q Index
First, my idea of a concise summary on air filtration performance is already here: http://autoengineer.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/how-to-pick-an-aftermarket-air-intake-filter-that-removes-dust
And this link gives you a broader summary of nanofiber technology in both air and oil filtration: http://autoengineer.wordpress.com/2006/09/24/is-nanofiber-filtration-really-that-big-a-deal
Second, here’s a more detailed explanation that specifically addresses the link you sent:
There’s nothing wrong with their info in the link you sent, and it’s actually quite good as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough. Bottom line, it doesn’t tell you the whole filter performance story in 2004, and most importantly it tells you nothing about current AMSOIL air filter performance which uses nanofiber technology. Here’s why:
- ISO tests using certified “coarse” test dust (not “course”, as misspelled everywhere in the report you linked) are the historical industry norm, and are commonly used by filter manufacturers to imply how much better their filters perform. In fact, coarse dust is so overwhelmingly common that it’s nearly an assumption. In the testing link you provided, they state “To be consistent with common industry practice all filters were tested using PTI Course Test Dust. Course dust is more commonly used… “ (Although they do provide some data on the AFE and K&N with Fine dust.) The big problem is that – are you ready for a shocker? – coarse test dust is COARSE. It’s TOO coarse. While it may reflect what an air filter is exposed to when roaring down a ramp in a strip-mine, or closely trailing Baja race leaders in a in a shower of sand and dust, it doesn’t mimic what most vehicles are exposed to. Nearly any filter is going to stop the 40 to 80 micron range, and traditional (depth-loading) filter technologies rely on the “dust cake” buildup to get more reasonable filtration capability at lower micron sizes. So loading the filter with that large-particle content is going to dramatically skew all the results. But the engine wear-particle range is historically regarded by the SAE as 5 to 25 microns. (In an extensive testing report published as an SAE research paper [#881825], a senior GM engineer documented a 70% engine wear-rate reduction by filtering “all” particles down to 15 microns out of the engine oil. The air filter is how most wear particles get into the engine oil.) Thus, in order to test/compare filter effectiveness in real life in a way that correlates to actual engine wear, you must use ISO “fine” dust… which is seldom done.
[I find it interesting that full-page 2008 magazine ads by a particular air filter manufacturer misspell “coarse” test dust as “course” throughout their entire advertising campaign. I wonder if this is a deliberate attempt to imply the idea of a driving course, to keep consumers from realizing that while ISO test dust can meet either Coarse or Fine specifications, they are using Coarse dust.]
In fairness, there are two technical reasons that newer ISO tests with Fine dust are seldom used in automotive filtration: first, because they don’t match well to the limitations of conventional filter media. And secondly, because it’s more expensive and technically difficult to test. In the link you provided, they noted difficult challenges in accurately testing with Coarse dust – you can imagine the greater technical difficulty and cost in obtaining good resolution and accuracy levels with a Fine dust sample size range. Note the last table in that report, which roughly compares the content of “Fine” vs “Coarse” test dust. (In the data I notice that the AFE and K&N turned in efficiencies of 92.33 and 89.85% with Fine dust [compare that to AMSOIL’s EaA filters with 98.7% efficiency at 2 microns], and the oiled-gauze K&N passed over 20 grams of Fine dust, which is more than 10% of the total dust weight ingested and unfortunately probably accurate to real life. That illustrates why K&N has never talked about filter efficiency, but focused on drag-strip levels of airflow. I’m embarrassed to admit that at one time I had K&N’s in all of my vehicles.)
- Those comparison tests are noted as being performed in 2004, and the AMSOIL filter is correctly noted as a TS series which was a Dual-Density (2 layer) Oiled Foam (DDOF) filter. If tested against other filter technologies using an ISO Fine dust, data showed it to be the best technology available at the time – “best” in terms of removing the 5-25 micron wear particle range with decent capacity before plugging up. However, there were at least two manufacturers of that DDOF technology. I’m not aware that AMSOIL specifically claimed to be better than all other air filters, but I think they did feel that the dual-density oiled foam was one of the best-performance technologies to that point in time. Again, the graphs would have looked very different with Fine dust, but in the case of oiled gauze and DDOF they will also look different depending on the amount of oil in the filter: always a manufacturing challenge with oiled media, and the levels of flow restriction the TS was showing in their testing suggest to me that it may have been over-oiled. I’m not sure how detailed you’re wanting me to get, but bottom line –
AMSOIL was well aware of the performance variations and limitations of conventional filter media including DDOF, and was dissatisfied in pairing it to their advanced oil technology: engine filtration is a vital twin to oil performance in achieving maximum engine life. That’s why they aggressively searched out nanofiber technology, and then scaled many obstacles including a mountain of delicate negotiations over several years, in order to bring nanofiber technology into the light-truck/automotive market.
- Current AMSOIL filtration is nanofiber technology, introduced in late 2006 (if my memory is right), and is exclusive on the market. Nanofiber filtration is the undisputed performance champion, and only the AMSOIL/Donaldson product line offers that technology. (Nanofiber technology dominates performance in hospital operating rooms and electronics clean-rooms, as well as industrial dust-capture and military equipment filtration.) A critical difference is that these nanofiber air filters are surface-loaded filtration. By preventing the clogging that occurs with depth-loading, and taking advantage of the micro-physics slipstream effect that increases air velocity flowing around/between small-particle objects, nanofiber technology offers the unequalled ability to have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too: fine-particle capture, heavy loading, low pressure-drop, fast and easy dry cleaning, all at the same time. And of course, it eliminates all the issues of under or over-oiling of the filter media. Specifically, reference my page here on AMSOIL’s nanofiber air filter performance:
If you look at the microscope photos and illustrations, you can visually understand that nanofiber technology isn’t mere sales talk: it’s as fundamentally different as Cathode Ray Tube TV’s and LCD or Plasma HD flat panel screens. Note that AMSOIL’s data referenced here was obtained in certified ISO
testing by Southwest labs, one of the world’s most respected certified filtration test laboratories and often regarded as the #1 authority in North America, using Fine test dust. “Filters are 100% efficient on 3 micron particles, and have 98% efficiency at 2 microns. “ Actually it’s Absolute Efficiency at 2 microns, which is 98.7%. And you get that performance level from the start – not eventually, after driving the vehicle for 10,000 miles and getting the dust-cake buildup, which you lose every time you replace a conventional filter with a new one. (That’s why some companies and agencies have actually warned technicians and vehicle owners that too-frequent air filter changes will increase engine wear rates.)Anyway, if you compare that performance to the page you linked, it’s a bit tricky because the efficiencies are a percentage of the particle weight of the entire test-dust spectrum: in essence they are listing the % of total particle weight as efficiency. That’s a common practice, but one that makes it difficult for laypeople to interpret useful performance. AMSOIL worked with Southwest to put the test data in the clear, concrete terms of Absolute Efficiency at a specific micron size – which I feel is a big advance in terms of indicating actual wear-prevention performance and briefly stating real numbers that consumers can accurately understand and use for comparison. I hope other companies will follow that lead, but I’m not holding my breath. Nevertheless, I think it’s evident that none of the other filter technologies can produce balanced overall size/capacity/flow performance at anywhere near the level of nanofiber media.
- Yet again, I have complete ISO test data (supplied directly to me by the owner/president of S&B) that “proves” their dry multi-layer synthetic fiber filters equal the performance of AMSOIL’s EaA air filters. It’s rather puzzling that ISO certified testing can legitimately produce such results… until you consider that they are again using ISO 5011’s protocol with Coarse test dust, which doesn’t at all reveal the functional performance benefits of a nanofiber filter. Nor does it reveal the inability of conventional filter technologies to stop the smaller wear particles of 10 microns and below, due to the dust-cake which is formed so quickly in coarse media when using Coarse test dust. In essence, using Coarse test dust is not only the historic norm for testing, but is also a very effective way to hide the performance superiority of nanofiber filtration technology. That’s fortunate for conventional filter salesmen, and for all the OEM’s who are banking on engines wearing out, but not so fortunate for the everyday consumer.
- Ea is the notation for Absolute Efficiency. One reason AMSOIL refers to their filters in this way is because they rival the performance of the Absolute Efficiency master reference filters that have traditionally been used to capture and analyze the Coarse test-dust particle content that passes through conventional filters.
Please keep in mind that all this is me talking, not AMSOIL. To the best of my knowledge as an engineer, everything I’ve said is accurate. But I can’t guarantee 100% accuracy and I reserve the right to learn more and improve the accuracy of my statements. However, I hope these are some helpful insights in interpreting test data and understanding the filtration technology. I wasn’t as short as your e-mail, but shorter than the ISO test protocols and reports. Let me know if you have any other questions.
p.s. By providing 98.7% efficiency at 15 microns, AMSOIL’s EaO oil filter line gives you a 70% reduction in engine wear rate – according to published SAE/GM testing data. Imagine what the 98.7% at 2 microns does for you in the air filter. Well you don’t have to imagine much, because the same SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) report #881825 concluded that filtration down to 2 microns “virtually eliminates” measureable engine wear. [With that level of filtration performance, almost any car engine can be a 500,000 mile engine, and many can go a million miles.]
p.p.s In the earlier e-mail I mentioned the White Papers on gear lubrication and motorcycle engine oils. Here are links to download them:
Gear Lube White Paper pdf [Archive – does not represent current formulations]
Those are extensive product performance comparisons using certified independent-lab test-data results of industry standard tests. Keep in mind that they are also lubrication-industry firsts: no one else has EVER dared to undertake such expense or publish such data, because if they’re not completely legitimate and accurate, some of the world’s biggest corporate legal offices are going to sue their pants off. No-one has ever legally challenged the accuracy of any AMSOIL test data, even though they probably publish more of it than all other lubrication companies in the world, combined.
That fact alone is formidable evidence of the accuracy of the data.
Isn’t Amsoil really just the “Amway” of oil – more MLM hype? ^return
“Amway” of oil. I could write a book on that. I’ve been in Amway, in the legendary Britt organization, for more than 20 years. I spent thousands of dollars on audio tapes and all that stuff, did 4 big weekend meetings a year for probably 10 years, did home meetings and one-on-ones, had dozens in my group. Been to several of Bill Britt’s homes, met and personally talked with Bill and many of the Diamonds & other “pins” in the organization on countless occasions. Attended Britt School. Had untold dozens of people approach me with opportunities “just like Amway only better”. Learned a lot. Made a few good friends, and there are a lot of really great people in that organization. But I “stay in” because of a few things Amway has going for it that are unequaled in the market, including the Nutrilite company, and the e-Spring water filter system.
Having said that, I hope you’d agree that I’m somewhat qualified to make some comments & observations. While there are certainly some parallels between AMSOIL and Amway, there are also huge differences. IMHO, the biggest difference is this: Amway is a business venture that is built and based on the concept of making money in MLM/Networking by selling some products and focusing on building a network, created by two friends that always wanted to be successful together in business. In contrast, AMSOIL is a business venture that grew completely out of a fighter-pilot’s passionate dream of creating the world’s highest-performance lubrication products despite huge obstacles, that stumbled onto the MLM/Networking approach as the critical key to getting around the large and entrenched oil-company distribution network, enabling a low-cost marketing approach that could focus on educating dealers & customers on product performance and helping people take full advantage of that performance to save money and time.
[Here’s a huge point that sets AMSOIL apart from all other “better” opportunities: AMSOIL is built on a passionate dedication to formidably engineered global-level product performance which is constantly improved and proven superior to competing lubrication products by independent labs for decades. They don’t merely claim to be “the best”: they work very hard to BE the best, and they have a long track record of DATA (not infomercials) proving their superiority with ASTM tests used globally by the entire lubrication industry. AMSOIL Dealers get to be part of sharing the secrets of that superior performance with other consumers and businesses – a great privilege!]
Let me summarize my AMSOIL “MLM” experience for you:
I researched the products, then searched for a great dealer to work with. I’ve never tried to sign up a dealer: they come to me, and they often sign up for the same reasons I did – product performance and the desire to help other people find out about it too. By survey, over 75% of AMSOIL dealers sign up after they’ve used and been amazed by the superior performance of the lubricants. I’ve never had a home meeting – I answer technical questions online or by phone. I don’t have to twist the arms of my friends and relatives into buying AMSOIL – they just buy the products and tell other people about them. [My new nextdoor neighbor is a PhD corporate technical executive, who became an AMSOIL Dealer and uses AMSOIL products in roughly a dozen vehicles, tools and toys.] My sponsors are both OEM engineers who work/worked in Detroit, and their sponsor was an OEM lubrication engineer. [I later worked as a senior engineer in a different OEM headquarters.] We all enjoy the technical challenges and rewarding professionalism of helping people discover the benefits of AMSOIL products.
I’ve been to AMSOIL University and to the annual Fall sales training events. AMSOIL doesn’t do motivational speaker hyping – they do technical training and teaching effective techniques on how to properly recommend/use the products and how to get people to try them. They update us on the continuous growth of the company’s facilities and capacities, they inform us about upcoming technologies, they answer technical questions, they get to the point, they share more of their latest published test data, and they have short meetings.
That’s very unlike Amway. It’s also very unlike corporate America and the big oil companies. Do you really think Exxon-Mobil believes Mobil 1 is a superior product when AMSOIL has repeatedly proven it is not – and publicly published the test data for 35 years? Who do you think has to do the sales hype? [Check out the only “proof” Exxon-Mobil offers that they are as good as AMSOIL.]
I have no problems with Scamsoil’s bypass filters, probably a legitimate quality product. But the “Amway” of oil is utterly ridiculous in their testing of air filters and their motor oils. I do believe that you are a firm believer though, and that is cool if its your thing. I hope you can make some cash out of it. I’m sure Scamsoil is better than Trop Artic dino. ^return
– Bypass filters: Yes, AMSOIL’s EaBP filters are the leading world standard in bypass filter performance, exceeding the solid performance of the strongly marketed FS2500 “soot sucker”. Ea_Nanofiber_bypass_oil_filters
– “utterly ridiculous in their testing of air filters and their motor oils “ No, far from it. Unless you’re calling world-class engineering “utterly ridiculous” because of the immense attention to detail, your statement makes no sense. You’re talking about testing, and mention both air filters and motor oils in the same breath. Those are both huge subjects. We’ll have to take them one at a time.
Here are two solutions for you in analyzing air filtration. From an engineering perspective AMSOIL is using every available standardized test (the industry-defined SAE/ASTM/API tests, not made-up ones that are easily manipulated), performed by independent certified labs, and publishing the results to demonstrate that their products are constantly re-engineered to define the new cutting-edge performance available in technology. Most of those tests are done on a regular basis internally by ALL oil companies. Why is it that the other oil companies don’t publish THEIR test results? Why don’t they print THEIR test results right on their air-filter / oil-filter / oil-case boxes? Why don’t they sue AMSOIL out of the market for false advertising with fake numbers against their specific product brand printed right on the AMSOIL packaging for the whole world to see? Al Amatuzio was inducted into the Lubrication Hall of Fame, and had a TV special done on him, because of his worldwide reputation for creating THE performance gold standards in lubrication, in the face of immense obstacles and corporate giants – not because AMSOIL marketing is structured as an MLM.
If you want me to help you further on that, you’re going to have to be a lot more specific than that comment.
Oil testing? READ the research white papers on motorcycle oils and gear lubes. They are industry-shaking firsts. They’ll be serious help to bring you out of the dark about what’s really involved in testing and performance, and lubrication product engineering. [Here is a link to all AMSOIL tests and reports. Near the bottom is a link to test archives for test data that is not 100% current.]
– “Firm believer.” No, not just a firm believer. My personality profile is that I have to know beyond any shadow of a doubt, I’m highly analytical, and I research relentlessly until I’m absolutely certain. There is no room for error because I HATE being wrong and I have a professional obligation to admit it if I am. AMSOIL is no scam. I know the performance level of the products are real – not imaginary. There were a few times in AMSOIL’s history that some company came up with a product of equal or nearly equal performance to AMSOIL, in a specific niche category. But those moments are few and typically fairly short-lived because AMSOIL already had research in the hopper to leapfrog to a new cutting-edge level of performance.
– “hope you can make some cash out of it”. I’m on a mission to help people, more than anything else. Again, I’m not a sales guy. That’s why I try to sign everyone up as a Preferred Customer: I’d rather they buy at wholesale than never try and be amazed at AMSOIL, even if I lose all the retail profit. And in the back of my mind, I know that there are volume bonuses… so if I help enough people, I can eventually take the family on vacations. And that can repay them to some extent for the time I take from them to help other people.
However… leaving online readers with only my preference in operating my business would do great injustice to the vast options that AMSOIL provides. Options for their Dealers to grow and structure their business and profitability the way they choose.
The truth is that AMSOIL makes it possible for people to make way more money working for themselves by just helping others. Steady, strategic effort develops very strong incomes. Many widows are living on the residual income that their husbands created and which will be passed down to their families.
The core of our customers are average commuters and commercial businesses looking to cut costs in fuel and maintenance, and to extend their average vehicle life. AMSOIL is known for it’s ability to reduce downtime and serious costly mechanical failures in all applications: Automotive, Heavy-duty Equipment, Compressors, Lawn and Golf Course Equipment, Marine, Motorcycle, Diesel, Emergency Response vehicles, and much more.
Here’s a link to a brochure on The AMSOIL Center. It gives a glimpse of what a first class operation AMSOIL is, so take a tour. Notice how clean and organized the manufacturing, bottling and stocking process is. That’s Quality Assurance. And this explains AMSOIL’s historical legacy of industry firsts and continuing commitment to excellence. Understanding their unique business philosophy helps you understand why AMSOIL has a worldwide reputation as the Gold Standard in the lubrication industry. Seeing their manufacturing process helps you understand why AMSOIL STILL has such a dramatic lead on the entire synthetic oil industry.
An AMSOIL Dealership is a business that has been time tested. It has a proven track record over the last 36 years. Do you know of any other business that has this kind of record? An AMSOIL Dealership can provide an exceptional income, full or part time, if you are simply willing to put forth any reasonable effort to build your business. Compare this to any other franchise business opportunity: they require a minimum investment of $250,000 to $1 million.
Do you know what our most common customers’ complaint is? “I can’t find AMSOIL Products locally.” [Resolve that problem: easy-to-use pdf e-catalog gets AMSOIL shipped to your door in typically 2-3 business days.]
As a “engineer” haven’t you at least ever wondered why Amsoil just hasn’t caught on to the mainstream car guy in masses? You guys don’t even make up 1% of the market. I know… it’s because big oil is keeping ya down right? And all those non-scamsoil sponsored tests that are bogus right? ^return
Hell, what does your oil line have? one or two API certified oils? Because the certifications costs too much? Thanks, M…
While I know nothing about you, I’ve been completely open with you. After what I’ve explained so far, I’m surprised at the tone that comes through in your e-mail. However, assuming that you’re looking for some knowledgeable, balanced perspective, and assuming that you’re suspecting perhaps you’ve been soured by arrogant opinions… spread online to bash AMSOIL by those who think they know something, I’ll address the comments/concerns/accusations you brought up.
Let me assure you that NOTHING you’ve mentioned as a concern has slipped past me. Not in the slightest. I’ve investigated all of that long ago, most of it before even trying AMSOIL products or becoming a dealer. I can give you clear answers.
– “haven’t you at least ever wondered why it just hasn’t caught on to the mainstream car guy in masses? “ I have thought about the reasons and how I can help people move past the obstacles, if that’s what you’re asking. Marketing, in the big picture after the merging of psychology with Wall Street finance after WWII – when Hitler proved how the combination could be so effective at manipulating the masses of people – marketing is about creating enough emotional impressions with enough strength to determine mass behavior. Even many people who are individualistic will follow the masses, based on an assumption that most people are right, or on the desire/pressure to fit in or not appear “wrong” or “unenlightened”. In the case of marketing, or politics, most people are manipulated – the days of mainstream media informing the public are long gone. People THINK they make logical decisions, but in reality most decisions are emotional. That’s why mass marketing is emotional. So again, I try to help people educate themselves on the DATA.
Test data has no emotional manipulation. Slogans may sell, but choosing products based on tested performance is the only way to get superior performance. As I note on my website “Don’t be fooled by NASCAR advertising contracts with cool graphics and beautiful women – those cars don’t run on Via-gra, and neither does yours! Somebody else didn’t write that, btw – I did.
Further, it’s important to realize the profit motive is huge. Jiffy Lube’s president is on public record for promoting 3,000 mile oil changes purely because JL and the oil companies make more money. An auto parts store manager asked me point-blank “why in the world would I sell 25,000 mile oils and filters when I have people come in there and buy stuff off those two shelves, all day long?” In the face of such marketing efforts, how is the “mainstream car guy” going to catch on to how he’s being suckered, if you or I don’t tell him?
But AMSOIL has “caught on” where it counts. Our dealer organization has more OEM engineers than all the rest of AMSOIL combined, which is why we’re the fastest growing and the largest. We’re focused on customer education and performance results. The guy leading our group is a former FORD lubrication engineer, who is highly respected for his knowledge and track record. He has helped set up many fleet and construction equipment maintenance programs, showing them how to decrease their costs and boost capital equipment life by 30 to 100%. He has worked with many race teams, and was well aware that Rousch and many other leading technology centers were in full agreement with the superiority of AMSOIL lubricants. He notes that when Rousch can use ANYTHING in the world, yet chose to recommend and use AMSOIL almost exclusively, without any sponsorships or contracts or money changing hands, that speaks volumes. He knew that new designs in transmissions and differentials were sometimes repeated endurance failures until AMSOIL was contacted and their latest un-released cutting-edge product was tested.
We know what we’re talking about, and we’re passionate about performance and value. That’s why we use the products ourselves, and why we believe others should at least try them.
– “not even 1% of the market”. I don’t know the actual numbers, but don’t much care. I know that AMSOIL is the largest synthetic oil company in the world, and growing at a constantly increasing pace. I know that our dealer organization has been growing in the strong double digits since we started, and that we lead all of AMSOIL in growth. I know that I see my business grow on an annual basis. I know that even in the non-pro racing communities, AMSOIL is becoming the legendary standard. Talk X-Cross or Sno-Cross or Champ Boat and it’s overwhelmingly AMSOIL.
– “I know…it’s because big oil is keeping ya down right?” Mostly what holds growth back is ignorance. The ignorance of mechanics, of consumers, of maintenance people. I didn’t say stupidity – just ignorance of the facts. Most people have never gotten ahold of authoritative data on synthetic performance, so they’re led by myth and marketing. We try to change that problem – one person at a time.
– “those non-scamsoil sponsored tests that are bogus right?“ Are you referring to anything specific? Test Data is test data, as long as it’s meaningful. If it’s not a standardized ASTM or SAE or API or ISO or ASHRAE (some current test developed by an authoritative engineering organization), then it means nothing (bogus) because the test has not been rigorously enough defined so that the results can be accurately duplicated and can’t be manipulated (whether accidentally or purposefully). Also, if the test data is not by an independent certified lab AND is only against undefined “Competitor A, B, C”, then it is meaningless because there is no legal weight behind it: the data can be imaginary, or against oils meeting 25-yr old standards that are illegal to sell in the U.S. If you want to talk about specific test and specific data, let’s talk turkey.
Again, AMSOIL’s data is independently certified as verifiably accurate, is legally binding, names actual competitive product names, and they are the only ones publishing their test data. Haven’t you ever wondered why?
If Mobil 1 is the greatest performer, or Lucas, or Shaeffer, or something else, why not publish – just once – some certified test data that proves they beat the #1 synthetic lubricant company in the world?
Every once in a rare while, someone will publish ONE chart, from one test. We call those products “one-trick ponies”, because rather than create a balanced product that performs all the required functions of the lubricant at a high level of performance, they deliberately focus on one thing in their formulation so that they can use it as a marketing gimmick. That’s an all-too-common problem in motorcycle and gear oils. [When you look in AMSOIL’s comparative test data, you will often see one or two tests in a series that shows other oils to be better performing than AMSOIL. They don’t hide that fact by leaving out the tests. But if you look carefully, you’ll see that those are tests that don’t have a strong link to the most valuable performance features, and that AMSOIL’s product is clearly the overall performance leader in the tests that count most.]
So who’s hiding from who? Who’s scamming who?
– “what does your oil line have? one or two API certified oils? Because the certifications costs too much? “ This is the old API certification question. Been asked thousands of times, and often answered poorly or incompletely by both AMSOIL and Dealers… I’ll give it my best shot, [and also give you some helpful official AMSOIL explanations]:
API is about minimum performance standards – they could care less about maximum performance, and anything of mediocre quality is going to pass API certification. Certification is not only about meeting the minimum standards, but about being certified into their pockets as meeting the minimum standards, at a high price.
API is American Petroleum Institute. Notice anything about their name? The requirements for maintaining API certification are cleverly DIFFERENT for synthetics than they are for the petroleum oils they were originally and are still designed for. The API certifications are based on the old petro management assumption that you’re going to formulate once and sell it for 8 to 15 yrs, and while they give full leeway for petro to change base-stock sources, [more consistently uniform] synthetics are not permitted to do that without recertification. To preserve competitive advantage to the oil-drilling companies the changes are deliberately limited to (petroleum) Group III “synthetic” base-stocks, not the true synthetic Group IV and V base stocks that AMSOIL works with. And yes, because they are treated differently despite the lack of any plausible excuse, maintaining the certifications is much more expensive for synthetics than for petroleum oils.
But more importantly, the API system does not support AMSOIL’s foundational operational philosophy of always offering the best performance that technology advancements will allow. In fact, the API certification system blocks that philosophy. In many lubrication segments, AMSOIL’s product formulation life is only two to 5 years because they improve the formulation to improve the performance. That’s why they’re the best. It’s not accidental, and it’s not marketing… it’s engineering. Yet every synthetic formulation improvement would have to be re-certified to still bear the API’s licensed starburst. Where is the value in that, particularly if it’s not on a Petroleum oil? Would that benefit the customer, or would it delay them from getting improved performance and force them to pay a higher price?
Further, because the API Licensing standards include restrictions that are not OEM/SAE sanctioned, which are written to restrict technologies to dramatically extend oil drain intervals and reach very low wear-rates, high-performance formulations are prohibited from licensing. So API certification, which simply licenses the display of the API starburst, is NOT a mark of rigorous quality. Instead, it is a verification both of passing the minimum quality required for the SAE/API Service Grades, and of NOT being particularly high performance. This is why NASCAR and other race-team advertising contracts are such a big deal: oil companies can purchase an illusion that their high-profit, minimum-performance API starburst products are being used in the best race cars – when in reality… they almost never are.
AMSOIL corporation gave this summary of API certification requirements: “What this means is that if a consumer wants a product that just meets minimum specifications, then they should purchase API Licensed products and get exactly what they paid for…minimum performance! In the future, should these standards be raised to a level consistent with AMSOIL’s standards for motor oil performance, AMSOIL will consider licensing all oils.”
If AMSOIL products are formulated to dramatically exceed every API, ASTM, SAE and ILSAC minimum, and the laboratory testing proves they exceed the performance of all SAE Service Grade requirements and all API licensed oils, then why bother jacking up the price of products to pay the API high dollars for maintaining an unfair competitive bias in the favor of petroleum oils and fake petroleum “synthetics”? And do consumers truly want AMSOIL to lower their performance to petroleum standards to earn the privilege of being eligible for API License marketing?
AMSOIL is far more interested in demonstrating how big a performance advantage they have over the competition, than in proving they can pass the tests for API Licensing mediocrity. So, AMSOIL chooses to dramatically exceed API performance standards and leave them in the dust – from a test-data/performance perspective. They offer very few API Licensed oils: the inexpensive XL series covers that ground with Group III petroleum base stocks that the petroleum companies decided to call “synthetic”, and do so only for people who have been marketed into the belief that API certification is essential for oil performance or – more likely – for warranty coverage, and who do not know/believe the validity of extended drain intervals of 15,000 or 25,000 or 35,000 miles or more.
AMSOIL XL Series:
Even though AMSOIL’s API licensed oils are the cheapest-priced products in the “scams oil” lineup, and outperform all other API licensed oils, their performance is restricted by API licensing requirements that I believe are intended to create disadvantages for high performance synthetics. Regardless, neither AMSOIL nor automotive engineers recommend XL on the basis of best performance or best value in the AMSOIL lineup: again, API licensing restrictions prohibit high performance, and exclude the high value of extended drain intervals. However, if API licensing and low per-quart pricing are the goals, then the XL series oils meet those objectives while giving the best performance that API limitations will allow.
So don’t miss that important point: while the XL oils are API licensed (“synthetic” under the new definition by Big Oil) and quite inexpensive, they cannot touch the performance and value of the rest of the AMSOIL line. And while AMSOIL’s primary true-synthetic oils are more expensive per quart than the XL oils, they are actually much cheaper in use because of their extended drain intervals — which the restrictions of API licensing limits will not allow.
AMSOIL has been in business since 1972 and was the first company in the world to develop an API (American Petroleum Institute) rated synthetic lubricant for automotive applications. They coined the phrase “extended drain intervals” 30 years ago with 25,000 mile drain intervals, and ever since then they have been defining the leading edge of lubrication technology, innovation and performance. No other company in the world offers 25,000 and 35,000 mile oil changes, and AMSOIL guarantees their product performance. No-one else does that.
[Here is a “deep-dive” into the issues of API licensing and vehicle warranties.]
There is a great deal of confusion about the significance of API Certification (Trademark Licensing) in two specific areas: 1) as it relates to oil performance, and 2) as it relates to vehicle warranties.
API has a vested financial interest in creating and maintaining a public perception that non-API Licensed products should always be avoided at all costs. But is that really true? No, it’s not. And API licensing or certification is NOT required to meet warranties. What IS required is using lubricants that meet the SAE Service Grade requirements specified by the OEM, which is exactly what API tests for and certifies in their licensing program, using ASTM tests. So understand that there are two issues with two purposes: the SAE Service Grades are how the OEM specifies the required performance, while API Trademark Licensing is how the API makes money and manipulates consumers to create marketing advantages for the petroleum companies that it is chartered to serve.
The API Starburst means only that they have licensed the oil: the API guarantees nothing, and specifically states that the “marketer” and manufacturer of the oil is fully responsible for the oil content and performance. So whether the “starburst” is there or not, the oil manufacturer is 100% responsible for the oil’s performance to the API service grades.
Please note that in their own words “API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) is a voluntary licensing and certification program that authorizes engine oil marketers who meet specified requirements to use the API Engine Oil Quality Marks.“ So API Certification is designed to create a profit stream for them by verifying the minimal performance of petroleum oils. The API certification includes expensive engine stand tests for validating overall performance, but also uses the individual ASTM performance measurement tests both in certification and as part of their product quality verification for the licensed oil quarts that are actually being sold in retail stores.
The API Licensing is primarily based on the very ASTM test results that AMSOIL publishes, and those ASTM test results are what determine meeting SAE service classifications, which is what the OEM’s require. API Licensing – or “certification” – is a completely different issue than meeting or dramatically exceeding API (SAE) Service Classification performance, which all AMSOIL products do. Licensing places far higher unfair cost burdens on true synthetic lubricants, and by its’ own admission in API 1509, API only licenses certification to minimum performance standards, not maximum performance. Further, API Licensing does nothing to identify or encourage development or sale of high performance products.
In light of this background, carefully consider this question about the value of API Certification and Licensing:
API Licenses its’ starburst using the results of ASTM tests to verify meeting SAE service grade requirements, then adds expensive ASTM engine-stand test sequences to verify overall performance to minimum requirements, then uses the standard ASTM tests to “police” the store-shelf quality. If comparative testing, by certified independent labs, using the same standardized ASTM/SAE performance tests that the API uses to validate continued quality of certified formulations, shows that AMSOIL dramatically exceeds the performance of every “API Certified” oil bearing the API starburst, then what value does API Licensing have to AMSOIL or AMSOIL customers?
[Here is a “deep-dive” into the issues of API licensing and vehicle warranties.]
Mobil 1 has historically run a wear-scar size 3 times larger than AMSOIL’s, and now AMSOIL has extended that gap to produce a 4-ball wear test scar that is less than 25% of Mobil 1 Extended Performance. In fact, since Mobil 1 is one of the few true synthetics that are API certified, here’s how Mobil 1 performs against AMSOIL in the most critical API/ILSAC/ASTM tests.
AMSOIL’s exceeding API performance standards is not a matter of idle marketing claims, but of published test-proven facts that major billion-dollar petroleum oil companies would love to crush in court lawsuits – if they could. AMSOIL “scamsoil” products outperform API Licensed products because they are designed to be the best. Look at “scamsoil” motor oil results in one of the API Certification engine test sequence protocols: AMSOIL 10W-30 dramatically exceeded performance standards in the API Sequence IIIF [engine] test. The non-API licensed AMSOIL blew the API test out of the water! AMSOIL exceeded TRIPLE the API requirements, and looking at the performance graph it’s obvious that the motor oil would NEVER fail. [Download full pdf of past & future Sequence tests here.] This level of performance reflects what the other standardized ASTM test results demonstrate, but the Sequence IIIF costs far more to perform and tells you less than the other standardized ASTM “bench” tests that [measure and] demonstrate the SAE service grade requirements.
Call us crazy engineers, but if AMSOIL wants to “scam” us like that, we hope they never stop!
Further, AMSOIL motor oils are designed to exceed the far higher performance standards of the European ACEA standards that Europe adheres to, where 10,000-20,000 mile oil changes have been the norm for more than a decade. So now, can you begin to see how ludicrous the API Certification (Licensing) issue is to knowledgeable automotive engineers, lubrication engineers and AMSOIL users?
Is API Certification required for vehicle warranty? NO.
In AMSOIL’s words: “Another common misconception is that motor oils must be API certified in order to meet warranty requirements. The fact is, lubricants are not required to be certified by the API, only meet or exceed API specifications.”
Owners manuals sometimes recommend an API Certified (API trademark licensed) oil, but they only require use of an oil that meets the proper API (SAE) Service Grade requirements. However, people with less than stellar reading comprehension are quick to conclude that an API “starburst” certification is required. And that is exactly what the API, the oil companies, and the vehicle OEM”s want people to believe. Just this week we saw someone on a forum saying that a Ford dealer denied a warranty claim because of using a non-API-licensed synthetic oil. No. Verbally telling a customer that doesn’t deny warranty coverage – it just tests the customer to see if they are a patsy, or if they know warranties must be denied in writing. That’s just a new variation on the false claim that synthetic oil nullifies vehicle warranties. OEM and automotive engineer and federal government statements are more authoritative than either car-dealership employees or people posting to online forums.
Just because a Dealer employee says so (perhaps misinterpreting an owners’ manual reference that recommends API Certified oils) does not mean that the OEM will not honor the warranty. It merely means the Dealer employee is wrong. If the customer calls the OEM and complains about such falsehood, it will almost certainly turn the dealer around. lf not, AMSOIL’s legal department will contact them for you.
A dealer can claim that using
a vastly superior AMSOIL engine oil voids the warranty
because it isn’t displaying the API Licensed Trademark,
but that’s logically ridiculous and completely false,
both scientifically and legally.
In the Magnuson-Moss Act, Federal law prohibits denying warranty claims for unrelated reasons, and places the burden of proof on the OEM, not on the consumer. The legal precedents in interpreting Magnuson-Moss are clear and long-established. Unless the OEM can demonstrate in failure analysis that an equipment failure is due to the oil being out of specification and directly causing the failure, the warranty stands. If the oil did not cause the problem the warranty cannot be voided, regardless of the brand of oil used, or the length of time or number of miles the oil was used. Oil selection cannot nullify a warranty unless the oil is proven to be at fault, any more than the engine warranty can be voided for installing aftermarket headlight bulbs. In truth, oil is very rarely the cause of any warranty problem.
And AMSOIL has NEVER been found to have caused an equipment failure. Never.
On the other hand, API Certified oils produce major sludge problems in many 1997 – 2004 engines from a number of OEM’s including Toyota, Lexus, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Saab, causing fatal engine damage as early as 50,000 miles in perfectly-maintained vehicles. Vehicles using AMSOIL do not have these problems. What this suggests is that you are at lowest risk by using AMSOIL, but at the highest risk by using the bare-minimum quality of API Licensed oils.
AMSOIL provides special instructions in this document, which lists specific engines and manufacturers with sludge problems. Yet even in these cases, because the oils meet the API service requirements that the OEM requires, they are covered under warranty as long as recommended maintenance intervals were followed and documented. This was detailed in the August 2005 Consumer Reports magazine, as well as many other automotive sources, and AMSOIL also published this TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) to advise customers and Dealers on these engine sludge problems.
Engine “sludging” is primarily the aftermath of design changes to meet newer EPA emissions requirements. While the mediocre API Licensed petroleum oils were found to be bad performers, AMSOIL’s advanced formulations already outperformed the problems – many years before they existed!
Take Saab for example. The Saab engines are well designed, but highly prone to rapid turbo failure and engine failure using API Certified “synthetic” oils. In fact, API certified oils simply don’t meet many of the European specifications which require higher-performance oils. Chuck Andrews is one of North America’s foremost Saab authorities, and writes the “Nines” Saab newsletter for owners. Since 2006 he has proven that 5,000 mile oil changes with AMSOIL 5W-40 European car oil (AFL) will consistently outperform all other options in preventing damaging sludge buildup in the generation of at-risk engines, retaining good oil chemistry and minimizing engine wear. Previous to extensive AMSOIL testing in the many Saabs he services, his favorite had been Mobil 1. Neither Saab nor Mr. Andrews’ dealership seem concerned that AMSOIL’s product isn’t API Licensed or listed in Saab owner’s manuals. However they are very concerned with performance, and are very pleased with AMSOIL performance. They don’t call it “scamsoil”. In fact, they invited AMSOIL to speak at the 2007 Saab owners club convention.
The engine sludging problem again proves that the API’s system of Licensing trademarks to show minimal performance is questionably risky for consumers, while AMSOIL’s reputation for pursuing extreme excellence appears to be well deserved.
AMSOIL is no scam. AMSOIL products are recognized worldwide in the lubrication industry as being the gold standard of maximum performance in oils and greases. [How else can a standard 1999 Chevy Express delivery van put a million miles on the engine and transmission without overhauls? How else can a class 8 big-rig run over 2M miles with annual oil changes and very little work? For a deeper understanding of why we recommend AMSOIL’s engineered synthetics, review how to pick the best engine oil.]
[Here are some official AMSOIL statements on API Licensing and Warranty issues:
Motorcycle Warranty Concerns – Harley Davidson says None When Using Synthetic Oil
Vehicle Warranties Using Amsoil ]
Tell me something, M. Let’s assume I’m not on the level with you, and AMSOIL products are merely hyped marketing scams. Carefully consider these four questions:
- Why would I sell nearly everything at wholesale and pay for the literature out of my own pocket to freely hand/mail to people, knowing that they had to use the products for a year for me to pay my expenses in helping them? Why would I do that if there was a big risk they would try the products and not see clear benefits?
- Why would I spend hours e-mailing you, who most other AMSOIL dealers would have ignored or written off? Where is the financial benefit to me in that?
- Why would Donaldson – the world leader in nanofiber filtration technology, who has refused to partner with ANY company – decide to partner long-term with AMSOIL exclusively, make their entire vehicle-related product line available to them, and provide them with all the filtration media and cover them with exclusive warrantys that they’ve never done before, even for their own distribution network? I’ve talked to current and former employees of Fram and another famous filter company who were AMAZED at that, saying “how did they do that? Donaldson won’t work with anyone!”
- Would you – in the face of information like this – want to risk missing an opportunity to try the products yourself?
6. I certainly appreciate your fervor and belief in your scamsoil products! Why you do these things that ultimately are a waste of your time is none of my concern. I also have read the data and find your companies claims preposterous. The scar ball test scamsoil so highly touts can be passed with common household 4% bleach. The claims that you are making about a 20% fuel mileage increase with just a Scamsoil oil change couldn’t be farther from reality. Does a scamsoil oil change actually change the gear ratio in transmissions and rear ends? Please don’t take my choice of simple words to be a tone of arrogance. In my opinion (just as you have your own) I can only conclude that dubious testing procedures were invented by the company you represent, nothing personal. ^(return)
Wow. OK, we tackled his comments one at a time…
“I also have read the data and find your companies claims preposterous.” “I can only conclude that dubious testing procedures were invented by the company you represent, nothing personal.”
Evidently you are totally missing the point of 3rd-party certified, industry-standardized engineered lab tests. Do you have any formal scientific training at all? Your ignorance of scientific method is showing through like the Noonday sun. (But don’t take that personally – I’ve met too many engineers who seem to be just as bad, although they usually just have 2-yr A.S. degrees.) You cannot dismiss SAE and ASTM test results, and still hold legitimate claim to intelligent validity of your opinion. [Note: API Licensing is based almost entirely on ASTM tests, and uses nearly all of the exact same certified labs and equipment as the ASTM tests that are run for AMSOIL.] As I told you before, READ THE RESEARCH WHITE PAPERS. There is NOTHING available that is more authoritative than that, and if you read them carefully, you will begin to understand why.
With perhaps one or two exceptions – such as a “test” that is just a visual photographic comparison so that people reading the report can see what the testers were seeing – all the tests are the commonly used, industry-accepted, standardized tests.
“Standardized” means they are designed by engineers to have best-practice elements which ensure that the tests cannot be cheated or fudged by altering conditions or variables that are not specifically controlled in the test. They are essentially the latest version of every standardized test that has been validated (by engineers and scientists) as having the greatest value in indicating/measuring the likely real-world performance. It has nothing to do with AMSOIL inventing them, but rather with an international multi-company team of engineers (like the Society of Automotive Engineers – SAE – or the American Society for Testing and Materials – ASTM) inventing them and refining them for years, to agree on the test control parameters and set-up procedures that will ensure the testing can always be performed accurately and the results can be accurately reproduced if someone else runs the test in a different location, in a different company, in a different month with a snowstorm outside… etc. The DESIGN of the standardized tests is validated as being effective in forcing the measured test data to be accurate, repeatable, and directly comparable. That is the purpose and design of “standardized” tests – especially tests that are developed and published by the international engineering standards committees of organizations like ISO, SAE, API, ASTM, and many more.
[A final point: ASTM is the undisputed leading authority in testing, and API Licensing of the trademark “starburst” for lubricant labels is based almost totally on ASTM test results.]
“The scar ball test scamsoil so highly touts can be passed with common household 4% bleach. “
M…, that’s an industry-standard ASTM D-4172 test approved and used by the API, that all oil companies do to some extent. You can also pass the test with Head and Shoulders shampoo, and any GL-5 gear lube. But that’s all irrelevant, because if you put any of those in an engine crankcase you are going to have serious problems. Here’s the real point: If you run the 4-ball wear-scar test with engine oils, as ONE of several tests, then you gain an overall perspective of the design and performance capabilities of the oil in comparison to other oils. [Most mechanically-inclined people who read the detailed description of the 4-ball wear test in the Gear Lube (G2457) research white paper, are going to agree that the test has to have some “real-world” value. Because like all standardized tests it is fully defined, tightly controlled, and produces measured physical data. For example, some manufacturers add cheap Zinc oxides to a formulation in order to create a ZDDP performance assumption with people who do a spectrographic chemical analysis of the oil. And you can find several people online who do exactly that in their comparisons of various oils, and have a following of people who assume they are getting good information. But that is only chemical testing, not physical performance testing. The truth will come out in the 4-ball Wear Test, because ZDDP is the more expensive high-performance version of Zinc.] The wear-scar test, in my experience, tends to be somewhat predictive of both engine wear rates and fuel-economy improvements in the real world. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why it’s so widely used/respected throughout the lubrication and automotive engineering circles. 😉
“The claims that you are making about a 20% fuel mileage increase with just a Scamsoil oil change couldn’t be farther from reality.”
M, you have a very one-sided perspective on reality. If some guys post results on the internet of what they admit is a highly uncontrolled “comparison” test in which they barely begin to comprehend the number or influence of uncontrolled variables that are involved, you call that “real world”. But if I tell you what people I personally know have experienced and I’ve grilled them on, then those facts “couldn’t be farther from reality”. How in the name of anything intelligently thoughtful can you call INDUSTRY STANDARD tests, performed by certified independent labs, “dubious” purely because AMSOIL publishes the results, but these weekend garage guys are “real world”?
Before leaving fuel economy: I tell people the reality I have personally observed in the vehicles owned by people, customers, engineers that I personally know – including my own vehicles. Which is more credible – the one-time experience of a couple of shade-tree mechanics on one or two vehicles, or the observations of engineers on many vehicles?
Many automotive engineers – maybe the majority – track their fuel economy fanatically. So when they change oil and see a fuel economy change, it’s not a meaningless dice-roll observation based on one or two tanks of gas: it’s based on the entire past history of the vehicle, and the changes they see in the following months of driving. One of my engineering friends is a certified DFSS Six Sigma Green Belt (I hope that means something to you, but I’m afraid it won’t), who tracked the fuel economy of his Dodge Magnum in Minitab software. I forget the exact number – I could look it up – but it was about 7% improvement just by changing to AMSOIL synthetic motor oil. I track my vehicles as well. I got about 8 or 10% on my Taurus SHO (I forget right now), and ~6% on my 2500HD truck that turned into about 8% by changing the transmission and differential fluid. Now, what I tell people is that they will probably see a 5 to 10% improvement, but that it can (in my experience) range in extremes from 3% to 20% improvement.
My friend Phillip, who lives in Indiana, has a 1999 Olds Silhouette van with the 3.4L. I grilled him three times over more than 6 months, and personally crunched the numbers, and he could hardly contain his excitement at getting a 20% improvement from changing only his motor oil – I told him he could tell people the improvement he was seeing, but to NEVER tell them they might get 20% because they probably won’t.
Another example I personally know is here: http://www.ultimatesyntheticoil.com/thrilled-customers Go there & then click on the link for the RV Motorhome owner. I personally took that picture. Keep in mind that it’s an older 37’ gas motorhome with the 454 engine, always towing a car, AND sometimes running a generator off of his main gas-tank. They travel the United States as full-time RV’rs about 9 months out of the year, so as far as I can tell, that’s “real world”. However, keep in mind that they changed all three fluids to AMSOIL: tranny, diff, and engine. I know his mechanic, too, who signed up as an AMSOIL dealer partly because of this experience. Here’s an update I got from him on June 12th 2008, which means that this is a 3.5 year summary of how his RV is running:
”Mileage on Pilgrim I (what he calls his motorhome):
mountains: 6.9 – 7.9 mpg
some hills: 9.9 – 10.9
flat lands with tail wind: 13.3
Most motor homes, much newer ones might get 8 tops in all conditions.”
The million dollar question is “why did the Winnebago Elandon and the Olds Silhouette see 20% fuel economy improvements?” [See Question 9 below for how AMSOIL Improves Fuel Economy.] There are many variables, many possibilities… I didn’t expect either result. Initially I didn’t believe either result. But in the end I was forced to deal with the fact that they were real, ongoing, lasting (long-term) improvements. And in the case of the RV, it’s very hard to dispute that his mileage is much better than what he “ought” to get, compared to similar or identical vehicles. For purposes of full disclosure, he actually got a 30% improvement – but he, his mechanic and I all agreed that the other changes/improvements they made to the motor home probably could not have accounted for more than a 10% gain.
“Does a scamsoil oil change actually change the gear ratio in transmissions and rear ends?“
Surely I don’t need to answer that one!
[He’s implying that the AMSOIL mpg fuel economy improvements are not credible because they don’t involve physically changing the drive reduction ratios, which are widely recognized as being able to produce significant fuel economy improvements in many situations. However, the question that M might have asked if he had been less cynical, is this: how does changing to AMSOIL engine oil produce fuel economy improvements? He didn’t ask, but for the benefit of online readers, we’ve added the question below as #9.]
“ Please note http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/oil-life.html [These are home-garage oil tests by a couple of guys on one car, where AMSOIL didn’t look like a better product in their results.] I’m sure that Exxon-Mobil put them up to it. What are we non “engineers” supposed to gather from such real world tests as these? That Scamsoil is a superior product? That their additive package isn’t out of date?” ^(return)
There are several things you should gather. First, that most people who delve into such deep matters have no earthly idea the complexities they are dealing with, and how so many variables are interactive and reactive with one another.
Second, before you draw any conclusions, or at least soon afterward, ask a good engineer (who is knowledgeable about the field) to share their opinion, and ask them whether you are drawing accurate conclusions. That’s what I do myself, especially in areas that I don’t KNOW I have strong expertise in.
Quick example: I deal with MIG welding every day. (American Welding Society official designation is GMAW, for Gas Metal Arc Welding.) Wire, shielding gas, power supply, wire feeder, and “torch”… pull the trigger and weld. It looks very simple to management, looks fairly simple to engineers, and many welders who use the process think they pretty much understand it. But ask any of them two simple questions, and they can’t answer them: how many variables are in the MIG process, and how many of those variables do we change on nearly a daily basis? The answers they give range from two to five. The real answers are 15 variables (minimum, but can range beyond 25), and 6 to 8 variables changed daily.
Why does any of that matter? Because on a daily basis, they are making welding decisions based on a combination of hunch, myth, and guesswork. Sometimes they’re right (maybe for the wrong reason), and often they’re wrong. They’ll make a change and think that’s what “did the trick”, when what really did the trick was two other things that they didn’t even know they changed and don’t think matter much.
Why else does that matter? Because it’s a simplified version of the situation with automobiles. In complex interactive systems, it’s a safe bet that if a non-expert draws a quick conclusion based on one or two simple observations, their conclusion is likely to be wrong. Just take engines. There’s immense complexity there, and dozens of major variables controlled by hundreds of factors with thousands of details.
Third, in the “oil test” you linked to, two glaring issues disrupt and invalidate some TBN and viscosity conclusions from their data:
First, 14,000 vs 18,000 miles/yr on a vehicle is a difference that reflects large changes in what the engine oil was experiencing, and their concerned comments about the big changes in driving habits reflects and confirms large differences in the internal engine lubrication conditions. In comparison, 20,000 miles vs 25,000 miles/ yr is almost nothing, and you’ll see little change in oil analysis results in those 5,000 miles. If the Mobil 1 had run that 14,000 miles, it might look even worse than the AMSOIL. They expressed concern that the AMSOIL TBN and viscosity would be even worse at higher mileage, which seems logical if you don’t understand the driving mechanisms, but the opposite is actually true. If the AMSOIL had run 18,000 miles in the same length of time, the TBN would actually be much higher, and the viscosity much lower – probably normal. [To clarify, the Mobil 1 was in the vehicle during driving habits that AMSOIL calls “Normal Service”, while AMSOIL was in the vehicle during driving habits that AMSOIL calls “Severe Service” and limits the drain interval to 15,000 miles on that oil, for that reason. It is severe short-trip duty like this that dramatically aggravates the oil sludging problems in so many of the 1997-2004 engines from multiple OEM’s. ]
Second, and most importantly, many people miss the crucial fact that Mobil 1 got a filter change at 12,000 miles with 1.5 qts of makeup oil, while AMSOIL did not.
[The added 1.5 quarts renewed the additive package and re-stabilized the oil’s properties.] To their credit, they questioned the validity of their data comparison due to these factors, if you look long enough to find their concerns. But most people see the data and think it’s meaningful at face value – they look at those 4,000 miles (if they even notice) and think it doesn’t make much of a difference. And I think most people completely miss the filter change. Few people comprehend that the 4,000 mile difference represents immense differences in average oil temperature, the frequency of the oil reaching full operating temperature, the amount of piston blow-by, the amount of moisture in the oil, the rate of cylinder carbon and varnish generation… just to name some of the types of variation..
Their testing saga reveals the primary purpose of engineers inventing so many standardized tests: trying to devise solid ways of getting accurate, comparable, repeatable data so that they can draw accurate conclusions from bench tests instead of waiting for one to three years of oil sampling data, or just pulling assumptions out of their… experience… and hoping they’re right. Sure, you can get the data in “real world” testing, but to get high quality data with accurate correlation, you need to carefully record and control conditions of a FLEET of “identical” vehicles (and they never are “identical”), remove “fliers” such as flooded vehicles, and average and normalize and validate your results with a dozen statistical tools over millions of miles and 3 to 10 years. AMSOIL has done that for decades in cooperation with major fleets. Does that sound like what those guys did on their vehicle? It goes further, though. The reason that standardized ASTM tests ARE the industry standards is because over years of correlating test data with actual performance in large fleets logging millions of miles, engineers have verified valuable correlation. In cases where they don’t, they analyze why not, and then… come up with a new test or a new version of the ASTM test, which has changes designed to improve the value or accuracy of the data to real-world use.
In rigorously controlled conditions, a small test of commercial Class-8 vehicles got an 8.2% fuel economy improvement by changing all drivetrain fluids. [Now available in historic archives, this was followed up with another test averaging 6.54% improvement.] I mention this partly because it is curiously close to the average mpg improvement figure I hear from most people.
Fourth is this final thought: they used the wrong AMSOIL oil for a high-performance V-8 [in this case an LS-1] running 14,000 miles a year. Keep in mind that Mobil 1 used to be Mobil 1, and AMSOIL used to be AMSOIL, but the product lines have grown. The AMSOIL 5W-30 they used is product code ASL: it’s one AMSOIL oil out of a dozen or so (if you don’t count viscosity differences), and is designed to be their low-cost workhorse 25,000 mile oil for low to mid-power gas engines. I had that same oil thicken out in my parent’s ’97 Northstar Cadillac engine (notorious for using 1 to 1.5 quarts per 1500 miles), so I switched to TSO and have not seen a problem. ASL is NOT an oil choice that most AMSOIL-savvy engineers I know (or AMSOIL’s Tech Center Support) would have recommended as the best choice for their [high-performance V-8] car in their driving conditions.
[Using any of the two or three more appropriate oils, the results would have been quite different. Several forums have mentioned the great performance of “GC” (representing a German Castrol formulation that has to be imported), which apparently uses a Group IV/V (PAO/Ester) blended basestock. That is reportedly the same formulation approach in at least some of AMSOIL’s more premium offerings. One thing I have not yet seen is a comparison to AMSOIL TSO 0W-30, their premium performance gas-engine oil that they rate for 35,000 miles Normal/17,500 miles Severe Duty. Since it was this oil (in both it’s present and previous forms) that powered the original engine in the Million Mile van from 68,000 to 930,000 miles using 20-25k mile oil-drain intervals, and one of the original targets of the formulation was to exceed European committee standards for a proposed 30,000 mile service oil, it seems likely to compare well to GC. There’s plenty of pictures and measured data from the Lubrizol engine rater’s report to show a very clean and very low-wear engine using 20,000 mile intervals: g2578_Million_mile_van.pdf
The original untouched automatic tranny is still running nicely with AMSOIL synthetic ATF fluid exchange & WIX filter changes every 150k miles – now roughly 1.1M miles on it. ]
BTW, I have over 70,000 miles on the oil change in my diesel Duramax truck [using the AMSOIL Dual Remote Bypass system], and I do oil sampling analysis. Look here at one of my 6.6L Duramax oil sample reports and you’ll see that I have no TBN or viscosity problem. And fact is, I probably will never have a problem, even though I’m changing only my oil filters – not my oil.
M, AMSOIL publishes extensive testing to focus the attention on real performance, where it’s deserved, rather than on marketing, which is meaningless, or licensing, which is nearly meaningless. Don’t you ever get suspicious as to why the oil companies in general seem to never publish any test results except the basic legal minimums of viscosity, cold pour point (maybe), TBN (maybe)? They hardly tell you anything that the API service grade code doesn’t tell you or require. Why is that?
We forgot to mention this to M, but it’s huge… In a severe-service trash-truck fleet test (“refuse haulers“) with 172 vehicles involved over 5 years using CAT, Volvo, Mack and International engines, they used AMSOIL AME 15W-40 Synthetic Diesel Oil to triple the former 200-300 hour oil drain intervals of these 15,000 lb+ vehicles, while finding 70 to 98% performance improvements in all of the key oil sample testing markers. For example, AMSOIL engine oil [used more than 900 hours] delivered an 89% reduction in wear iron, an 85% Copper reduction, a 97% Lead wear-rate reduction, a 97% Chromium wear-rate reduction, and a 98% Nickel wear-rate reduction. [These reductions are compared to the baseline of wear metals produced in less than 300 hours with Shell Rosella T, and when that is 300 vs 900 hrs difference is considered, it’s clear that AMSOIL was producing more than a 90% wear rate reduction. Now THAT is protection!] The previous motor oil was an API Licensed, commercial fleet oil. This conclusively proved that AMSOIL oil produced immense reductions in internal engine wear rates.
And after 900 hard hours of service, the fleet still averaged a TBN of 11.7 with AMSOIL – higher than most competitive engine oils when brand new!
Now, that data was generated by the company’s mechanics pulling the oil samples and having them tested by CTC Analytical, the largest independent lube-testing company in the United States. So that’s unbiased data. And that’s “real world”. And in the “real world”, with big maintenance dollars involved, this is just one example of how “Scamsoil” products have repeatedly proven to be huge performance improvers and cost-savers over the famous mainstream brands that consumers have been marketed into believing are great performers… without any data to support those beliefs.
“I would also like to see some data on the claim of ” 90% of nascars teams whom actually use scamsoil lubricants.” ^(return)
You and me both. But you’re not going to see the names of the NASCAR teams that run AMSOIL lubes, because if you did, there would be some expensive legal bills and settlements relating to breach of contract and non-disclosure confidentiality agreements. [But here are a lot of winning racers talking about their results with AMSOIL.]
Several of our Dealer engineer’s websites make a statement to the effect that “we know exactly who many of these racing teams are, but are not permitted to reveal that information.” What they’re saying is that they’ve personally worked with various NASCAR teams, and KNOW what they’re using for lubricants. However, NASCAR advertising “sponsorship” contracts are big, big dollars, and in the case of lubricants especially, the oil companies are paying big money in order to create the emotional illusion/assumption/belief in people’s minds that the racing team is running their product in the car. Their lawyers are very good at writing contracts that protect that illusion, and that require the teams to get signed confidentiality agreements from everyone and every company they deal with.
[Note: This was descriptive of the NASCAR & Formula 1 racing picture back 5 and 10 years ago, and insiders confirm that Roush used AMSOIL for many years and valued their gear and motor oils as the benchmark standards. It was remarkable that AMSOIL’s standard street oils offered better performance and protection in racing than any other oils available – even “racing” oils. However, over the last 5 years many teams have hired secret gurus and shifted to custom-tuned synthetic laboratory lubricants (many blended by Valvoline and Exxon-Mobil) in order to squeeze out a new 2 to 4 horsepower edge that can prove critical in these ultra-engineered speed competitions. These lubricants, as well as some standard racing formula offshoots such as are part of a full lineup now jointly marketed by Valvoline and Roush, are well “tweaked” for some racing conditions but aren’t suited for normal engines or normal driving, and should never be used in non-racing applications. As usual, searching for performance test data to compare Roush-Valvoline oil to AMSOIL’s ASTM test data is in vain, because no-one else will publish their data.]
But at the same time it’s also a “don’t ask, don’t tell” scenario. Bobby Unser revealed how that worked, personally, during his years of racing: they took the big-name 5-gallon oil pail, or gallons or whatever, home to their garage, poured it out empty, then refilled it with AMSOIL and carried it back into the race garage the next day to pour into the car. Sponsors: happy. Onlookers: fooled. Team: winning, paid, profitable. What more could a race team or sponsor ask for?
“In reference to Fram products past performance with their line of filters, they are not even in the ball park, for filterization, design or quality. The research is readily available showing the garbage filters they produce. Brian, I really am enjoying are cyber chats, thanks for your great retorts! M…”
I didn’t try to imply that Fram filters are great. My Fram reference was only to illustrate their acknowledgement of the fact that for years, hundreds of companies around the world have tried to partner with Donaldson (the leader in nanofiber filter media and technology), and Donaldson has refused everyone… except AMSOIL. Our interpretation is that if the world leader in nanofiber filtration technology (Donaldson) has refused to partner with any other company ever – except AMSOIL – then AMSOIL must be pretty reputable and noteworthy.
When I changed to Amsoil motor oil, it improved my fuel economy a lot. My friends don’t believe an engine oil can do that, and I don’t understand… how is that possible? ^(return)
Many people think AMSOIL just reduces internal engine friction, so it seems impossible for AMSOIL engine oil to produce the fuel economy improvements that it does. The reality is that AMSOIL lubricants reduce the losses of power from several sources… not only reducing internal engine friction, but also cleaning oil passage deposits to flow more oil with less power loss from oil pumping pressures, and typically losing less power during engine warmup time due to lower pumping viscosity at ambient temperature. In addition, AMSOIL base stock oils feature very low internal fluid friction – sometimes called being “more slippery” – which not only gives the oil very robust durability, but also reduces energy being wasted to internally heat the oil molecules as they are working. These are real energy/fuel savings which are also demonstrated in cooler operating temperatures – a fact that is seen widely in both towing and racing applications.
Let’s focus for a moment on just one area where AMSOIL improves engine performance: pumping oil. One sign of the performance increase and cleaner engine is in oil pressure. Many engines lose quite a bit of power pumping engine oil through passages that are made smaller by sludge and varnish buildup. Of course, with a high-performance synthetic there are no petroleum components to break down into sludge and varnish, and a premium detergent package keeps dissolving any remaining deposits. Real example: my 2002 Duramax always idled at about 40 psi oil pressure when warm, and pegged somewhere over 80 psi when first started up. After the change to AMSOIL’s 15W-40 (the same viscosity it always had), oil pressure dropped to about 25-28 psi warm idle, and about 60-80 psi cold. Some people might be alarmed by this, but it’s a great sign: more oil is flowing through the engine – for better lubrication, better wear protection, better engine cooling – and it’s taking less power (fuel) to pump that oil.
One last example: In turn, “better engine cooling” from higher oil volume and clean oil passages has still more “trickle-down” impact. The internal hot-spots in the engine will run cooler, and this is known to improve the fuel efficiency of many engines. For example, most modern diesel engines achieve quieter, more fuel-efficient performance by spraying oil into the bottom of the pistons. Also, petroleum oils usually build deposits on the undersides of the pistons, while AMSOIL cleans them and keeps them clean, as well as the piston rings and grooves. That lowers piston temperature and also reduces effective piston mass, which further increase engine efficiency and power. AMSOIL’s Group 4 synthetic base stocks have better heat-transfer properties, and clean oil passages not only move higher oil volumes, but also provide a higher temperature differential that is more efficient at removing heat. Bottom line: AMSOIL provides much greater internal engine cooling, producing better fuel economy.
If we’d had it to do over again, or knew we were going to
publish these e-mails online, we would have added these comments below:
For the last two decades, AMSOIL has been the growing, silent, secret weapon of the nation’s best fleet managers. If you’re not aware of the fact that AMSOIL-powered fleets have saved untold millions of dollars in operational and replacement expenses, hold on tight. Stick with us for three minutes, because it could drop 10-30% to your bottom line.
AMSOIL’s biggest product seller has been, for many years, “AME”: their 15W-40 synthetic diesel/gas/marine all-fleet oil. That was true long before the new generation of 3/4 ton diesel pickups hit the streets starting about 1999, kicking off big growth in light diesel pickups. So who do you suppose was buying all that oil? Most of it was sold for company fleets. If you were a small, mid-size or large trucking company, or a waste-hauler, or a heavy construction company, would you want to approve publishing a report that tells all your competitors how you use AMSOIL products to pick up an average 3 to 8% in fuel economy, increase the capital equipment life of your fleet by 30 to 100%, reduce your transmission/differential/engine failures by 90%…? Well, would you want all your competitors to know that, or would you add up the thousands or millions of dollars in your additional annual profits from using AMSOIL, and decide that you’d better keep that secret to yourself for a competitive advantage?
If the “wrong” person asked you, would you reveal your AMSOIL maintenance secrets or just say “yeh, we tried that expensive AMSOIL stuff, but our guys thought it wasn’t worth the money”? (That’s not hard to rationalize even if you refuse to lie. After all, that was the truth when you first started testing AMSOIL products – you just aren’t telling the whole story, right?)
For example, a heavy refuse hauler fleet tripled their drain intervals while reducing wear over 80%. A number of municipal and school-bus fleets have also used AMSOIL to great advantage for many years, and a few of these instances were published in reports. But unfortunately they found it difficult to handle the time demands and the volume of calls they got from people across the country trying to verify the published story or asking for technical details. However, here are some fleet test reports that you can download and review (right click and choose Save Target As). Some are “current”, and some have been pulled from official publication, sometimes because the results were prior to the introduction of Ea nanofiber filtration, or prior to the latest improved reformulation of an oil:
Clark County School Bus Testing (Historical archive Avg 3% better mpg & 76% wear reduction, using AMSOIL AME 15W-40 and the old AMSOIL filtration technologies – Word doc.)
MONEY TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE
Standardized test data from the most reliable & trusted tests in industry. Personal experience. Combine those two, and when they both agree, there is no doubt about the superior performance of AMSOIL products.
We’ve got the data. Why not combine that data with YOUR personal experience, so that you KNOW the results are as accurate as you made them yourself? Contact us, and we’ll help.
Sure, you can keep buying the mediocre performance of the famous mainstream brands that fill most store shelves. But know that when you do, those oils are costing you a lot more money per year than buying the high-performance AMSOIL solution.
Bottom line? AMSOIL saves you money.
(We save a LOT of money with these AMSOIL “secrets”, and thought you’d like to know them, too.)
Recommendations and Related Articles:
- Carefully consider the lessons from the Million Mile Van.
- Related article: how to pick the best engine oil.
- Know a skeptic who thinks AMSOIL may be just marketing hype? Send them to our AMSOIL Skeptics page.
- NO, AMSOIL synthetic oils don’t cause gasket leaks or oil-seal leaks: oil-seal leaks are caused by petroleum oils.
- Fleet management resources include the diesel and fleet page, and the Christian ministry and business fleet vehicle maintenance page.
For more specific info on oil selections and tips for turbodiesel pickups, we invite you to expand and turbocharge your knowledge when you…
We make no guarantees that we’re going to publish any e-mail questions / answers, but we reserve the right to do so. If we choose to publish e-mail content, we will withhold identities and personal information unless we have individual permissions to reveal the authors. While the content above is nearly identical to the actual e-mail exchange content, we reserve the right to make minor changes in content or structure to add clarity or appropriate details that would be helpful for online readers. Added comments are typically [bracketed].
Copyright 2008, 2015 DMT Technical and UltimateSyntheticOil.com
All Rights Reserved