Just got a Dodge Ram 2500 and I have a few questions

From : ram 2500

Q: hello i just picked up a 1996 dodge ram 2500 and because its 8 years old and i really like this truck i want to take good care of it. i want to change all if possible of the fluids to synthetic. i picked up a haynes book to help me. ive worked on cars and jeeps before but this is my first truck. so what do you recommend along the lines of synthetic fluids for the transfer case differentials oil should i worry about a engine leaks and whatever else you can think of. looks like i need a grease gun also just like my old jeep for some of the joints. also any coolant recommendations the engine right now is running about 210 is that normal im in the northern virginia i was thinking of running 60 water / 40 coolant to help keep the engine cool. the trucks transmission is less than a year old so im not going to completely change with the tranny fluid yet. but if you have any advice for taking care of the tranny. im listening ! and what about mixing automatic transmission fluids i was thinking of draining some tranny fluid out about 4 quarts at a time and putting synthetic in every few months for added protection. i know its probably an old truck to many of you but i think its so cool looking. so i hope you dont think im crazy for wanting to take good care of it. thanks again. .

Replies:

From : gary carter

hello i just picked up a 1996 dodge ram 2500 and because its 8 years old and i really like this truck i want to take good care of it. i want to change all if possible of the fluids to synthetic. i picked up a haynes book to help me. ive worked on cars and jeeps before but this is my first truck. so what do you recommend along the lines of synthetic fluids for the transfer case differentials oil should i worry about a engine leaks and whatever else you can think of. if you can afford the synthetics use them. just make sure you use the proper additive in the differentials if equiped with limited slip. looks like i need a grease gun also just like my old jeep for some of the joints. also any coolant recommendations the engine right now is running about 210 is that normal im in the northern virginia i was thinking of running 60 water / 40 coolant to help keep the engine cool. 210 would be about right check your antifreeze/coolant bottle you will find that a 50/50 mix will actually keep your engine protection at its highest level. the trucks transmission is less than a year old so im not going to completely change with the tranny fluid yet. but if you have any advice for taking care of the tranny. im listening ! dont like auto trannies myself but from what ive been told change fluid and filter once a year or at the milage recommended in owners manual. and what about mixing automatic transmission fluids i was thinking of draining some tranny fluid out about 4 quarts at a time and putting synthetic in every few months for added protection. dont mix the two all you will end up with is expensive dirty fluid pick a date change your fluid and filter and mark it on next years calendar. i know its probably an old truck to many of you but i think its so cool looking. so i hope you dont think im crazy for wanting to take good care of it. thanks again. gary carter 1996 dodge 1500/cc/4x4/5.2/5 speed .

From : maccheeta

i only use mopar transmission fluid because it will give you the longest service life. ram 2500 wrote hello i just picked up a 1996 dodge ram 2500 and because its 8 years old and i really like this truck i want to take good care of it. i want to change all if possible of the fluids to synthetic. i picked up a haynes book to help me. ive worked on cars and jeeps before but this is my first truck. so what do you recommend along the lines of synthetic fluids for the transfer case differentials oil should i worry about a engine leaks and whatever else you can think of. looks like i need a grease gun also just like my old jeep for some of the joints. also any coolant recommendations the engine right now is running about 210 is that normal im in the northern virginia i was thinking of running 60 water / 40 coolant to help keep the engine cool. the trucks transmission is less than a year old so im not going to completely change with the tranny fluid yet. but if you have any advice for taking care of the tranny. im listening ! and what about mixing automatic transmission fluids i was thinking of draining some tranny fluid out about 4 quarts at a time and putting synthetic in every few months for added protection. i know its probably an old truck to many of you but i think its so cool looking. so i hope you dont think im crazy for wanting to take good care of it. thanks again. .

From : theguycurmudgeon

on 22 may 2004 063715 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote whered you crawl out from pussy boner kick you out probably went to ma to get married to your right hand aka mary palm and her five sisters ah yes. it is good to know some things never change red. you are one of the constants in this world. lol. missed you too man. politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : ram 2500

on sat 22 may 2004 124815 -0400 curmudgeon gary@nospam.com wrote synthetic oil does nothing to increase longevity that changing dino oil every 3-5000 miles wont do. its primary claim to fame is its reaction to extreme temperatures pulling a motor home thru the sahara for example. but if you insist on paying 3-5 times as much for your synth oil go right ahead. us mobil shareholders love guys who do. ill probably keep the engine oil dino... but the other fluids ill change to synth...this is a work truck so i will be hauling stuff around. the added protection is worth it. hey im a shareholder also ! .

From : brian a irwin

i own a 1997 dodge cummins 2500. everything synthetic including engine oil bypass filter. ive used synthetics in all my vehicles for the past 15 years. everyone has their own opinion but not everyone is truly informed. take your time & do your own research. if you truly want superior lubrication protection & high/low temp properties then without question synthetics is the way to go. it truly amazes me that people will pay 30-50k for a vehicle yet complain about $200/yr in oil supplies. buy high quality synth oils enjoy the benefits of superior protection longevity of vehicle and enjoy longer oil change intervals. do your own research.. look at european oil change recommendations. 3000 mile oil changes is a waste of money. i recommend syn change in the following order transmission transfer case engine differentials. absolutely important purchase high quality oil filter only! purchase a high flow high efficiency air filter. oil brands is like talking religion what you believe is good for you is good for you. as mentioned ive used amsoil for 15+ years. excellent product. i havent had an engine leak or burn oil yet with a couple going 175k+ miles before selling. good luck! .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 2 jun 2004 brian a irwin wrote i own a 1997 dodge cummins 2500. everything synthetic including engine oil bypass filter. *snif snif* hm. whats that i smell ive used synthetics in all my vehicles for the past 15 years. everyone has their own opinion but not everyone is truly informed. *snif* yeah i think i do smell it... i recommend yep im pretty now that what i smell is... ive used amsoil for 15+ years. knew it! scamsoil/spamsoil. .

From : paul jensen

ive used amsoil for 15+ years. knew it! scamsoil/spamsoil. now theres a mature response. the gentleman gives a testimonial of how he has used a certain brand of oil for 15 years without a single problem and dude cracks back with scamsoil/spamsoil. nice. very mature daniel. do you order off of the kiddy menu you certainly act like you do. just what were you hoping to accomplish with a crackback like that if you dont have anything intelligent to say why not just hit the delete button and not show the world that you get the 12-and-under ticket at the movies .

From : daniel j stern

on tue 1 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote knew it! scamsoil/spamsoil. now theres a mature response. youll forgive me being jaded and cynical about scamsoils legions of pyramid-crazed salesdroids. theyre worse than amway ever was. ds or maybe you wont. either way no skin of my nose. nobody forces you to read my posts. .

From : edward j muenster

on wed 02 jun 2004 005821 gmt brian a irwin brian.irwin@shaw.ca wrote oil brands is like talking religion but amsoil is a cult. what you believe is good for you is good for you. but not necessarily good for your vehicle. just because you firmly believe that some expensive uncertified oil sold through an mlm and accompanied by thousands of glowing testimonials but apparently no verifiable tests by independent laboratories run for many times the recommended oil change interval is good for your vehicle that doesnt mean that it is. and the lack of api certification certainly calls into question whether the oil is even as good as the $0.99/qt api certified stuff on sale at k-mart. as mentioned ive used amsoil for 15+ years. excellent product. i havent had an engine leak or burn oil yet with a couple going 175k+ miles before selling. good luck! and ive used pennzoil castrol valvoline or whatever api certified brand happens to be on sale at the time. ive taken two vehicles to over 200000 each and several others to more than 100000 each without ever an oil-related problem -- often pushing an oil change to more than 10000 miles! .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 edward j. muenster wrote but amsoil is a cult. yep. i wish id come up with the l. ron amatuzio jibe but i didnt so i cant claim credit. apparently no verifiable tests by independent laboratories matt joseph a highly respected authority on automotive mechanical upkeep and restoration did very transparent testing of a bunch of different auto lube products a number of years back. many of the scamsoil products he tested did *very* poorly. so much for scamsoils claim that theyre too good for api testing and approval. and the lack of api certification certainly calls into question whether the oil is even as good as the $0.99/qt api certified stuff on sale at k-mart. agreed but that question can be rendered moot with the following comparison scamsoilmobil-1 $9/qt$5/qt api noapi yes proven noproven yes backed by nobodybacked by exxonmobil reputation spottyreputation spotless ive used amsoil for 15+ years. excellent product. i havent had an engine leak or burn oil yet with a couple going 175k+ miles before selling. good luck! and ive used pennzoil castrol valvoline or whatever api certified brand happens to be on sale at the time. ive taken two vehicles to over 200000 each and several others to more than 100000 each without ever an oil-related problem exactly. ive been drinking orange juice for three decades and ive never been struck by lightning. -stern .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote but it does. the owners manual and factory service manual for my ram both state that im to use api-approved or certified oil. ill happily trust chryslers enginers before ill trust a scamsoil salesdroid thanks very much. you missed the point. i never advocated using amsoil over any other brand. i simply stated the fact that api approval does not mean better. it is quite possible to make a far better oil that can not meet api constraints. chrysler states that 2001 and newer automatics must use atf+4 tranny fluid. guess who owns the patent to atf+4 .

From : roy

ive used amsoil for 15+ years. knew it! scamsoil/spamsoil. now theres a mature response. the gentleman gives a testimonial of how he has used a certain brand of oil for 15 years without a single problem and dude cracks back with scamsoil/spamsoil. nice. very mature daniel. do you order off of the kiddy menu you certainly act like you do. just what were you hoping to accomplish with a crackback like that if you dont have anything intelligent to say why not just hit the delete button and not show the world that you get the 12-and-under ticket at the movies dans response to the amcrap thinly veiled spam was nuts on imo. roy .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote and the lack of api certification certainly calls into question whether the oil is even as good as the $0.99/qt api certified stuff on sale at k-mart. certainly does nothing of the sort. api certification does not mean an oil is better or worse than one without. api certification goes beyond specifying minimum qualities to meet. it also puts contraints on what is allowed in the oil. some related to emissions control standards. amsoil oils not meeting api requirements are often because of phosphorous and zinc content. they are additives that help keep the engine clean but can have a negative effect on emissions. amsoil does make api certified oils but because of contraints imposed by api i doubt they are any better than any other brand. people think that some certification sticker on a product means its automatically better in some way even though they know nothing of what the certification means. .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 2 jun 2004 nosey wrote what the hell are you guys talking about all amsoil motor oils meet api standards. nope. you are confusing api service grades such as sh sj sk sl etc. with api approval. only their xl-7500 and one or two others are api approved. scamsoil makes a big deal out of claiming that api approval is ok for commodity oils but not necessary for a superior product like ours but the fact is that most automakers require api-approved engine oil. i know my dodge truck does -- how bout yours -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 2 jun 2004 miles wrote and the lack of api certification certainly calls into question whether the oil is even as good as the $0.99/qt api certified stuff on sale at k-mart. certainly does nothing of the sort. but it does. the owners manual and factory service manual for my ram both state that im to use api-approved or certified oil. ill happily trust chryslers enginers before ill trust a scamsoil salesdroid thanks very much. -stern .

From : nosey

miles wrote edward j. muenster wrote and the lack of api certification certainly calls into question whether the oil is even as good as the $0.99/qt api certified stuff on sale at k-mart. certainly does nothing of the sort. api certification does not mean an oil is better or worse than one without. api certification goes beyond specifying minimum qualities to meet. it also puts contraints on what is allowed in the oil. some related to emissions control standards. amsoil oils not meeting api requirements are often because of phosphorous and zinc content. they are additives that help keep the engine clean but can have a negative effect on emissions. amsoil does make api certified oils but because of contraints imposed by api i doubt they are any better than any other brand. people think that some certification sticker on a product means its automatically better in some way even though they know nothing of what the certification means. what the hell are you guys talking about all amsoil motor oils meet api standards. .

From : miles

nosey wrote what the hell are you guys talking about all amsoil motor oils meet api standards. http//www.performancemotoroil.com/amsoilapilicensing.htm .

From : edward j muenster

on wed 02 jun 2004 183424 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote and the lack of api certification certainly calls into question whether the oil is even as good as the $0.99/qt api certified stuff on sale at k-mart. certainly does nothing of the sort. api certification does not mean an oil is better or worse than one without. but it *does* mean an oil has been tested by a qualified independent laboratory and has been found to meet the performance required by your vehicles manufacturer. api certification goes beyond specifying minimum qualities to meet. it also puts contraints on what is allowed in the oil. some related to emissions control standards. amsoil oils not meeting api requirements are often because of phosphorous and zinc content. an excellent reason not to use the uncertified oil. they are additives that help keep the engine clean but can have a negative effect on emissions. wrong. they are wear inhibitors. and yes they can have a negative impact on emissions. they can poison your catalytic convertor. and the api certification ensures the oil exhibits good wear performance in spite of the lower levels of these materials. i dont know about you but id rather use an oil with the lower levels of zinc and phosphorous and not trash my catalytic convertor. amsoil does make api certified oils but because of contraints imposed by api i doubt they are any better than any other brand. so youre implying that uncertified oils are better than certified oils that certification makes sure you have an inferior oil do they teach you this in oil school in bizarro world people think that some certification sticker on a product means its automatically better in some way even though they know nothing of what the certification means. and some people think that because they sell an expensive uncertified oil through multi-level marketing they know whats good for your car more than the makers of the car themselves. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote so youre implying that uncertified oils are better than certified oils that certification makes sure you have an inferior oil do they teach you this in oil school in bizarro world where did i say that i stated that api certification has little to do with an oil being good or bad. most people that look for the api certification have no idea what is involved in the actual tests. and some people think that because they sell an expensive uncertified oil through multi-level marketing they know whats good for your car more than the makers of the car themselves. first you have to define what good or better is. federal laws put alot of constraints on what an oil can and cant be in our cars. api certifies it meets theses constraints. does that mean it is better in all regards there are alot of aftermarket performance parts for cars that do not meet federal or state emissions and safety laws. does that mean the ones that do meet the laws are better depends on what the user is trying to achieve. .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote api certification has little to do with an oil being good or bad. says you. chrysler corp when they made my truck said it had everything to do with the oil being acceptable or unacceptable. why should i believe you over them -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 2 jun 2004 miles wrote the owners manual and factory service manual for my ram both state that im to use api-approved or certified oil. ill happily trust chryslers enginers before ill trust a scamsoil salesdroid thanks very much. you missed the point. i dont think i did. i simply stated the fact that api approval does not mean better. i suppose that depends on your definition of better. to my mind an oil that is compatible with my truck is better than one that is not. api-uncertified oils are not compatible with my truck per the engineers who designed and built it. therefore yes api approval does mean better. chrysler states that 2001 and newer automatics must use atf+4 tranny fluid. and theyre right. guess who owns the patent to atf+4 daimlerchrysler ag. and this proves...what -stern .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote api certification has little to do with an oil being good or bad. says you. chrysler corp when they made my truck said it had everything to do with the oil being acceptable or unacceptable. why should i believe you over them sigh...acceptable for what purpose chrysler like other manufactures has to adhere to federal guidelines. they also say to only use atf+4 in 2001 and newer trannies. guess who owns the patent to atf+4 is it better than all other tranny fluids made because it has a sticker that says atf+4 on it before you argue any further please read the api testing guidelines and learn what is involved and what the rating means in full. take carefull note of the constraints that the api rating puts on an oil to meet federal guidelines for emissions at the cost of lubrication qualities. the api sticker does not mean the oil is better than all other oils nor does it mean its worse. could be either way and much has to do with how you define better or worse per your own needs. people just love them stickers without understanding what they mean. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote i suppose that depends on your definition of better. to my mind an oil that is compatible with my truck is better than one that is not. api-uncertified oils are not compatible with my truck per the engineers who designed and built it. therefore yes api approval does mean better. thats exactly what i stated. it depends on how you define better. are you saying that all non-api oils are worse for your truck than all api rated ones understanding the differences in oils and what the api rating actually means might improve your understanding. guess who owns the patent to atf+4 daimlerchrysler ag. and this proves...what since chrysler owns atf+4 of course they will say you have to use it. does it mean that atf+4 is better for your transmission than all other non atf+4 fluids .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 edward j. muenster wrote api certification does not mean an oil is better or worse than one without. but it *does* mean an oil has been tested by a qualified independent laboratory and has been found to meet the performance required by your vehicles manufacturer. exactly. that part about independent laboratory is especially important. scamsoil droids love to trot out their own tests done or bought by scamsoil. these tests are meaningless. amsoil oils not meeting api requirements are often because of phosphorous and zinc content. an excellent reason not to use the uncertified oil. yep. what were being told here is that scamsoil contains enough p and zn to shorten the life of the catalytic converter; thats why the content of those two constituents is regulated. hmm...so we could either buy independently-tested long-proven api-certified mobil-1 at any parts store or wal-mart for $5/qt and not damage our catcon or we could buy untested unproven api-uncertified scamsoil through a pyramid scheme for $9/qt and eventually flunk smog because of it. gee...when i spell it out that way it sounds a lot like paying $8/pack to cough and stink and die cigarettes. so youre implying that uncertified oils are better than certified oils that certification makes sure you have an inferior oil do they teach you this in oil school in bizarro world he learned it from the 3-ring binder scamsoil gives all their droids. dont think dont question dont doubt just look it up in the binder. if you experience a dubious reaction from a potential customer simply repeat whats in the binder enough times that they start to believe it. its a lot like some religious cults. and some people think that because they sell an expensive uncertified oil through multi-level marketing they know whats good for your car more than the makers of the car themselves. amazing aint it -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 milesh wrote api-uncertified oils are not compatible with my truck per the engineers who designed and built it. therefore yes api approval does mean better. thats exactly what i stated. no it isnt. you stated you dont think api certification makes an oil better. i disagree with you. you saying that all non-api oils are worse for your truck than all api rated ones i neednt repeat myself you can go back and read what ive already written several times now. if you have difficulty with the hard words try sounding them out. since chrysler owns atf+4 of course they will say you have to use it. does it mean that atf+4 is better for your transmission than all other non atf+4 fluids atf+4 is the one and only correct fluid for transmissions designed to use it. scamsoils claim to meet five or six *different* fluid specs is bs; its not possible to do so because the specs do not overlap. perhaps you should read the sae paper located here http//www.sae.org/servlets/productdetailprodtyp=paper&prodcd=982674 which compares the results of numerous different tests of numerous different performance stability and materials-compatibility characteristics of atf+4 and other types of fluids. which would you rather buy a case of the correct fluid or a new transmission i know where my vote goes and it aint in favor of scamsoil. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 milesh wrote api certification has little to do with an oil being good or bad. says you. chrysler corp when they made my truck said it had everything to do with the oil being acceptable or unacceptable. why should i believe you over them sigh...acceptable for what purpose acceptable for the purpose of lubricating the engine in my truck. whatd you think i meant acceptable for the purpose of bathing in it drinking it frying hot dogs with it chrysler like other manufactures has to adhere to federal guidelines. they also say to only use atf+4 in 2001 and newer trannies. guess who owns the patent to atf+4 *eyeroll* riiiight. big evil daimlerchrysler is in cahoots with the big evil federal government to keep superior lubricants out of your vehicle. its a conspiracy. hey maybe scamsoil has lubes specially formulated for black helicopters. -stern who understands api certification a whole hell of a lot better than you think and who believes chrysler and api a whole hell of a lot more than i believe you .

From : tbone

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote api certification has little to do with an oil being good or bad. says you. chrysler corp when they made my truck said it had everything to do with the oil being acceptable or unacceptable. why should i believe you over them sigh...acceptable for what purpose chrysler like other manufactures has to adhere to federal guidelines. they also say to only use atf+4 in 2001 and newer trannies. guess who owns the patent to atf+4 is it better than all other tranny fluids made because it has a sticker that says atf+4 on it while i agree with you completely on you api testing guidlines argument imagine that i think that you are a little off on the atf+4 line. the current dc automatics have very specific requirements from the fluid they use and the atf+4 spec meets these needs. it has nothing to do with better or worse. if another manufacturer came up with a fluid that matched or exceeded these specs they could clain it as atf+4 compatable and there would be nothing that dc could do about it regardless of quality. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote atf+4 is the one and only correct fluid for transmissions designed to use it. my chrysler tranny was specifically designed to use atf+4 because chrysler who owns atf+4 says so the tranny in my truck was designed before atf+4 hit the market. youre hung up on this discussion being about amsoil and so you argue no matter what. i dont give a dang about amsoil never used it myself. its about your wrong assumption that an api sticker means an oil lubricates your engine any better. its about your wrong assumption that whatever the manufacture tells you to use is the best stuff for your vehicle on the market. for you its better because you wish to strictly adhere to manufactures minimum requirements even though you do not fully understand what those requirements are and thus rely on a sticker instead. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote acceptable for the purpose of lubricating the engine in my truck. great. so now you are implying that an oil with an api sticker on it will lubricate your truck better than all other oils without the api sticker. my point still stands the api sticker does not guarantee the oil will lubricate better than all non api oils. *eyeroll* riiiight. big evil daimlerchrysler is in cahoots with the big evil federal government to keep superior lubricants out of your vehicle. whoa here! quit spinning! chrysler wants to sell atf+4 that they hold the patent on. so they tell you to use it and you do. money in the bank. they didnt design a fluid and a tranny in tandem to be compatabile with each other! .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote welp ol sport ive already pointed you at the sae paper written by chryslers own transmission engineers that answers this question in vast detail. oh man if that were true then all manufactures would require chryslers atf+4. i know marketing and money have nothing to do with it. .

From : edward j muenster

thinking about buying a used durango for work drive about 40000 miles/year. also like to use it to pull my boat 3500lbs. to the lake about 30 miles away. i need dependability and enough power to pull the boat. never owned anything but gm products before so i dont know much about the dodge engines. thanks for any info. .

From : milesh

tbone wrote while i agree with you completely on you api testing guidlines argument imagine that i think that you are a little off on the atf+4 line. the current dc automatics have very specific requirements from the fluid they use and the atf+4 spec meets these needs. it has nothing to do with better or worse. if another manufacturer came up with a fluid that matched or exceeded these specs they could clain it as atf+4 compatable and there would be nothing that dc could do about it regardless of quality. what changes were made on my 2001 46re from what was in the 2000s that dictated atf+4 over atf+3 my guess is that too many trannies were failing so they went with synthetic. same reason why all dodge trucks sold here in az where its hot come standard with tranny coolers. with that change chrysler found a great way to make some money too by owning the rights to the very fluid they state must be used. i agree that someone else could say atf+4 tm compatible but most tend to stick with what the manufacture states dave stern for one!. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote sure fine whatever. they designed a special fluid thats no better than any other fluid just to get more money from aftermarket fluid sales. engineering had nothing to do with it. ok tell me what chrysler changed in their 2001 trannies over the 2000s that instantly caused them to require atf+4 .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 milesh wrote atf+4 is the one and only correct fluid for transmissions designed to use it. my chrysler tranny was specifically designed to use atf+4 i donno ace you havent told us what you drive. my statement stands atf+4 is the one and only correct fluid for transmissions designed to use it. the tranny in my truck was designed before atf+4 hit the market. then i guess your transmission wasnt designed for atf+4 then was it its about your wrong assumption that an api sticker means an oil lubricates your engine any better. ive never made such a statement. what i have said and ill type very slowly this time because you obviously have a reading disability is this my truck requires api-certified engine oil. for you its better because you wish to strictly adhere to manufactures minimum requirements a classic scamsoil tactic refer to an engineering spec as a minimum requirement. trickery trickery trickery. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 milesh wrote acceptable for the purpose of lubricating the engine in my truck. great. so now you are implying that an oil with an api sticker on it will lubricate your truck better than all other oils without nope. im implying nothing. im stating the purpose of engine oil to lubricate the engine. im also stating that the engine in my truck requires api-certified engine oil. is this *really* so hard for you to understand chrysler wants to sell atf+4 that they hold the patent on. so they tell you to use it and you do. money in the bank. they didnt design a fluid and a tranny in tandem to be compatabile with each other! sure fine whatever. they designed a special fluid thats no better than any other fluid just to get more money from aftermarket fluid sales. engineering had nothing to do with it. time to put on the tinfoil hat there guy if you really believe this. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 milesh wrote what changes were made on my 2001 46re from what was in the 2000s that dictated atf+4 over atf+3 my guess is snip ah. so you arent all-knowing as you claim. youre just guessing. welp ol sport ive already pointed you at the sae paper written by chryslers own transmission engineers that answers this question in vast detail. until youve read it youre talkin out your accumulator piston. i agree that someone else could say atf+4 tm compatible but most tend to stick with what the manufacture states now gee why would that be dyou think dave stern for one!. whos dave stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 tbone wrote do you know the exact reasons i do because ive read the paper i have now referred to twice. perhaps you should actually provide the information rather than a useless link that charges money for a useless paper to us. useless link nah. it takes you to the engineering paper that answers the question. useless paper well if you consider the answers to your question useless then whyd you enter into this thread in the first place the answers are multiple and complex. they dont fit into a few sentences. some of them are best represented graphically. in other words if you want the answers read the damned paper but dont get peeved cause ive read it and so know the answers and you havent and so dont. simply because it is better to be safe than sorry and requires little knowledge to follow the manufacturers recommendations. and yknow maybe yknow because yknow they might be...right -stern .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote the tranny in my truck was designed before atf+4 hit the market. then i guess your transmission wasnt designed for atf+4 then was it you tell me. this is your logic not mine. chrylser did not come out with all new trannies in 2001 when they started requiring atf+4. my truck requires api-certified engine oil. requires so it will self destruct with all non-api certified oils even ones that are better at lubricating a classic scamsoil tactic refer to an engineering spec as a minimum requirement. trickery trickery trickery. lol..i already told ya i could careless about amsoil and have never used the stuff. get off the amsoil argument already! it is apparent that you do indeed believe api certified means an oil is better at lubricating your particular engine than a non-api oil simply because of the sticker. this reminds me of the clueless people with regards to the big iso 9000 trend of the 90s. all a company had to do was slap iso 9000 certified manufacturer on their products and people believed they were better. .

From : tbone

on thu 3 jun 2004 tbone wrote do you know the exact reasons i do because ive read the paper i have now referred to twice. while you may have referred to it twice the link you provided does not have the paper itself it is simply an order form to buy it for $12.00 to $30.00 dollars. perhaps you should actually provide the information rather than a useless link that charges money for a useless paper to us. useless link nah. it takes you to the engineering paper that answers the question. useless paper well if you consider the answers to your question useless then whyd you enter into this thread in the first place read above. the answers are multiple and complex. they dont fit into a few sentences. iow you dont fully understand it and are unable to condense it even at the risk of oversimplification to make your point. some of them are best represented graphically. in other words if you want the answers read the damned paper but dont get peeved cause ive read it and so know the answers and you havent and so dont. it is not worth the money to buy it for a web debate since i really have no use for it afterwords. do you work for this company

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote no they dont. federal law doesnt put any constraints on what can and cant be in the oil. now thats where you are wrong. they do put constraints on it. some of which is indirect because of emissions standards but the effect is just the same. if you could run an oil with 100 times the api limit of zinc or phosphorous without damaging your catalytic convertor and exceeding emissions you could do so just fine without any hassles from the feds at all. they dont care whats in the oil -- they only care about what comes out the tailpipe. but it is still a constraint and api tests for the levels of zinc and phosphorous. so if an oil company can produce a better oil that does no harm to emissions but uses levels of zinc and phosphorous above api limits then guess what no certification. it certainly means its better more than the lack of certifcation means its better as you apparently are trying to imply -- that the certification somehow limits the performance of the oil. never said lack of certification means better. i only stated that an api sticker does not mean the oil is any better or worse. .

From : edward j muenster

on thu 03 jun 2004 063259 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote so youre implying that uncertified oils are better than certified oils that certification makes sure you have an inferior oil do they teach you this in oil school in bizarro world where did i say that i stated that api certification has little to do with an oil being good or bad. and you are wrong. if an oil is api certified you can be pretty sure its a good oil because its been tested by independent qualified laboratories and its subject to periodic monitoring to be sure the formulation isnt changed without proper testing. if an oil is not certified all you have to go on is the word of the people trying to sell it oh and dont forget those testimonials!. it might still be a good oil but you cant be sure... most people that look for the api certification have no idea what is involved in the actual tests. true. the api donut is designed to let the average consumer know that the oil has undergone a series of performance tests as well as meets certain chemistry limits without the consumer having to know the specifics of each test the pass/fail limits etc. and some people think that because they sell an expensive uncertified oil through multi-level marketing they know whats good for your car more than the makers of the car themselves. first you have to define what good or better is. why do i have to do that the manufacturer does that for me when he specifies a specific api service grade to be used in the engine. and seeing that most if not all manufacturers make the use of api certified oils a condition of their warranty apparently they feel its important. federal laws put alot of constraints on what an oil can and cant be in our cars. no they dont. federal law doesnt put any constraints on what can and cant be in the oil. however an organization that includes oil companies additive companies engine and vehicle manufacturers and others has determined that excessive levels of zinc and phosphorous can damage catalytic convertors and lead to excessive emissions. therefore they have agreed upon certain limits on these components so that the certified oils will not harm catalytic convertors. if you could run an oil with 100 times the api limit of zinc or phosphorous without damaging your catalytic convertor and exceeding emissions you could do so just fine without any hassles from the feds at all. they dont care whats in the oil -- they only care about what comes out the tailpipe. api certifies it meets theses constraints. dont forget that api also certifies that the oil meets the performance requirements specified by your engines manufacturer. and they base this certification on the successful running of numerous performance tests conducted by independent qualified laboratories. does that mean it is better in all regards it certainly means its better more than the lack of certifcation means its better as you apparently are trying to imply -- that the certification somehow limits the performance of the oil. there are alot of aftermarket performance parts for cars that do not meet federal or state emissions and safety laws. since were talking about amsoils lack of api certification are you implying that the use of amsoils uncertified oils is a violation of federal law does that mean the ones that do meet the laws are better depends on what the user is trying to achieve. the use of such aftermarket parts is a violation of law. however the use of uncertified oil is not a violation of law -- its just stupid and may void your warranty. .

From : nosey

i love it...everyone that tries to sell their truck here is because theyre buying a house. how does one get to work to pay the new mortgage anyway...26500 for an 03 dakota i think not...drop it another 10 grand and you might get a buyer. i bought my 03 2500 4wd qc hemi slt brand new for 31000 out the door. fully loaded except for leather. it *might* be worth 25 grand now... good luck. --mike have to get rid of my toy - buying a house. ottawa ontario i have an 2003 dodge dakota 2wd stampede edition for sale mileage 16700 km. ext - colour black all black bumper-skirts- grill int. - colour dark slate gray description & options - ground effect package front side & rear wheel flares - heavy duty suspension - 5 spd automatic 5-45rfe - next generation 4.7l magnum v-8 - anti-spin differential - fog lamps - rear window slider - 4 wheel disk - 16 x8.0 cast aluminum wheels p255/65r16 - summer & winter mats with ram logo - bed liner - extan rt tonno cover - flush with box. - many more options - this is a nice truck - and it has power to space. if you are interested you can call me @ 560-9110 any time of the day - leave message. or email me for pictures @ beebitattechie.com remove at & replace with @ asking $26500 or best offer - .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote amsoil does claim to have the first 100% synthetic that is api approved. yet another bullshit claim from scamsoil. mobil-1 is fully synthetic always has been and has been api-approved for *decades*. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote api doesnt do anything for free. it is very costly to have api certify an oil. scamsoil charges $9/qt; they can afford it. -stern .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote api doesnt do anything for free. it is very costly to have api certify an oil. scamsoil charges $9/qt; they can afford it. -stern im having trouble following your posts. they are not being grouped within the conversation threads. they just show up at the end. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote would you also agree that the use of an uncertified oil in a vehicle whose manufacturer requires api certified oil risks voiding the warranty first you have to understand the different attibutes of various oils and what the api tests for. once you do you may find an oil that does just fine or better than an api certified oil. will it void the warranty nope. the burden of proof is on the manufacture to prove damage was caused by non api oil. and why would an oil built on a synthetic base stock supposedly better lubricating than regular base stock need such high levels of zinc if all the synthetic oil propaganda is true shouldnt synthetics be able to use lower zinc levels than regular oils and still outperform them i dont know enough about synthetics to answer. amsoil does claim to have the first 100% synthetic that is api approved. i thought mobile 1 was or is it not 100% synthetic .

From : miles

nosey wrote i think i understand what you are trying to explain. meeting the api service grade requirement isnt the same as being api certified. is that right if amsoil conforms to an api service grade why wouldnt the api approve of it it seems that the api would have to approve or certify any product that meets their own requirements. api doesnt do anything for free. it is very costly to have api certify an oil. there are many product standards and testing that are self regulated. .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 4 jun 2004 edward j. muenster wrote would you also agree that the use of an uncertified oil in a vehicle whose manufacturer requires api certified oil risks voiding the warranty absolutely. in the us the magnuson-moss warranty act states that a vehicle manufacturer may not make warranty coverage contingent upon the use of any particular brand of maintenance product unless that brand is provided free of charge but a vehicle manufacturer *may* and they all do make warranty coverage contingent upon proper maintenance including the use of parts fluids and supplies that conform in full with the manufacturers specifications for the vehicle. that includes engine oil and its a very easy legal slam-dunk for the manufacturer. did the owner maintain the vehicle according to the manufacturers specifications no he used an engine oil not conforming to the published spec. bzzt! no money from the maker for a replacement engine then. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote yet another bullshit claim from scamsoil. mobil-1 is fully synthetic always has been and has been api-approved for *decades*. amsoil came out with theirs in 1972. ....and only introduced an api-certified version a few years ago. qed. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote ...and only introduced an api-certified version a few years ago. qed. try 1972. .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote absolutely. in the us the magnuson-moss warranty act states that a vehicle manufacturer may not make warranty coverage contingent upon the use of any particular brand of maintenance product unless that brand is provided free of charge then explain chryslers position with atf+4 they came out with it in 2001 but issued statements saying that all top-offs and fluid changes from 2001 forward must be done for autos newer than 1999 in order to maintain warranty. they were sued on this issue but i am not sure what the outcome of the suit is or if it is still ongoing. atf+4 is chryslers own brand and they do not give it away for free. .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 nosey wrote you are confusing api service grades such as sh sj sk sl etc. with api approval. only their xl-7500 and one or two others are api approved. scamsoil makes a big deal out of claiming that api approval is ok for commodity oils but not necessary for a superior product like ours but the fact is that most automakers require api-approved engine oil. i know my dodge truck does -- how bout yours i think i understand what you are trying to explain. meeting the api service grade requirement isnt the same as being api certified. thats right -- they are two totally separate things. if amsoil conforms to an api service grade why wouldnt the api approve of it because meeting the service grade is necessary *but not sufficient* to gain certification. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 3 jun 2004 miles wrote absolutely. in the us the magnuson-moss warranty act states that a vehicle manufacturer may not make warranty coverage contingent upon the use of any particular brand of maintenance product unless that brand is provided free of charge then explain chryslers position with atf+4 i knew youd ask that before taking 30 seconds to figure it out for yourself. nobodys prevented from making a fluid that is compatible with atf+4. its just nobodys done it yet and the only current source is chrysler. chrysler doesnt say you must use chrysler-branded atf+4 fluid they say you must use atf+4 fluid and they happen to be the only ones who make that fluid at this time. call it a loophole if you will but its not a violation of the magnuson-moss warranty act. -stern .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote nobodys prevented from making a fluid that is compatible with atf+4. its just nobodys done it yet and the only current source is chrysler. chrysler doesnt say you must use chrysler-branded atf+4 fluid they say you must use atf+4 fluid and they happen to be the only ones who make that fluid at this time. call it a loophole if you will but its not a violation of the magnuson-moss warranty act. wrong!! it appears you are guessing without knowing a dang thing. you need to read up more on chryslers licensing rights of atf+4 and why nobody else makes it. http//www.imake.com/flashpoint/earticle000202279.cfm .

From : jerry

miles wrote daniel j. stern wrote absolutely. in the us the magnuson-moss warranty act states that a vehicle manufacturer may not make warranty coverage contingent upon the use of any particular brand of maintenance product unless that brand is provided free of charge then explain chryslers position with atf+4 they came out with it in 2001 but issued statements saying that all top-offs and fluid changes from 2001 forward must be done for autos newer than 1999 in order to maintain warranty. they were sued on this issue but i am not sure what the outcome of the suit is or if it is still ongoing. atf+4 is chryslers own brand and they do not give it away for free. that is not actually correct. the tsb states it is recommended that all previous vehicles using atf+2 and atf+3 be switched over to atf+4 during servicing. nothing ordering the change as a must do is in the tsb except to say if the vehicle came from the factory with atf+4 then only atf+4 may go back into it. nothing in the tsb even mentions warranty. my local dealer puts atf+3 back into my truck each time the fluid is changed and has recommended i continue to do so because of cost. ive seen atf+3 by quaker state and a few others on the shelf so i would think there is no reason to not assume that someday if not already someone will put out atf+4 other than chrysler. jerry .

From : milesh

jerry wrote i would think there is no reason to not assume that someday if not already someone will put out atf+4 other than chrysler. atf+3 and lower are not registered trademarks of anyone. atf+4 is a registered trademark of chrylser and they own the patent to its formulation. .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 4 jun 2004 art carlson wrote the substance of the agrument was and is api.. the p stands for petroleum.. a very big industry... amsoil is not petroleum blah blah conspiracy blah blah whatever. mobil-1 isnt petroleum either and yet its api certified. next argument art amsoil user surprise... .

From : art carlson

on thu 3 jun 2004 nosey wrote you are confusing api service grades such as sh sj sk sl etc. with api approval. only their xl-7500 and one or two others are api approved. scamsoil makes a big deal out of claiming that api approval is ok for commodity oils but not necessary for a superior product like ours but the fact is that most automakers require api-approved engine oil. i know my dodge truck does -- how bout yours i think i understand what you are trying to explain. meeting the api service grade requirement isnt the same as being api certified. thats right -- they are two totally separate things. if amsoil conforms to an api service grade why wouldnt the api approve of it because meeting the service grade is necessary *but not sufficient* to gain certification. -stern the boards were filled with both sides of this issue in 1997.. the pro side consisted of amsoil users..i.e. customers; and the con side was composed of those that regarded amsoil as an inferior product because of their stand on the api certification; the critics were not users. the substance of the agrument was and is api.. the p stands for petroleum.. a very big industry... amsoil is not petroleum... so the non users were and are trying to give the users or people asking for some experience about the products; advice.. my experience with non users giving experience/advice is not real good. 1 they usually dont know much about the subject/product but position their arguments as though they did.. go figure! with respect art amsoil user .

From : jerry

milesh wrote jerry wrote i would think there is no reason to not assume that someday if not already someone will put out atf+4 other than chrysler. atf+3 and lower are not registered trademarks of anyone. atf+4 is a registered trademark of chrylser and they own the patent to its formulation. maybe so dont know if that is so or not but it still doesnt change the fact they are only recommending a change to atf+4 for those vehicles not already delivered from the factory that way and there is no mention of the word warranty. jerry .

From : edward j muenster

on 4 jun 2004 143934 -0700 art@funbuzz.com art carlson wrote the substance of the agrument was and is api.. the p stands for petroleum.. a very big industry... amsoil is not petroleum... neither are ford chryseler gm etc... the api works very closely with the automakers to determine lubricant standards. note that most synthetics have no trouble at all meeting those standards and most have substantially less difficulty in meeting those standards than regular oils. so its not any sort of anti-synthetic bias on the part of the api thats responsible for amsoils lack of certification. ive seen this conspiracy chestnut brought up many times through the years. its really pathetic and goes to show you what foundation the amsoil fans have to work with. so the non users were and are trying to give the users or people asking for some experience about the products; advice.. my experience with non users giving experience/advice is not real good. 1 they usually dont know much about the subject/product but position their arguments as though they did.. go figure! i note that none of the vocal amsoil supporters work in the oil industry in any way beyond selling amsoil through an mlm. they know nothing about the subject/product beyond the sales literature given to them by amsoil inc. and the experience/advice they share is virtually always given with the intent to promote the product and eventually make a sale. can you really trust a salesman for an unbiased opinion of his product relative to the competition with respect art amsoil user figures... .

From : art carlson

on fri 4 jun 2004 art carlson wrote the substance of the agrument was and is api.. the p stands for petroleum.. a very big industry... amsoil is not petroleum blah blah conspiracy blah blah whatever. mobil-1 isnt petroleum either and yet its api certified. next argument art amsoil user surprise... daniel do you use amsoil products.. and what is your relationship to the pertoleum industry and/or api.. .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 5 jun 2004 miles wrote which lack of certification are you referring to amsoils synthetic has been api approved since 1972. nope. if that were the case this whole argument wouldnt exist. scamsoil released their xl-7500 api-certified oils a few years ago to quiet skeptics of the ridiculous we dont need api certification because were better than api requires argument. the bulk of scamsoils engine oils arent api certified. -stern .

From : edward j muenster

on thu 03 jun 2004 213515 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote nosey wrote i think i understand what you are trying to explain. meeting the api service grade requirement isnt the same as being api certified. is that right if amsoil conforms to an api service grade why wouldnt the api approve of it it seems that the api would have to approve or certify any product that meets their own requirements. the oil has to be *proven* to meet the requirements by passing numerous tests conducted at an independent qualified laboratory. qualified meaning that all the tests have been calibrated to ensure they give consistent repeatable results. you cant simply run your own tests and expect them to certify your oil -- unless of course your own testing facility has been qualified. api doesnt do anything for free. it is very costly to have api certify an oil. there are many product standards and testing that are self regulated. yep. its the testing thats expensive. testing an oil can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. and the api gets none of that money. it all goes to the independent testing laboratories. you then take the signed certified test reports to the api and they pass judgement. the api only gets the licensing fees. api licensing costs $825/year and covers *all* an oil companys certified oils. since amsoil already has the api stamp on xl-7500 theyre already paying the $825. lets see.... testing hundreds of kilobucks. certification $825. hmmmmm. i wonder how we can hold costs down... .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote mobil-1 isnt petroleum either and yet its api certified. so is amsoils synthetic since 1972. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote the api works very closely with the automakers to determine lubricant standards. note that most synthetics have no trouble at all meeting those standards and most have substantially less difficulty in meeting those standards than regular oils. so its not any sort of anti-synthetic bias on the part of the api thats responsible for amsoils lack of certification. which lack of certification are you referring to amsoils synthetic has been api approved since 1972. .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 5 jun 2004 art carlson wrote daniel do you use amsoil products.. i have but i currently dont. and what is your relationship to the pertoleum industry and/or api.. none. -stern .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on wed 2 jun 2004 nosey wrote what the hell are you guys talking about all amsoil motor oils meet api standards. nope. you are confusing api service grades such as sh sj sk sl etc. with api approval. only their xl-7500 and one or two others are api approved. scamsoil makes a big deal out of claiming that api approval is ok for commodity oils but not necessary for a superior product like ours but the fact is that most automakers require api-approved engine oil. i know my dodge truck does -- how bout yours -stern mr. stern i am not trying to spin any semantics or troll for an argument here. i have been using amsoil products for nearly 20 years and have trusted the companys reputation of producing a quality product. if you dont like amsoil thats your decision. dont use it. im not trying to convince anyone else here to use amsoil either. you claim that your dodge truck requires api certified engine oil. i dont dispute that fact because i dont know what specific dodge truck you own. my 99 ram with the cummins diesel engine apparently does not require api certified oil. i re-read the owners manual cover to cover looking for any reference to api certification which has been explained to me to be different from api service grades. there is only an api service grade requirement for my dodge truck. thank you for your concern. -- ken .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 5 jun 2004 nosey wrote i have been using amsoil products for nearly 20 years and have trusted the companys reputation of producing a quality product. but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 miles wrote the fact that amsoil was indeed the first to have an api certified synthetic in 1972. yknow miles no matter how often you repeat a lie... ....no matter how many people eventually believe it... ....its still a lie. -stern .

From : tbone

on sat 5 jun 2004 nosey wrote i have been using amsoil products for nearly 20 years and have trusted the companys reputation of producing a quality product. but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. lol and what exactly do you define as a good reputation or is it only what you like has a good reputation and everything else is shit. there actually are people that use these products because they like them or the pyramid will fail and that indicates a good reputation regardless of the sales method or your dislike of it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 nosey wrote but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. what i think is a good reputation is that i have never heard of any failures caused by the product. this is one of the simplest forms of logical fallacy around. ive been swinging my left index finger in a 33-degree left-to-right arc twice a minute every other tuesday at 807am since 1967 and i havent *ever* been bitten by a crocodile. see -stern .

From : paul jensen

on sat 5 jun 2004 nosey wrote but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. -stern the guy is telling you he has used the product for 20 years and *likes* it so i dont imagine he gives a crap what you think. is that so hard for you to understand .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on sat 5 jun 2004 nosey wrote i have been using amsoil products for nearly 20 years and have trusted the companys reputation of producing a quality product. but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. -stern what i think is a good reputation is that i have never heard of any failures caused by the product. i have only heard of good results from other users like what i have personally experienced. if you have any references detailing failures caused by amsoil please let me know i may change my mind about it. .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote ive been swinging my left index finger in a 33-degree left-to-right arc twice a minute every other tuesday at 807am since 1967 and i havent *ever* been bitten by a crocodile. see -stern howard is that you .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 tbone wrote but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. lol and what exactly do you define as a good reputation it starts with good ratings on *independent* not manufacturer-performed or -funded tests. it continues with compliance with industry standards. and it also involves sale through legitimate channels rather than pyramid schemes. -stern .

From : edward j muenster

on sun 06 jun 2004 210918 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first none to show anyone else. lol!! every single one of thse web sites belongs to an amsoil dealer! .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 art carlson wrote daniel do you use amsoil products.. i have but i currently dont. and what is your relationship to the pertoleum industry and/or api.. none. so what oil are you using in your dodge... usually mobil-1. and why its a premium synthetic engine oil with a many-decades-long and repeatedly-independently-tested excellent reputation it is api certified it is produced by a generally reputable company and i can buy it virtually everywhere for less than half the cost of scamsoil. -stern .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote yet another bullshit claim from scamsoil. mobil-1 is fully synthetic always has been and has been api-approved for *decades*. amsoil came out with theirs in 1972. when was mobile 1 developed and certified .

From : art carlson

on sat 5 jun 2004 art carlson wrote daniel do you use amsoil products.. i have but i currently dont. and what is your relationship to the pertoleum industry and/or api.. none. -stern progress..! so what oil are you using in your dodge... and why art .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote mobil-1. scamsoil didnt release an **api-certified** engine oil until a few years ago xl-7500. -stern that is where you are flat out wrong. the synthetic amsoil released in 1972 was api certified. your hatred of amsoil prevents you from accepting the truth. .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 7 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote avon must be crap then. well gosh paul i cant say one way or the other. i dont wear makeup. well some of your arguments seem to be concerned with how the product is sold. yep. it matters. -stern .

From : paul jensen

well some of your arguments seem to be concerned with how the product is sold. yep. it matters. -stern how so .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 7 jun 2004 edward j. muenster wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first none to show anyone else. lol!! every single one of thse web sites belongs to an amsoil dealer! now cmon lets be fair not *all* of them belong to scamsoil dealers. some of them belong to the scamsoil company itself. -stern .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on sun 6 jun 2004 nosey wrote but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. what i think is a good reputation is that i have never heard of any failures caused by the product. this is one of the simplest forms of logical fallacy around. ive been swinging my left index finger in a 33-degree left-to-right arc twice a minute every other tuesday at 807am since 1967 and i havent *ever* been bitten by a crocodile. see -stern swinging your finger around in a location that has no crocodiles probably has no effect on your odds of being bitten anyway. using a poor quality oil will have a direct effect on the occurrence of engine failure. your analogy while entertaining does not relate to the subject. if i use a brand of oil that has been used by many others and there are absolutely no none as in zero reports of a failure related to the use of this brand of oil since 1972 i think its indisputably correct to say that is an indication of the quality of the product. you can stop swinging your finger now. .

From : edward j muenster

on sat 5 jun 2004 104300 -0400 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on sat 5 jun 2004 miles wrote which lack of certification are you referring to amsoils synthetic has been api approved since 1972. nope. if that were the case this whole argument wouldnt exist. scamsoil released their xl-7500 api-certified oils a few years ago to quiet skeptics of the ridiculous we dont need api certification because were better than api requires argument. the bulk of scamsoils engine oils arent api certified. dan surely by now you realize youre arguing with religious zealots. theyve chosen their oil and thats that. they really dont care whether or not its certified. to them if it was certified by the api fine. but since its not certified then certification doesnt mean anything anyway. they are smug paying $9/qt knowing theyre giving their engine the best. me call me an oil atheist. i use whatever is on sale at k-mart. ive driven several cars more than 200000 miles like this often procrastinating on the oil changes to well beyond the user manual. the car i had in school saw four winters in grand forks nd often more than 20 below and three summers in phoenix az often more than 100. it never had anything more expensive in it than pennzoil or castrol. and it still burned less than a quart in 5000 miles when i sold it with 220000 on the clock. to some people oil is just oil. to others its a religion. and to a few its a cult. .

From : paul jensen

on sun 6 jun 2004 tbone wrote but see thats the thing scamsoil *doesnt* have any such a reputation of producing a quality product. what they have instead is hordes and legions of dealers organised pyramidally each talking-up the product to his downline and receiving new company-printed propaganda from his upline. the aggregate din about the product being terrific doesnt comprise a good reputation its just a living breathing advertising campaign. lol and what exactly do you define as a good reputation it starts with good ratings on *independent* not manufacturer-performed or -funded tests. it continues with compliance with industry standards. and it also involves sale through legitimate channels rather than pyramid schemes. avon must be crap then. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote dan surely by now you realize youre arguing with religious zealots. theyve chosen their oil and thats that. they really dont care whether or not its certified. to them if it was certified by the api fine. but since its not certified then certification doesnt mean anything anyway. they are smug paying $9/qt knowing theyre giving their engine the best. youre speaking with pure speculation here just for the sake of ranting. i dont use amsoil myself never have and probably never will. but it doesnt change the fact that amsoil was indeed the first to have an api certified synthetic in 1972. many of amsoils oils are api approved and many are not. .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 7 jun 2004 edward j. muenster wrote dan surely by now you realize youre arguing with religious zealots. thats part of why its fun wind em up and watch em spin. listen to em quote l. ron amatuzios companys propaganda as gospel truth...and then laugh at em. see em spew forth drivel that once -- way back in the beforetimes -- contained a tiny fraction of a kernel of tribologically-sound information but which has become an elaborate and delicately-balanced load of horseapples in the manner of all myths. to them if it was certified by the api fine. no no remember api certification is proof of a low-quality commodity oil. api certification is *bad* because it means getting in bed with the big bad petroleum and automaking industries who dont want your vehicle to last so they collude -- assisted by the big bad federal government -- to promulgate engine oil standards that actually harm your engine. see and once you know that amsoil sent its one and only son to die for your engine then you can clearly see that api certification isnt just bad its...evil. in fact if you peel the label off a bottle of api-certified engine oil hold it up to the noonday sun and read it in reverse you can see the devil laughing and read that paul mccartney is dead. but since its not certified then certification doesnt mean anything anyway. that too. they are smug paying $9/qt knowing theyre giving their engine the best. im certain this phenomenon has an actual name in the field of psychology; i call it the slick-50 effect. of course the slick-50 makes my engine run smoother and cooler and get 4 more miles per gallon; it cost me $40! marketers arent stupid and they know how to exploit this. witness the ultra-high price of scamsoil or piaa headlight bulbs for instance completely out of proportion with the actual performance and quality of the product -- and yet people willingly pay more money for an inferior product because the higher price makes them *feel* as though theyve bought something superior. marketing courses are full of additional examples of products languishing on store shelves until the price is *raised*. me call me an oil atheist. i use whatever is on sale at k-mart. what most people forget is that this years oil of any major brand is considerably better than last years oil way better than the oil of 5 years ago and *light years* better than the oil of a decade ago. your method works fine. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 nosey wrote what i think is a good reputation is that i have never heard of any failures caused by the product. this is one of the simplest forms of logical fallacy around. ive been swinging my left index finger in a 33-degree left-to-right arc twice a minute every other tuesday at 807am since 1967 and i havent *ever* been bitten by a crocodile. see swinging your finger around in a location that has no crocodiles probably has no effect on your odds of being bitten anyway. exactly. see i knew you could understand the fallacy of ive never heard of an engine failing due to amsoil as an argument in favor of the product. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote lol and what exactly do you define as a good reputation it starts with good ratings on *independent* not manufacturer-performed or -funded tests. it continues with compliance with industry standards. and it also involves sale through legitimate channels rather than pyramid schemes. avon must be crap then. well gosh paul i cant say one way or the other. i dont wear makeup. -stern .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote yknow miles no matter how often you repeat a lie... ...no matter how many people eventually believe it... ...its still a lie. ya know stern no matter how many times you try to refute the truth the truth doesnt change. show me your evidence. there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first none to show anyone else. you think mobile 1 was so why isnt mobile suing amsoil for false advertising show me anything that supports your claim. .

From : nosey

exactly. see i knew you could understand the fallacy of ive never heard of an engine failing due to amsoil as an argument in favor of the product. -stern wtf are you talking about how can this be construed as a fallacy .

From : art carlson

on sun 6 jun 2004 art carlson wrote daniel do you use amsoil products.. i have but i currently dont. and what is your relationship to the pertoleum industry and/or api.. none. so what oil are you using in your dodge... usually mobil-1. and why its a premium synthetic engine oil with a many-decades-long and repeatedly-independently-tested excellent reputation it is api certified it is produced by a generally reputable company and i can buy it virtually everywhere for less than half the cost of scamsoil. -stern that sounds like you have been swayed by some sort of advertising program.. i have 20+ years experience with exxon/mobil .. the company does have a reputation..! and price is very important.. thanks for clearing up your position! art .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 7 jun 2004 art carlson wrote usually mobil-1. that sounds like you have been swayed by some sort of advertising program. not really no. ive just taken it upon myself to research the oils available -- not via their ad claims but by the results of independent tests. wouldjya like to guess again -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 6 jun 2004 miles wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first muwahahahahahaha! it *must* be true! i read it on the interweb! they dont let you lie on the interweb! pfft. youll have to do a *lot* better than that. -stern .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote on sun 6 jun 2004 miles wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first muwahahahahahaha! it *must* be true! i read it on the interweb! they dont let you lie on the interweb! pfft. youll have to do a *lot* better than that. thats not the point. nothing on the internet is proof of anything. but you have shown zero zilch nada on anything that might give any glimpse or suggestion that amsoil did not produce the first api certified synthetic. nor have you shown anything to suggest that mobile 1 was the first. youll have to do better than your own opinion. .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 7 jun 2004 eisboch wrote mobil 1 introduced in 1973 japan and europe 1974 to north america amsoil introduced in 1972. and the winner is mobil-1. scamsoil didnt release an **api-certified** engine oil until a few years ago xl-7500. -stern .

From : eisboch

on sun 6 jun 2004 miles wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first muwahahahahahaha! it *must* be true! i read it on the interweb! they dont let you lie on the interweb! pfft. youll have to do a *lot* better than that. -stern this was such an easy one. three minutes of simple research reveals mobil 1 introduced in 1973 japan and europe 1974 to north america amsoil introduced in 1972. and the winner is eisboch .

From : redneck tookover hell

wind em up and watch em spin. listen to em quote l. ron amatuzios companys propaganda as gospel truth...and then laugh at em. see em spew forth drivel that once -- way back in the beforetimes -- contained a tiny fraction of a kernel of tribologically-sound information couple years ago jeremy mayfield driving the number 12 dodge sponsored by mobil 1 had an oil cooler failure at california speedway. the engine oil temp was over 300 degress for much of the race yet mayfield still won the race. hard to buy that kind of proof. bet mobil 1 sold a couple quarts of oil after that race come to think of it i havent seen scams oil being used in any serious racing. i havent seen it at the dragstrip even on saturday night and havent seen it in the pits at the saturday night circle track either hmmmm wonder why not politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : milesh

edward j. muenster wrote on sun 06 jun 2004 210918 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first none to show anyone else. lol!! every single one of thse web sites belongs to an amsoil dealer! i didnt list any so not sure what you point is. still you and stern go right on ahead and show some sort of suggestive evidence that mobile 1 was the first rather than amsoil. ill wait. .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 7 jun 2004 nosey wrote exactly. see i knew you could understand the fallacy of ive never heard of an engine failing due to amsoil as an argument in favor of the product. wtf are you talking about how can this be construed as a fallacy youre having a bit of a joke right i mean youre not *really* as dumb as youre making yourself look here right -stern .

From : paul jensen

on sun 6 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote lol and what exactly do you define as a good reputation it starts with good ratings on *independent* not manufacturer-performed or -funded tests. it continues with compliance with industry standards. and it also involves sale through legitimate channels rather than pyramid schemes. avon must be crap then. well gosh paul i cant say one way or the other. i dont wear makeup. -stern well some of your arguments seem to be concerned with how the product is sold. but how a product is sold says nothing about the quality of the product. just trying to keep you focused! .

From : art carlson

on mon 7 jun 2004 art carlson wrote usually mobil-1. that sounds like you have been swayed by some sort of advertising program. not really no. ive just taken it upon myself to research the oils available -- not via their ad claims but by the results of independent tests. wouldjya like to guess again -stern guessing seems to be the slower of the processes available; perhaps you could revel the analysis and all of us can look favorably on mobil-1 vs amsoil. btw the price of amsoil 5w-30 e.g. $4.55 dealer; $5.85 retail art mich. eng. 60 .

From : milesh

redneck tookover hell wrote i havent seen it at the dragstrip even on saturday night and havent seen it in the pits at the saturday night circle track either hmmmm wonder why not ive seen it used at the strip here. but racers use whats given to them for free by sponsors. sponsorships are what fund racing of any kind. mobile 1 sponsors a heck of a lot more than amsoil and is a great oil so why would they use an oil they gotta pay for .

From : milesh

redneck tookover hell wrote i havent seen it at the dragstrip even on saturday night and havent seen it in the pits at the saturday night circle track either hmmmm wonder why not come to think of it while i have seen it at the strip to some extent i have seen it much more often in offroad racing and monster truck events as well as atv/quad racing events. also have seen them sponsor racing boats. .

From : edward j muenster

on mon 07 jun 2004 201640 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote i note that the ford model t beat the lamborghini countach to market by quite a few years. first to market does not necessarily mean better. never said it did. im not defending amsoil. i do not use it. but amsoil was the first out with an api certified synthetic in 1972. wrongo. amsoil didnt have an api certified oil until they made xl-7500 in the late 90s i believe. virtually every other oil out there has been part of the api engine oil quality program since the late 70s or early 80s. amsoil just recently joind them in the late 90s and then only with a couple of their products. most of amsoilss oils are not api certified and have never been api certified. they may have released an oil in 1972 that they claimed was api rated i.e. *they* rated it appropriate for use in engines that required a certain api service grade but they didnt make an api certified oil until the late 90s. yes amsoil beat mobil 1 to market by 1 year with a synthetic motor oil for the average consumer. so what mobil 1 quickly stomped on amsoil. thats true. your point being mobile 1 is good stuff. and obviously amsoil cant keep up. besides amsoil didnt have an api certified synthetic until a couple of years ago when they came out with their xl-7500. xl-7500 was not amsoils first synthetic nor the 1st of theirs to be api certified. tso series 2000 is older but im not sure what the name for the 1972 synthetic was. series 2000 is not api certified. get it ill type slowly amsoil series 2000 is not api certified. yes its older than xl-7500 but its not certified. no api donut. no certified test results from independent qualified laboratories. no api certification. its observational and critical thinking skills such as yours that are 100% responsible for amsoils existence. .

From : edward j muenster

on 07 jun 2004 181322 edt milesh milesh@nounwantedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote on sun 06 jun 2004 210918 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote there are 100s of websites that show amsoil to be the first none to show anyone else. lol!! every single one of thse web sites belongs to an amsoil dealer! i didnt list any so not sure what you point is. its absolutely no surprise you dont get the point. see if you can find a site cmon one site any site that trumpets amsoil beating mobil 1 to market that isnt an amsoil dealer amsoil direct jobber amsoil distributor or amsoil corporate web site. see if you can find a site that isnt directly associated with the marketing of amsoil that holds it to be the best motor oil. consumer reports type reviews independent tests still you and stern go right on ahead and show some sort of suggestive evidence that mobile 1 was the first rather than amsoil. ill wait. i note that the ford model t beat the lamborghini countach to market by quite a few years. first to market does not necessarily mean better. yes amsoil beat mobil 1 to market by 1 year with a synthetic motor oil for the average consumer. so what mobil 1 quickly stomped on amsoil. besides amsoil didnt have an api certified synthetic until a couple of years ago when they came out with their xl-7500. .

From : carolina breeze hvac

redneck tookover hell wrote i havent seen it at the dragstrip even on saturday night and havent seen it in the pits at the saturday night circle track either hmmmm wonder why not ive seen it used at the strip here. but racers use whats given to them for free by sponsors. sponsorships are what fund racing of any kind. mobile 1 sponsors a heck of a lot more than amsoil and is a great oil so why would they use an oil they gotta pay for interjection here... i had an amsoiled dealer offer as much as i needed just allow him to use the hemi cars in his ads or mention that he supplies to me... i still use mobil1 or castrol.....and funny...the vehicles i have used castrol in have gone more than half a million miles....wow.. .

From : redneck tookover hell

btw the price of amsoil 5w-30 e.g. $4.55 dealer; $5.85 retail so why arent you scamsoil boys competitive with other oils or is your snake oil so superior pardon me while i suppress laughing out loud at your stupidity ol daniel is sure doing a good job of bitch slapping you scamsoil boys around must to tough to swallow the truth for yall politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote i note that the ford model t beat the lamborghini countach to market by quite a few years. first to market does not necessarily mean better. never said it did. im not defending amsoil. i do not use it. but amsoil was the first out with an api certified synthetic in 1972. yes amsoil beat mobil 1 to market by 1 year with a synthetic motor oil for the average consumer. so what mobil 1 quickly stomped on amsoil. thats true. your point being mobile 1 is good stuff. besides amsoil didnt have an api certified synthetic until a couple of years ago when they came out with their xl-7500. xl-7500 was not amsoils first synthetic nor the 1st of theirs to be api certified. tso series 2000 is older but im not sure what the name for the 1972 synthetic was. .

From : miles

carolina breeze hvac wrote interjection here... i had an amsoiled dealer offer as much as i needed just allow him to use the hemi cars in his ads or mention that he supplies to me... i still use mobil1 or castrol.....and funny...the vehicles i have used castrol in have gone more than half a million miles....wow.. how much money did they offer ive used castrol and now mobile 1. both good stuff but im not convinced that there are big differences in performance of different oils for the average consumer. every car ive had has gone to at least 150k or more without engine trouble no matter what oil i have used. frequent changes work for me. .

From : redneck tookover hell

i have seen it much more often in offroad racing and monster truck events as well as atv/quad racing events. also have seen them sponsor racing boats. like i said serious racing not 2 stroke atvs/quads or the 2 stroke outboard olympics doing donuts with a monster truck is serious racing to you you better check with those saturday night bracket racers/circle track guys about how much free oil all those sponsors are supplying them most of those sat night guys are sponsored by backpocket racing inc now lets talk about the big time sunday racers wheres the scamsoil sponsorships i know what oil i see being poured into those fuel engines after their rebuilds and the bottle doesnt say scamsoil now these guys have got the budget to buy the finest automotive parts available but i still dont see scamoil being used i havent seen the scamsoil nationals listed on either nhra or ihra sites when is that one i see a whole series being sponsored by lucas oil as well as some events. they also sponsor individual cars in circle track dragracing off road and truck stops carry a variety of their products. i also havent had anyone from lucas tell me they had a business proposition for me that involved me signing up 35 other people who when they each sign up 35 other people ill be making $500 a month from each of them provided they each buy $10000 worth of product a month politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : miles

redneck tookover hell wrote i know what oil i see being poured into those fuel engines after their rebuilds and the bottle doesnt say scamsoil you see what you want to see. amsoil does sponser quite a few drivers at nhra arca nascar etc. are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote series 2000 is not api certified. get it ill type slowly amsoil series 2000 is not api certified. yes its older than xl-7500 but its not certified. no api donut. no certified test results from independent qualified laboratories. no api certification. show me a scrap of evidence that suggests that mobile 1 was the first. also research apis history a bit with regards to independent testing. .

From : edward j muenster

on tue 08 jun 2004 063931 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote series 2000 is not api certified. get it ill type slowly amsoil series 2000 is not api certified. yes its older than xl-7500 but its not certified. no api donut. no certified test results from independent qualified laboratories. no api certification. show me a scrap of evidence that suggests that mobile 1 was the first. but im not claiming mobil-1 was the first synthetic oil marketed to the average joe. why should i dig up evidence of something im not claiming also research apis history a bit with regards to independent testing. i have. believe me i have. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote dont be lazy. it took me all of 45 seconds clicking around and looking through the site to find a great many such test results. if i can do it you can too. then all ya gotta do is post it. you made the claim not me. .

From : roy

redneck tookover hell wrote i know what oil i see being poured into those fuel engines after their rebuilds and the bottle doesnt say scamsoil you see what you want to see. amsoil does sponser quite a few drivers at nhra arca nascar etc. are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. who do they sponser i see one car at a local track that has a amsoil sticker on it but the owners cousin sells the stuff. does it go in the car no. .

From : paul jensen

redneck tookover hell wrote i know what oil i see being poured into those fuel engines after their rebuilds and the bottle doesnt say scamsoil you see what you want to see. amsoil does sponser quite a few drivers at nhra arca nascar etc. are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. im trying to remember - were they a big sponsor of asa a number of years back or am i confusing them with somebody else .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 10 jun 2004 miles wrote oh goody! i can use water in my crankcase and save money! you could but the water would be easy to prove as being the cause of failure and thus not warranted. oh so its a matter of what you think you can get away with regardless of the rules eh youre a real team player arent you... -stern .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote www.bobistheoilguy.com is loaded with em. it is wheres the test results showing mobil 1 is better than amsoil .

From : theguy

on tue 08 jun 2004 222006 gmt roy roy@home.net wrote redneck tookover hell wrote i know what oil i see being poured into those fuel engines after their rebuilds and the bottle doesnt say scamsoil you see what you want to see. amsoil does sponser quite a few drivers at nhra arca nascar etc. are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. who do they sponser i see one car at a local track that has a amsoil sticker on it but the owners cousin sells the stuff. does it go in the car no. http//www.amsoil.com/racing.htm i am not an amsoil guy at all but since you asked and apparently dont have search capabilities yourself.......... .

From : miles

daniel j. stern wrote until that time the truth is that scamsoil is inferior to mobil-1. show me the independent tests that compare mobile-1 to amsoil and show mobile-1 to be superior. .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on mon 7 jun 2004 nosey wrote exactly. see i knew you could understand the fallacy of ive never heard of an engine failing due to amsoil as an argument in favor of the product. wtf are you talking about how can this be construed as a fallacy youre having a bit of a joke right i mean youre not *really* as dumb as youre making yourself look here right -stern i said that when a product is used by the public for many years and there has been no reports of anything negative happening because of it and there are numerous reports of positive results i see this as a good reputation of the product. you claim this is a fallacy. i asked you how this can be a fallacy. you resort to name calling. are you getting tired of dancing around this question why dont you just answer it honestly .

From : daniel j stern

on tue 8 jun 2004 nosey wrote exactly. see i knew you could understand the fallacy of ive never heard of an engine failing due to amsoil as an argument in favor of the product. wtf are you talking about how can this be construed as a fallacy youre having a bit of a joke right i mean youre not *really* as dumb as youre making yourself look here right i said that when a product is used by the public for many years and there has been no reports of anything negative happening because of it and there are numerous reports of positive results i see this as a good reputation of the product. you claim this is a fallacy. whoops nope youve concatenated two problems into one. there have been no reports of anything negative happening means a good reputation this part is the fallacy. there are numerous reports of positive results which means a good reputation this parts just plain ol anecdotal storytelling. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on tue 8 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote well some of your arguments seem to be concerned with how the product is sold. yep. it matters. how so its a part of the total product use experience. unless you can figure out a way to cause the product of your desires to materialize in your garage just by concentrating real hard one way or another you have to procure it. if you can just walk in whatever wal-mart parts store target or whatever is closest and pick up a quart a case of 6 quarts or a gallon of mobil-1 thats a heck of a lot nicer than having to deal with some damn salesdroid who wants to yack your ear off and wallpaper your mailbox and fill-up your email box with company propaganda then you have to either pay shipping or meet your contact at his house or in a parking lot somewhere and you better buy extra cause if you need more later you cant just walk in anywhere and get it and youll be constantly pestered to buy more and offered a dealership if you buy so much in advance etc...and at twice to three times the cost of just walkin into a store you probably already go to anyhow and picking up mobil-1...see how it counts -stern .

From : yonzie

roy@home.net wrote redneck tookover hell wrote i know what oil i see being poured into those fuel engines after their rebuilds and the bottle doesnt say scamsoil you see what you want to see. amsoil does sponser quite a few drivers at nhra arca nascar etc. are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. who do they sponser i see one car at a local track that has a amsoil sticker on it but the owners cousin sells the stuff. does it go in the car no. the stickers are just used to cover up any scratches .

From : redneck tookover hell

you see what you want to see. really and you dont i can read i know how scamsoil looks heres a link to nhra majoor and contingency sponsors. i must have missed the scamsoil listing or maybe nhra forgot to list it or maybe its all a conspiracy by nhra to make everyone believe that valvolline quakerstate lucas oil etc are only pretending to sponsor anything heres the link to nhra major sponsors contingency sponsors and associate sponsors http//nhra.com/sponsors/index.htm and http//www.nhra.com/2004/schedule.html we obviously need your guidance since we cant find scamsoil listed anywhere are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. really where red line is there royal purple is there scamsoil is where ill be asking around sat night about all the sponsorship scamsoil is providing the local guys politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : edward j muenster

on wed 9 jun 2004 212444 -0400 nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote you also claimed that it will void my warranty which it does not. if the use of an api certified motor oil is a condition of your warranty do you maintain that the use of an uncertified oil will not void that warranty .

From : theguy

on 09 jun 2004 165633 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote you see what you want to see. really and you dont i can read he can too. not well but he can read. most of the time he can sound the words out. he has a lot of time on his hands that is why it takes him so long to answer. i know how scamsoil looks scamsoil what time is your bowling game scheduled for heres a link to nhra majoor and contingency sponsors. i must have missed the scamsoil listing or maybe nhra forgot to list it or maybe its all a conspiracy by nhra to make everyone believe that valvollin yeah so there! i mean this is really important shit man. look how worked up red gets up over oil. just think how worked up he would get if it was something that actually mattered. hed probably blow an o-ring. but remember red lives in peeuu-whallop up there in warshington. he probably gets a woody when the street lights come on. e quakerstate lucas oil etc are only pretending to sponsor anything heres the link to nhra major sponsors contingency sponsors and associate sponsors http//nhra.com/sponsors/index.htm and http//www.nhra.com/2004/schedule.html we obviously need your guidance since we cant find scamsoil listed anywhere are they as big as mobile penzoil castrol etc hell no but they are there. are they better who knows who cares but they are there. really where red line is there royal purple is there scamsoil is where ill be asking around sat night about all the sponsorship scamsoil is providing the local guys politics the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich. .

From : paul jensen

denny . 222 283862 ca87bi$lhe$1@.utelfla.com on tue 8 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote well some of your arguments seem to be concerned with how the product is sold. yep. it matters. how so its a part of the total product use experience. but that says *nothing* about the quality of the product. there are some major brands of products that are sold via multi-level marketing or mlm. i named one earlier - avon. tupperware is a leader in their field and sold via mlm. i agree with you - i prefer to buy things in a store or perhaps e-bay for some things. i dont think i would be inclined to buy motor oil from mlm but just because something is sold that way does not necessarily make it a product of poor quality. im not taking sides in this debate - i have never used the stuff and probably never will. but you dont help yourself when you attack the sales method if your arguement is the quality of the product doesnt stand up. to equate mlm sales techniques with poor quality simply isnt so. tupperware is far superior to a lot of the crap they have in wal-mart. stick to your certification arguement and stay off of the mlm - it doesnt matter. .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 9 jun 2004 paul jensen wrote but that says *nothing* about the quality of the product. it says a lot about the total use experience. major brands of products that are sold via multi-level marketing or mlm. i named one earlier - avon. tupperware is a leader in their field and sold via mlm. good point hadnt really thought about tupperware. im not taking sides in this debate - i have never used the stuff and probably never will. but you dont help yourself when you attack the sales method if your arguement is the quality of the product doesnt stand up. youve misinterpreted my position slightly. i argue that scamsoil is of inferior quality *and* that it is annoying to obtain by dint of the mlm pyramid the company has set up for its distribution -- not that it is of inferior quality *because* it is annoying to obtain. -stern .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on tue 8 jun 2004 nosey wrote exactly. see i knew you could understand the fallacy of ive never heard of an engine failing due to amsoil as an argument in favor of the product. wtf are you talking about how can this be construed as a fallacy youre having a bit of a joke right i mean youre not *really* as dumb as youre making yourself look here right i said that when a product is used by the public for many years and there has been no reports of anything negative happening because of it and there are numerous reports of positive results i see this as a good reputation of the product. you claim this is a fallacy. whoops nope youve concatenated two problems into one. there have been no reports of anything negative happening means a good reputation this part is the fallacy. there are numerous reports of positive results which means a good reputation this parts just plain ol anecdotal storytelling. -stern you think the positive results are all just made up storytelling and the lack of negative reports dont mean anything its clear that you dont like the product but you have nothing to back up your claim as to how horrible it is. you also claimed that it will void my warranty which it does not. my standing is that there are enough positive results there to convince me that it is a good product and no negative results to convince me otherwise. if that is a fallacy then so be it. thank you for your time. ken satisfied amsoil customer .

From : nosey

edward j. muenster wrote on wed 9 jun 2004 212444 -0400 nosey kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com wrote you also claimed that it will void my warranty which it does not. if the use of an api certified motor oil is a condition of your warranty do you maintain that the use of an uncertified oil will not void that warranty read your owners manual. your warranty may be different than mine. mine state that i must use an oil conforming to certain api service grades. it does not say i must use an api certified oil. mr. stern pointed out to me that api service grades are not the same as api certification. i thought the service grade was the certification but it is not. .

From : paul jensen

youve misinterpreted my position slightly. i argue that scamsoil is of inferior quality *and* that it is annoying to obtain by dint of the mlm pyramid the company has set up for its distribution -- not that it is of inferior quality *because* it is annoying to obtain. well i dont know if i misintrepeted it or not but will go along with what you said here. i dont know or care if its an inferior product or not but your argument is that it is. fine. and if youre saying its annoying to get id go along with that whether its an inferior product or not. .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 9 jun 2004 nosey wrote there are numerous reports of positive results which means a good reputation this parts just plain ol anecdotal storytelling. you think the positive results are all just made up storytelling no theyre *anecdotal*. i didnt say they were fabricated. its a totally different thing. when there are *independent* tests not conducted or funded by scamsoil showing their oil to be legitimately better than mobil-1 the truth will change. until that time the truth is that scamsoil is inferior to mobil-1. -stern .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote if the use of an api certified motor oil is a condition of your warranty do you maintain that the use of an uncertified oil will not void that warranty you can put whatever you want in and not automatically void your warranty. if the tranny fails the burden of proof is on the manufacture. they must prove the improper fluid caused the failure. if the failure is unrelated to a fluid problem they must honor the warranty. .

From : yonzie

theguy theguy@myplace.com wrote on 09 jun 2004 165633 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote you see what you want to see. really and you dont i can read he can too. not well but he can read. most of the time he can sound the words out. he has a lot of time on his hands that is why it takes him so long to answer. i know how scamsoil looks scamsoil what time is your bowling game scheduled for heres a link to nhra majoor and contingency sponsors. i must have missed the scamsoil listing or maybe nhra forgot to list it or maybe its all a conspiracy by nhra to make everyone believe that valvollin yeah so there! i mean this is really important shit man. look how worked up red gets up over oil. just think how worked up he would get if it was something that actually mattered. hed probably blow an o-ring. but remember red lives in peeuu-whallop up there in warshington. he probably gets a woody when the street lights come on. now i see you like talking about other guys getting a woody maybe should call yourself gayguy instead of a guy. .

From : edward j muenster

on wed 09 jun 2004 200818 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote if the use of an api certified motor oil is a condition of your warranty do you maintain that the use of an uncertified oil will not void that warranty you can put whatever you want in and not automatically void your warranty. oh goody! i can use water in my crankcase and save money! if the tranny fails the burden of proof is on the manufacture. they must prove the improper fluid caused the failure. and if they find you were using a fluid that does not meet their warranty requirements i.e. uncertified oil if they require certified oil their job is done. you screwed up. you pay. or is it a sign of a bad design when the transmission doesnt work properly when its filled with the wrong fluid if the failure is unrelated to a fluid problem they must honor the warranty. true. but if its related to a fluid problem and that fluid doesnt meet their requirements they dont have to honor the warranty. and if they happen to find right off the bat that the wrong fluid was used they need go no further. its called improper maintenance its your fault and they dont have to honor the warranty. face it. if you use an oil that doesnt meet the manufacturers specification be it viscosity performance or certification you void your warranty. you can chant the party line all you want but youre not fooling anyone but yourself. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote oh goody! i can use water in my crankcase and save money! you could but the water would be easy to prove as being the cause of failure and thus not warranted. if the tranny fails the burden of proof is on the manufacture. they must prove the improper fluid caused the failure. and if they find you were using a fluid that does not meet their warranty requirements i.e. uncertified oil if they require certified oil their job is done. you screwed up. you pay. not so. if the damage is unrelated to the oil then the warranty still stands. you do not pay. the manufacture must prove the oil is the cause of problems. true. but if its related to a fluid problem and that fluid doesnt meet their requirements they dont have to honor the warranty. they have to prove that the particular fluid in question was the cause of any problems. they cant just look at the fluid see its not an approved one and automatically void the warranty. and if they happen to find right off the bat that the wrong fluid was used they need go no further. its called improper maintenance its your fault and they dont have to honor the warranty. this is simply not true. they have to prove that the improper maintenance is what caused the failure. there are numerous things to go wrong in a transmission that are unrelated to lubrication qualities. could be a bad part bad machineing improper assembly etc. face it. if you use an oil that doesnt meet the manufacturers specification be it viscosity performance or certification you void your warranty. this statement of yours is completely false. the failure must be caused by the use of an incorrect oil and no other reason in order to not warrant it. youre under the incorrect assumption that all tranny failures are fluid/lubrication related. the burden of proof is on the manufacture. .

From : daniel j stern

on wed 9 jun 2004 miles wrote you can put whatever you want in and not automatically void your warranty. if the tranny fails the burden of proof is on the manufacture. they must prove the improper fluid caused the failure. if the failure is unrelated to a fluid problem they must honor the warranty. and if theres any doubt about the fluid that was used and any part the fluid couldve played in the failure youre toast. is it really worth it to gain nonexistent benefits .

From : theguy

on thu 10 jun 2004 014802 -0600 yonzie yonzie@mac.com wrote theguy theguy@myplace.com wrote on 09 jun 2004 165633 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote you see what you want to see. really and you dont i can read he can too. not well but he can read. most of the time he can sound the words out. he has a lot of time on his hands that is why it takes him so long to answer. i know how scamsoil looks scamsoil what time is your bowling game scheduled for heres a link to nhra majoor and contingency sponsors. i must have missed the scamsoil listing or maybe nhra forgot to list it or maybe its all a conspiracy by nhra to make everyone believe that valvollin yeah so there! i mean this is really important shit man. look how worked up red gets up over oil. just think how worked up he would get if it was something that actually mattered. hed probably blow an o-ring. but remember red lives in peeuu-whallop up there in warshington. he probably gets a woody when the street lights come on. now i see you like talking about other guys getting a woody maybe should call yourself gayguy instead of a guy. wow. just talking about gettin wood brings gay pictures to your mind yonzie i think you may need to get some help yonzie. you got problems pal. .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 10 jun 2004 miles wrote daniel j. stern wrote until that time the truth is that scamsoil is inferior to mobil-1. show me the independent tests that compare mobile-1 to amsoil and show mobile-1 to be superior. www.bobistheoilguy.com is loaded with em. not that i really expect you to be able to understand them; you cannot even properly spell mobil. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote and if theres any doubt about the fluid that was used and any part the fluid couldve played in the failure youre toast. could have isnt enough. the failure must be caused by improper maintenance in order to not be warranted. is it really worth it to gain nonexistent benefits dunno. not everyone believes the gains are nonexistent. does everything you buy in your life have independent testing and conformance to some standard .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 10 jun 2004 miles wrote oh goody! i can use water in my crankcase and save money! you could but the water would be easy to prove as being the cause of failure and thus not warranted. oh so its a matter of what you think you can get away with regardless of the rules eh rules i plan on owning my vehicle far longer than any warranty. you are under the assumption that the life of the vehicle will be the longest if you follow verbatim what the users manual states and there is no room for improvement if youre an educated owner. so tell us what oil do you use and how often do you change it i myself change the oil much more often than my manual advises. i am breaking the rules because it is better than what the know-it-all manufacture tells me to do. .

From : milesh

daniel j. stern wrote and you are apparently under the assumption that education comes from scamsoils propaganda. rofl! there ya go again. your rhetoric is all about amsoil rather than anything else. i already told you i do not use amsoil. the issue at hand is about oils in general and not just amsoil. asked and answered. dont be lazy. rofl typical. i asked you did not answer. you gave no comparison studies to compare the two oils. quit being so lazy. .

From : edward j muenster

on wed 9 jun 2004 200914 -0400 daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote youve misinterpreted my position slightly. i argue that scamsoil is of inferior quality *and* that it is annoying to obtain by dint of the mlm pyramid the company has set up for its distribution -- not that it is of inferior quality *because* it is annoying to obtain. and not only does that pyramid sell what they claim to be the greatest motor oil in the world but it also sells nutritional oils as well as stuff like a.j.s male power formula a.j.s brain power superfood bee pollen complex upliftment formula and stress management system. its really hard to take these guys serously about motor oil when they sell herbal quackery right alongside it. .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 10 jun 2004 milesh wrote and if theres any doubt about the fluid that was used and any part the fluid couldve played in the failure youre toast. could have isnt enough. the failure must be caused by improper maintenance in order to not be warranted. donno where you came up with this idea but thats all it is -- an idea. we live in the real world though where your creative ideas dont constitute the rules. is it really worth it to gain nonexistent benefits dunno. not everyone believes the gains are nonexistent. some people believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy too. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 10 jun 2004 milesh wrote www.bobistheoilguy.com is loaded with em. it is wheres the test results showing mobil 1 is better than amsoil dont be lazy. it took me all of 45 seconds clicking around and looking through the site to find a great many such test results. if i can do it you can too. -stern .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 10 jun 2004 milesh wrote daniel j. stern wrote you could but the water would be easy to prove as being the cause of failure and thus not warranted. oh so its a matter of what you think you can get away with regardless of the rules eh rules i plan on owning my vehicle far longer than any warranty. you are under the assumption that the life of the vehicle will be the longest if you follow verbatim what the users manual states and there is no room for improvement if youre an educated owner. and you are apparently under the assumption that education comes from scamsoils propaganda. so tell us what oil do you use and how often do you change it asked and answered. dont be lazy. -stern .

From : yonzie

theguy theguy@myplace.com wrote on thu 10 jun 2004 014802 -0600 yonzie yonzie@mac.com wrote theguy theguy@myplace.com wrote on 09 jun 2004 165633 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote you see what you want to see. really and you dont i can read he can too. not well but he can read. most of the time he can sound the words out. he has a lot of time on his hands that is why it takes him so long to answer. i know how scamsoil looks scamsoil what time is your bowling game scheduled for heres a link to nhra majoor and contingency sponsors. i must have missed the scamsoil listing or maybe nhra forgot to list it or maybe its all a conspiracy by nhra to make everyone believe that valvollin yeah so there! i mean this is really important shit man. look how worked up red gets up over oil. just think how worked up he would get if it was something that actually mattered. hed probably blow an o-ring. but remember red lives in peeuu-whallop up there in warshington. he probably gets a woody when the street lights come on. now i see you like talking about other guys getting a woody maybe should call yourself gayguy instead of a guy. wow. just talking about gettin wood brings gay pictures to your mind yonzie i think you may need to get some help yonzie. you got problems pal. cant you come up with anything better then that youre starting to not make any sense .

From : theguy

on fri 11 jun 2004 000410 -0600 yonzie yonzie@mac.com wrote theguy theguy@myplace.com wrote on thu 10 jun 2004 014802 -0600 yonzie yonzie@mac.com wrote theguy theguy@myplace.com wrote on 09 jun 2004 165633 gmt mopar440@aol.comnet.org redneck tookover hell wrote you see what you want to see. really and you dont i can read he can too. not well but he can read. most of the time he can sound the words out. he has a lot of time on his hands that is why it takes him so long to answer. i know how scamsoil looks scamsoil what time is your bowling game scheduled for heres a link to nhra majoor and contingency sponsors. i must have missed the scamsoil listing or maybe nhra forgot to list it or maybe its all a conspiracy by nhra to make everyone believe that valvollin yeah so there! i mean this is really important shit man. look how worked up red gets up over oil. just think how worked up he would get if it was something that actually mattered. hed probably blow an o-ring. but remember red lives in peeuu-whallop up there in warshington. he probably gets a woody when the street lights come on. now i see you like talking about other guys getting a woody maybe should call yourself gayguy instead of a guy. wow. just talking about gettin wood brings gay pictures to your mind yonzie i think you may need to get some help yonzie. you got problems pal. cant you come up with anything better then that youre starting to not make any sense sorry yonz didnt mean to hit a nerve. .

From : edward j muenster

on thu 10 jun 2004 060821 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote until that time the truth is that scamsoil is inferior to mobil-1. show me the independent tests that compare mobile-1 to amsoil and show mobile-1 to be superior. dan should really be saying that until that time the safe assumption is that amsoil is inferior to mobil-1. amsoils excuses for not being certified just dont pass the sniff test. and this is only compounded by the tendency for amsoil dealers to promote the stuff like theyre spreading the gospel. .

From : nosey

edward j. muenster wrote on thu 10 jun 2004 060821 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote until that time the truth is that scamsoil is inferior to mobil-1. show me the independent tests that compare mobile-1 to amsoil and show mobile-1 to be superior. dan should really be saying that until that time the safe assumption is that amsoil is inferior to mobil-1. amsoils excuses for not being certified just dont pass the sniff test. and this is only compounded by the tendency for amsoil dealers to promote the stuff like theyre spreading the gospel. check this out. of course its on the amsoil website so none of it could possibly be true but i found it interesting anyway. http//www.amsoil.com/performancetests/amsoilvsmobil1.htm .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 11 jun 2004 nosey wrote amsoils excuses for not being certified just dont pass the sniff test. and this is only compounded by the tendency for amsoil dealers to promote the stuff like theyre spreading the gospel. check this out. of course its on the amsoil website so none of it could possibly be true but i found it interesting anyway. http//www.amsoil.com/performancetests/amsoilvsmobil1.htm gee lookit there. yet another test done by scamsoil in which they show that mobil-1 is light-years behind scamsoil. *snooze* -stern kia says their cars are the best too. .

From : nosey

daniel j. stern wrote on fri 11 jun 2004 nosey wrote amsoils excuses for not being certified just dont pass the sniff test. and this is only compounded by the tendency for amsoil dealers to promote the stuff like theyre spreading the gospel. check this out. of course its on the amsoil website so none of it could possibly be true but i found it interesting anyway. http//www.amsoil.com/performancetests/amsoilvsmobil1.htm gee lookit there. yet another test done by scamsoil in which they show that mobil-1 is light-years behind scamsoil. *snooze* -stern kia says their cars are the best too. i thought you would like that one. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote dan should really be saying that until that time the safe assumption is that amsoil is inferior to mobil-1. what methods have you used to determine this amsoils synthetic is api certified just as mobile 1 is. and according to the arguments made here api tests mean everything as far as choices go. amsoils excuses for not being certified just dont pass the sniff test. how so many of amsoils oils are api certified. especially the ones intended for the average consumer market. and this is only compounded by the tendency for amsoil dealers to promote the stuff like theyre spreading the gospel. every oil manufacture out there tends to blow their own horn and tout theirs to be the best. usually using a bunch of hyped up misleading comparisons with lots of buzzwords the average consumer has no comprehension of. .

From : miles

nosey wrote check this out. of course its on the amsoil website so none of it could possibly be true but i found it interesting anyway. http//www.amsoil.com/performancetests/amsoilvsmobil1.htm who knows how truthfull those reports are. amsoil didnt invent those test. theyve been around for decades. the four-ball test is one thats been of questionable benifit for quite some time but looks good to the consumer who knows little about oils. .

From : edward j muenster

on sat 12 jun 2004 165944 -0700 miles unknown@unlistedspam.com wrote edward j. muenster wrote dan should really be saying that until that time the safe assumption is that amsoil is inferior to mobil-1. what methods have you used to determine this its called common sense something that is obviously foreign to you. if 99% of the oils out there take part in a certain quality program and if many automakers require the use of oils that have been blessed through this quality program due to its systematic and unbiased testing and an oil comes along that claims to be better than the rest yet does not participate in this quality program and in fact trashes this quality program saying it only for commodity oils limits the quality of oils a lie its too expensive another lie etc. etc. etc. the safest course of action is to assume that their oils simply dont measure up. again common sense. amsoils synthetic is api certified just as mobile 1 is. and according to the arguments made here api tests mean everything as far as choices go. only amsoil xl-7500 and pco are certified. their top of the line series 2000 along with the rest of their oils is not certified. amsoils excuses for not being certified just dont pass the sniff test. how so many of amsoils oils are api certified. and most are not. again only xl-7500 and pco are certified. what fraction of amsoils product line is this does this constitute many especially the ones intended for the average consumer market. series 2000 isnt intended for the average consumer market obviously the xl-7500 is intended for the average consumer market since its api certified. and this is only compounded by the tendency for amsoil dealers to promote the stuff like theyre spreading the gospel. every oil manufacture out there tends to blow their own horn and tout theirs to be the best. usually using a bunch of hyped up misleading comparisons with lots of buzzwords the average consumer has no comprehension of. but they demonstrate the performance of their oils via independent testing at independent laboratories. and they pass all the tests and obtain all the certifications deemed essential by automakers to ensure that you get a consistent quality product. .

From : miles

edward j. muenster wrote if 99% of the oils out there take part in a certain quality program and if many automakers require the use of oils that have been blessed through this quality program the average person has zero comprehension of the tests involved to become api certified. the assumption is that every test done is an improvement for the lubrication benifits to a car. another incorrect assumption is that any api certified oil by default will lubricate better than any oil that isnt. lastly the api tests and rules change as technology changes. early synthetics would never pass the api tests at the time they were first invented. after industry proved synthetic worthiness the api rules were changed to allow them. remember the early synthetics that would not mix with conventional oils they were a compromise to achieve api certification. in this case api certification clearly did not mean it was superior. .