Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > Expedition & Navigator
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Expedition & Navigator 1997 - 2002 and 2003 - 2006 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #61  
Old 12-10-2009, 07:59 PM
Big Greenie Big Greenie is offline
Temporarily Deactivated
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Big Greenie is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1whoseeks View Post
just looking for some opinions on oil here. I have a 2002 2wd 5.4 auto xlt. 99k miles. I am a long time castroil user. Always use oem filters. 3-4k between oil chances. use 5w-20 weight oil. live in the Atlanta metro area. found a reasonably priced syn blend put out
with motorcraft name on it. i would appreciate any advice.
Lots of people use the products you are considering. I use The Motorcraft semi-synthetic oil and Motorcraft filters.

I am not sure if your post is a joke or not though. If you had read through even half of the posts in this thread, you could have taken from a myrid of opinions and tons of information.
__________________
1999 Expedition XLT, big and green, 5.4, 4x4, 285/70-17 Dunlop MT's, factory skid plates, magnaflow muffler. 1998 Ranger 4.0 ext cab 4x4 Girlfriends truck.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-10-2009, 08:43 PM
ratatat-tat ratatat-tat is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
ratatat-tat is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
No the only bad thing is they do not API license their longevity oil and have not done so ever. Even since way before the government mandated the reduction of some additives. Since it is not API licensed they can keep them as high as they like. The danger to the automotive consumer is, if used, it voids their vehicle warranty. Now if you own an older out of warranty vehicle, it's fine. As long as you feel comfortable paying a lot of money for an oil that refuses to submit itself for testing by national standards. Standards that virtually every reputable oil company voluntarily submits to and subscribes to membership in the API, along with the automobile manufacturers. Whom jointly develop the standards.
API licensing or not, they still have to keep their formulations within limits set by the EPA. If they sold diesel fuel, it would still have to be 15ppm or less of sulphur.
Remember, API standards are the Minimum requirements and most companies try to stay as close to the minimum as they can. Minimum = cheap.
API standards are no different then say the specifications that Chrysler puts out for their ATF+4 transmission fluid... they have the specs & the manufactures make or blend the product to meet or exceed those specs.
Whether or not a company chooses to pay for & jump through the hoops that API has set up has nothing to do with whether the product will pass or not.
AMSOIL does have API licensing on their blended oils because API licensing allows them to certify one oil additive package & then cross certify. API does not extend that to group IV or group V oil blends. Any special reason for this bias?

Worried about warranty or API certification? Maybe this link helps.

http://www.amsoil.com/news/2008_worr...warranties.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
Amsoil is a package retailer. They have to buy their base stock and additive from a major oil company. I'll bet they don't even own their own blending and bottling facility. It's probably all contract. Amsoil is just an office, not an oil company. My philisophy is why pay more to an oil company's customer when you can buy the same product from a major oil company at a lower price. The oil company's have their own research facilitys and are the one's who develop all the new technology. Why not be the first to have it instead of waiting for them to license their technology and sell it to someone else?
AMSOIL is most certainly not a package retailer. They absolutely do own their own blending and bottling facility.
See this link so that you can rest assured that they are not just a front with a couple phones & computers.
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2593.pdf

You can buy the same product from a major oil company? Really?

What about Redline? Royal Purple?
Redline talks about recommendation for meeting API specifications, but they don't say that they are licensed nor do they have the API starburst.
Royal Purple says they are licensed, but they don't display the starburst either.
Wouldn't any company that had their product licensed by API proudly display the API startburst so that the world would know that their product absolutely meets the lowest standard allowed?

I don't really care if someone will only use Rotella or Crisco or whatever. It is their choice & their vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-10-2009, 08:50 PM
horsepuller's Avatar
horsepuller horsepuller is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,298
horsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Greenie View Post
The only flaw is that I haven't seen anyone elses products perform as well. You say to get it from the source, who exactly would that be? Mobil 1 certainly isn't up to that level of performance.
Mobil makes more than one synthetic base stock. Remember in a few posts above I mentioned that the Mobil automotive syn was Group III, while the aviation syn is Group V, ester based. It's my opinion that Mobil or one of Mobil's customers supplies the synthetic base stock to Amsoil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Greenie
Regardless of the structure of Amsoil, and your disdain for it, they do appear to offer superior products as an end result.
Superior, how? In laboratory tests, or UOA? Are you talking about the API Amsoil or the unlabled Amsoil? Superior is relative to the need. If it's laboratory performance far exceeds the manufacturers specification you may not benefit as much from it as you think. It's like puting premium grade gasoline in an engine designed for regular grade gasoline. It doesn't enhance performance one bit. You are just running more of your hard earned dollars through the fuel filler neck. Yet many folks do it in the false belief that since it is labeled premium and costs more, they are gaining additional benefit.

Anyway most of Amsoil's so called superior performance is anecdotal. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some of the unlabled Amsoil's UOA's and after lengthy milage the remaining additive levels and wear metal are impressive. Similar UOA's with Group II dino oils had much lower remaining additive level. But though the additive was lower, the wear metals in the samples still matched that of the Amsoil samples. Now if a Group II dino oil does that at a much lower price, I would say that was the superior oil.
__________________
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black][COLOR=navy]Scott[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT]
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-10-2009, 09:21 PM
horsepuller's Avatar
horsepuller horsepuller is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,298
horsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratatat-tat View Post
Worried about warranty or API certification? Maybe this link helps.

http://www.amsoil.com/news/2008_worr...warranties.pdf
Thanks. That is old and has been out there a long time. Amsoil devotee's like to pull that one out in defense of the no API rating. While it addresses oil brand and recommended change interval, it conveniently side steps the API licensing issue. It lists a snippet quote from a small motorcycle manufacturer again addressing the brand issue but not the API issue. If an oil does not have an API rating, how do you know it's adequate for your vehicle? Would you drink medicine out of an unlabled bottle? Saying it meets API standard means nothing if it's never submitted for API testing. It's like the annoying guy who boasts to everyone he has the fastest car yet refuses to race anyone to prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratatat-tat
AMSOIL is most certainly not a package retailer. They absolutely do own their own blending and bottling facility.
See this link so that you can rest assured that they are not just a front with a couple phones & computers.
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2593.pdf
Thanks, my mind is at ease now. I had no idea they carried out their entire operation in such a tiny packaging warehouse. Well that's kind of impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratatat-tat
Wouldn't any company that had their product licensed by API proudly display the API startburst so that the world would know that their product absolutely meets the lowest standard allowed?
The API starburst label is only applied to oil that is "energy conserving." If your oil doesn't qualify as energy conserving, you can't display the starburst label. Not even if your oil is licensed with the API "doughnut."
__________________
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black][COLOR=navy]Scott[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT]
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-10-2009, 10:10 PM
ratatat-tat ratatat-tat is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
ratatat-tat is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
Thanks. That is old and has been out there a long time. Amsoil devotee's like to pull that one out in defense of the no API rating. While it addresses oil brand and recommended change interval, it conveniently side steps the API licensing issue. It lists a snippet quote from a small motorcycle manufacturer again addressing the brand issue but not the API issue. If an oil does not have an API rating, how do you know it's adequate for your vehicle? Would you drink medicine out of an unlabled bottle? Saying it meets API standard means nothing if it's never submitted for API testing. It's like the annoying guy who boasts to everyone he has the fastest car yet refuses to race anyone to prove it.
That bulletin was revised in 2008, so it's not that old.

You;d think that API would be mighty upset & hauling their butts through the courts if they were falsely saying that it met or exceeded API specs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
Thanks, my mind is at ease now. I had no idea they carried out their entire operation in such a tiny packaging warehouse. Well that's kind of impressive.
small things come in great packages

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
The API starburst label is only applied to oil that is "energy conserving." If your oil doesn't qualify as energy conserving, you can't display the starburst label. Not even if your oil is licensed with the API "doughnut."
Sorry, I did mean the "doughnut." Thanks for correcting that slip.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:42 AM
1whoseeks 1whoseeks is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Acworth Ga
Posts: 63
1whoseeks is starting off with a positive reputation.
thanks for the information

back to Big Geenie.
no my question was not a joke. the thread is long and after a while it was confusing. I just wanted a quick answer as you seem to have some info and
expertise in this area. The motorcraft syn blend was a more economical choice at $11.50 for 5 quarts at wally world. I just did not want to throw a poor quality oil into a engine that is in great shape. Thanks for your time and
opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Big Greenie Big Greenie is offline
Temporarily Deactivated
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Big Greenie is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
Mobil makes more than one synthetic base stock. Remember in a few posts above I mentioned that the Mobil automotive syn was Group III, while the aviation syn is Group V, ester based. It's my opinion that Mobil or one of Mobil's customers supplies the synthetic base stock to Amsoil.
That completely failed to answer my question. Are you suggesting I should be buying Mobil's aviation grade lubes for my Expedition?

I do not care who Amsoil buys Group IV basestocks from. I do know that if I were paying for a full synthetic oil, that is what I would want. The unlabled Amsoil has it, you seem to acknowledge the automotive Mobil does not.

So if I can get a Group IV more directly, where?

Quote:
Superior, how? In laboratory tests, or UOA? Are you talking about the API Amsoil or the unlabled Amsoil?
I am talking about the full synthetic Amsoil, not sure why you insist on bring up faux synthetics.

In both lab tests and UOA tests.

Quote:
Superior is relative to the need. If it's laboratory performance far exceeds the manufacturers specification you may not benefit as much from it as you think. It's like puting premium grade gasoline in an engine designed for regular grade gasoline. It doesn't enhance performance one bit. You are just running more of your hard earned dollars through the fuel filler neck. Yet many folks do it in the false belief that since it is labeled premium and costs more, they are gaining additional benefit.
I have been saying just that for about five pages worth of thread now. No tangible benefits unless you have EXTREME needs. I used both Amsoil and M1 when I was racing Porsches. For daily drivers I have never chosen to spend the extra for exactly the reasons you mention.

Quote:
Anyway most of Amsoil's so called superior performance is anecdotal. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some of the unlabled Amsoil's UOA's and after lengthy milage the remaining additive levels and wear metal are impressive. Similar UOA's with Group II dino oils had much lower remaining additive level. But though the additive was lower, the wear metals in the samples still matched that of the Amsoil samples. Now if a Group II dino oil does that at a much lower price, I would say that was the superior oil.
Is this a confirmation that it actually works? Halleluhah

So the additive package does not get used up as quickly so you can extend drain intervals safely. Wear metals are in line, plus better high and low temperature protection. So there is a tangible benefit to running a Group IV based oil with a healthy additive package.

Too bad the automotive line of M1 doesn't offer this. That was the point of the thread originally. My contention has been the whole time that M1 is not worth it, and it is not what they claim it is. IF I wanted to run a full synthetic for some reason, I would want a REAL one, and would probably choose Amsoil.

I am not advocating any such thing however. I was just trying to shed some light on the M1 dominance myth. I am not sure how we got so sidetracked.
__________________
1999 Expedition XLT, big and green, 5.4, 4x4, 285/70-17 Dunlop MT's, factory skid plates, magnaflow muffler. 1998 Ranger 4.0 ext cab 4x4 Girlfriends truck.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:30 PM
horsepuller's Avatar
horsepuller horsepuller is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,298
horsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Greenie View Post
Too bad the automotive line of M1 doesn't offer this. That was the point of the thread originally. My contention has been the whole time that M1 is not worth it, and it is not what they claim it is. IF I wanted to run a full synthetic for some reason, I would want a REAL one, and would probably choose Amsoil.

I am not advocating any such thing however. I was just trying to shed some light on the M1 dominance myth. I am not sure how we got so sidetracked.
Ha! You know I think we agree on just about everything except for Amsoil's business practices. I just took it a step futher. Not just saying that M1 was not worth it, but that NO synthetic was worth the extra price for the majority of vehicles and oil drain intervals. Not when a good Group II oil can come close to syn on the paper numbers with UOA's that allow 7-10k drain intervals.

Now you'd better answer 1whoseeks. He's calling your name.
__________________
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black][COLOR=navy]Scott[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT]
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-11-2009, 04:01 PM
Big Greenie Big Greenie is offline
Temporarily Deactivated
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Big Greenie is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1whoseeks View Post
back to Big Geenie.
no my question was not a joke. the thread is long and after a while it was confusing. I just wanted a quick answer as you seem to have some info and
expertise in this area. The motorcraft syn blend was a more economical choice at $11.50 for 5 quarts at wally world. I just did not want to throw a poor quality oil into a engine that is in great shape. Thanks for your time and
opinions.
Well you never know...sometimes we get some pot stirrers around here

I think that you are almost always assured a decent, or at least compatible, product if the vehicles manufacturer puts their name on it. I think it is a win win for us being able to buy manufacturer brand products so cheaply and easily. As I mentioned, I use the Motorcraft semi-syn and a Motorcraft filter on my truck. Decent oil, well above average filter. I change every 5k because it is easy to remember
__________________
1999 Expedition XLT, big and green, 5.4, 4x4, 285/70-17 Dunlop MT's, factory skid plates, magnaflow muffler. 1998 Ranger 4.0 ext cab 4x4 Girlfriends truck.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-11-2009, 05:34 PM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins tseekins is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hampton, Virginia
Posts: 19,786
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Greenie View Post
Well you never know...sometimes we get some pot stirrers around here

I think that you are almost always assured a decent, or at least compatible, product if the vehicles manufacturer puts their name on it. I think it is a win win for us being able to buy manufacturer brand products so cheaply and easily. As I mentioned, I use the Motorcraft semi-syn and a Motorcraft filter on my truck. Decent oil, well above average filter. I change every 5k because it is easy to remember
Who bottles the MC oil?

Tim
__________________
Tim
SCPO United States Coast Guard Retired
2011 F-150 XLT 4x4 Ecoboost
2010 Ford Focus
2004 Expedition XLT 4x2

FTE Guidelines
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-14-2009, 07:00 PM
horsepuller's Avatar
horsepuller horsepuller is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,298
horsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputationhorsepuller has a superb reputation
The internet buzz for some time now is that it's Conoco-Phillips that manufactures Motorcraft oil. That very well could have changed by now but I somehow doubt it. Let my reply serve as a bump up and hopefully Big Greenie will chime in if he knows any different.
__________________
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black][COLOR=navy]Scott[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT]
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-14-2009, 09:32 PM
Big Greenie Big Greenie is offline
Temporarily Deactivated
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 969
Big Greenie is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsepuller View Post
The internet buzz for some time now is that it's Conoco-Phillips that manufactures Motorcraft oil. That very well could have changed by now but I somehow doubt it. Let my reply serve as a bump up and hopefully Big Greenie will chime in if he knows any different.
Sorry, don't know, don't really care

It says right on the bottle that it is engineered specifically, and reccomended for, my vehicle, by Ford.
__________________
1999 Expedition XLT, big and green, 5.4, 4x4, 285/70-17 Dunlop MT's, factory skid plates, magnaflow muffler. 1998 Ranger 4.0 ext cab 4x4 Girlfriends truck.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-14-2009, 10:32 PM
pgonza2723 pgonza2723 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ATX
Posts: 133
pgonza2723 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpySport View Post
This is just my personal opinion and sure I will get some flack from Mobil1 users. I think you are wasting your money with the Mobil1. You are correct in that it is so expensive. I have almost 126,000 miles on my 2002 Expedition and have been running the Motorcraft Synthetic Blend 5W-20 since day one. I sent a sample into Blackstone Labs and it was suggested I go 7500 miles between changes. I go into my local Walmart and can get the 5qt jug of MC for $11, while the Mobil1 is more than double that at $26. I suppose it is all personal preference, as well. If you are a true believer in the Mobil1, nothing I say will change someone's mind. But, personally, I think you're throwing your money away. Just my $0.02.
+1... BITOG forums tests have proven time and time again MC 5w-20 is the best bargain out there in terms of oil protection vs. price. 7500 OCI seems to be the norm for this oil. Personally switched from castrol syn/PP with 10k oci's to 5k MC 5w-20 and pretty much the same numbers in the few oil analysis I've done. Other bonus is I'm saving about $10 over the 10k buying from Wally
__________________
2008 Lincoln Navigator L Limited Edition

2001 Vortech'd Mustang GT
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-25-2013, 09:31 AM
ponderbuzzard's Avatar
ponderbuzzard ponderbuzzard is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ponder, TX
Posts: 37
ponderbuzzard is starting off with a positive reputation.
i used Mobil 1 for 80,000 miles in Toyota 2.2R engine looked brand new on camshaft. Engine burned a valve, not due to the oil,.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-28-2013, 01:33 PM
hodges710's Avatar
hodges710 hodges710 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 420
hodges710 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I thught this thread died lol. Look, when it comes to oil, it can be alot of choices out there and what most fail to know is that all API oils are bought from 1 of the 3 refineries that are licensed under the API rules, therefore your money is buying the name on the bottle. What makes each companies oil different is only the additives that are placed in the oil after they buy it, they(the labelled companies) dont even do anything to the oil to give it weight, that is already dont at the refineries. Now when it comes to a full synthetic, there needs to be a better look at the container than just seeing the words synthetic for most of the synthetics are done the same way, sold to this companies to put there name on it. Many will doubt this but it funny when the doubters dont even understand te rules and guidelines under the API. Its far more han a few sentences explaining it. So what ever oil you choose, it will be ok, the key is to select the proper weight.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:33 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just bought a 97 F250 with the 460, it used 1/2 quart in 200 miles??? 90pioneer 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 1 08-27-2011 09:01 PM
Noticed Oil leak GeneLaw1 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel 8 08-13-2011 02:32 PM
Mobil 1 vs Rotella Synthetic vs Regular oils slenser Excursion - King of SUVs 12 07-24-2010 04:13 PM
Synthetic oil worth any mpg? LXguy Modular V10 (6.8l) 8 04-22-2006 10:48 AM
oil breakdown summers 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 4 09-08-1999 05:28 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > Expedition & Navigator

Tags
amsoil, api, castrol, ford, full, license, mobil, molbil1, navigator, purple, royal, starburst, synthetic, uoa, v10

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup