Thanks, I was just going to say that is not the API seal on those bottles.That is so true. The reason for this is because gas turbine (jet) engines run on roller bearings which are vulnerable to damage from coking of the oil. Synthetic lubricant is very resistant, but not completely immune from coking from the high combustion temperatures in a gas turbine. It's interesting to note that Chevron now markets a Group III synthetic lubricant that is approved by General Electric in their gas turbine engines. So Flash's remark is right on:

 

This is starting so sound like an Amsoil sales pitch.... especially with lines like "Most "Dealers" such as I...."

Anyhow, if you name 10 people who got 200k on their cars with Amsoils without any problem, we can easily name hundreds who got that much with cheap dino. Air cooled WWII fighter jets engines are very different from modern, water cooled car engines. As for who was the first out with synthetic oil -- that's kinda ludicrous when you talk about a blender. BTW. there was a comparison vs. Mobil 1 (maybe someone knows the URL) where the Amsoil didnn't do that well against a comparable oil.

 

Synthetic oil broke gound in high temperature performance tests. For example:

According to Mobil's product data sheet for Delvac 1 (5-40 synthetic heavy duty diesel engine oil) the flash point is 446 degrees farenheit (230 centigrade). Other synthetic engine oils have 400+ degree flash points - an achievement that is, indeed, unremarkable for synthetic oils.

Any examples of dino oils that do better?

 

Thing is, most engines in passanger vehicles don't run hot enough to require synthetic, but when they do, they probably have problems the lubricant isn't very likely to be able to help with, or the manufacturer already specifies such oil.

I don't know how many percentage of cars have turbo, but not that many in the US.

 

Fake API seals, deceitful, misleading API statements on their website...very typical of a MLM company!!! This API URL lists the ONLY Amsoil products that are API certified:

http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseI...LicenseNo=0995

With regards to Amsoil's warranty:

The fact that Amsoil brings up the scenario of "what to do when a vehicle manufacturer's warranty is void due to the use of an Amsoil product" should
tell you there have been problems. If the oil was API certified, then this
would meet the vehicle manufacturer's rquirement, and it wouldn't be a
problem! I also find the "fine print" in Amsoil's warranty interesting. If you
are using an Amsoil product, you have to request warranty coverage IN WRITING first!!! Definately not worth the risk or potential hassle!!!

Here is part of the Amsoil warranty conditions from their website:

2. "AMSOIL lubricants that have been used for the purposes of racing or in applications where the OEM required lubricant standards do not match those stated by AMSOIL INC. without the written approval from AMSOIL INC".

API certification requirement by the vehicle manufacturer would fall into this category.

 

Chevron Delo 400 15W-40, 468F flash point, and there are many others. extreme low temperature pour points are the only place where synthetics have an objective advantage.

The subject of gas turbine engines was brought up as a jusification for using synthetic oils. Unique ester-based products, like Mobil Jet II, have none of the additives that motor oils need. Those oils never come in contact with combustion products and the metallic seals to not react to the oil like elastomer seals in our engines. No one with a tubocharged gasoline piston engine aircraft would even think of using a turbine engine oil.

Jim

 

Yes. If I'm not mistaken, Delvac 1 is also a Group III synthetic. As synthetic purists love to point out, Group III is not true synthetic because it's a dino oil. At work we recently replaced Mobil Jet II (Group V, ester) with Chevron GST 2300 (Group III, mineral) for use in our GE gas turbine. So there you have multiple examples of dino based synthetic replacing traditional PAO and ester synthetic.

 

I'm sure if we look on Amsoil's website, there will be something there that all major Airlines use Amsoil!!! lol

 

I have Chevron's product data sheets in front of me for their Delo 400 15-40 conventional and 5-40 synthetic. Flash point is 460 for the former and 449 for the latter. This implies to me that Chevron is pursuing two strategies: Improve the conventional oil via continued additive development, and re-engineer the oil molecule itself to create synthetic oil. It's only my opinion, and professionals in the field are welcome to disagree, but additives break down more quickly than the oil molecule, and can leave valve and combustion chamber deposits. So synthetic oil is going to last longer and leave the combustion chamber cleaner.

I don't find the Amsoil disclaimers troublesome. Most companies do not warranty products used for racing.

And it seems reasonable to require the use of a product that matches OEM recommendations. For example, if Ford says use 15-40 and you use 0-20, it seems reasonable for the oil manufacturer to disclaim warranty coverage. If you need a CF-4 rated oil and don't use it, you can't blame Amsoil.

The lack of the API seal bugged me so I called Amsoil to get their side of things. They claim that they cannot claim the extended drain interval and get the certification; but that their oils otherwise meet or exceed the relevant specs.

Anyone else receive this explanation or care to deconstruct it?

Have at it ...

 

I'm not a salesman for Amsoil and don't want to turn this into a shooting match, but the real fact is that there are a lot of great oils out there, it all depends were you live and how and what you drive and how hard you are on your machine

Ford's 5w- 20w synt. is what came in my 04 lightning and it's a blend of dino and synt. oil if it's good enough for the boys at JDM then it must be good

And on the other hand after I put 5k miles on my truck I switched over to Amsoil and there oil filter, $3.55 a quart & $6.00 for the filter, I also use it in my race bike... there all good!! amsoil, ford,mobil1 and if you change your oil every 3k miles I guess it would really not matter as long as you change on a regular bases

 

Agreed. Amidst all the marketing hype, changing environmental regulations concerning the makeup of gas and oil and techno-babble, the oil change interval is the one thing we as consumers still have a say about (I can see the environmentalists passing a law about this one day to require a permit to change your oil). I don't care what anyone says, including Ford, if the oil looks too dirty, I'm going to change it anyway. The oil manufacturers talk about engineering their oil to cope with all the crud that EGR puts into it but I figure there's one fool-proof solution: change it.

 

Not to try and stop all the Amsoil bashers or anything but I found this interesting article about API and un-licenced oils and licenced oils that don't make the grade.
Interesting stuff, too bad they didn't name names.

It's from lubes & Greases.
API Flunks 2% of Licensed Engine Oils </B>

By David McFall

HOUSTON – The American Petroleum Institute’s Lubricants Committee last week heard the outcome of its 2004 engine oil aftermarket audit program, which checks on the quality of API-licensed engine oils sold in the retail marketplace worldwide. Nearly a dozen licensed products were “nonconforming” and flunked API’s scrutiny in some way, the Nov. 7 meeting was told – including two which were so bad they could cause damage to vehicle engines. Wouldn't you like to see that list!...BM

API collected 611 engine oil samples for auditing in 2004, gathering them from retail stores, auto dealers, quick lubes and other retail outlets in the United States and abroad, API’s Kevin Ferrick reported. Of these, 11 were found to be “nonconforming,” meaning they had the wrong additive treat level, failed the cold cranking limit, were out of viscosity grade, or were otherwise deficient.

He went on to highlight two licensees, “in which the sample collection had uncovered significant nonconformances, as an example of how we typically handle significant deviations.” API defines “significant nonconformance” as “possibly causing damage to an engine.”

"Each offending licensee agreed to additional requirements to remain licensed,” Ferrick continued, “including third-party physical and chemical testing of [their] licensed oil. The labs selected had to participate in ASTM’s interlaboratory cross-check program, and the lab had to forward the results directly to API.” The licensees could select the lab, however.

According to Ferrick, “One licensee had met the additional criteria and had retained [its] license. One had been cancelled for failing to meet requirements.” The cancelled licensee, he said, initially met the additional requirements and its license had been reinstated. But when “it turned around and immediately committed the same offense,” the license was again revoked and remains so.

In response to an API member company representative’s question, Ferrick said, “API did not require the removal of any of the oils of the nonconforming licensee from the marketplace while the additional testing was under way, during the enforcement action or later.” However, he pointed out, two years ago an unlicensed oil which was illegally displaying API trademarks was removed from the marketplace in four states. (This violation of API trademarks was uncovered by Lubes'n'Greases magazine, which reported it to API and followed up to ensure the recall action was adhered to.)

API’s Lubricants Committee expressed strong support for the license revocation. It discussed the possibility of making public the names of licensees involved in these kinds of serious violations, in media outlets such as Lubes'n'Greases and on API’s website. No conclusion nor decision was reached, however.

Reports of engine oils being recalled from retail sale are relatively rare. One exception is the quality monitoring program operated by the State of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[img] /><st1:State w:st=[/img]North Carolina</ST1la</st1:State>, which collects product samples and tests them immediately for viscosity grade and additive treat levels. The state then can then order the rapid recall of those that fail, and make the recall public. In 2004, this monitoring effort forced the removal of 330 bottled quarts and 3,877 gallons of bulk oil from <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1North Carolina</ST1la's </st1:State>marketplace, according to the state's Steve Benjamin.



Among the other findings from the 2004 API audit:

Eighteen percent (110) of the engine oil samples were collected in 14 countries outside the United States and Canada, including Argentina, Australia, Dominican Republic, France, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Trinidad, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Overall, API’s physical and chemical tests found a high level of conformance to specifications: Less than 1 percent of all samples showed either an additive overtreat or undertreat, an out-of-viscosity grade, or high-temperature/high-shear or gelation nonconformance.

Ten samples failed the cold-cranking simulator limit in 2004, a much-improved record compared to 2003, when 23 failed. Eight samples failed the low-temperature pumping limits in 2003, but only seven did in 2004. No engine sequence tests were run in 2004.

Of API’s 529 licensees in 2004, 28 percent had at least one product sampled for that year’s audit. Seventy-nine percent of the samples were passenger car motor oil, the rest heavy-duty engine oil. Nearly 30 percent of samples were SAE 10W-30 grade, 19 percent were 15W-40, 17 percent 5W-30, 6 percent 5W-20 and the rest other grades.

Twenty percent of the samples (121) were from bulk oil sites, with 38 percent obtained from quick-lube facilities, 27 percent from auto repair shops, and the balance from service stations, auto dealers and truck facilities. API defines bulk as containers larger than five gallons.

Seventy-one percent of the samples were API SL oils; 20 percent had the “C” listed first on the API category designation. When a “C” is listed first on a label it means that the oil is primarily designated as a heavy-duty product.

For 2005, Ferrick said, API plans to collect and test 600 samples, split 70/30 between passenger car and heavy-duty oils. Up to 30 percent of the samples will be drawn from bulk sites. Seven or eight engine sequence tests, split equally between the Sequence III-G and VG are planned. About one-third of the 2005 audit samples have tested so far, and reports provided to API.

In 2006 API again will collect about 600 samples, with the same passenger car/heavy duty split. However, it may increase bulk samples to 50 percent of what's collected, Ferrick indicated.

As of Oct. 31, API had licensed 528 marketers representing 7,600 products in 50 countries. That compares to 529 licensees representing 6,700 products in 52 countries last year. Nearly half of all licensees are from North America, about one-quarter from Asia and about one-tenth from Europe. The latest generation of API engine oils do not yet comprise the lion’s share of licensed products, but 1,080 ILSAC CG-4 oils, 1,717 API SM oils and 161 CI-4 oils have signed on.

The number of licensees has plateaued at around 530 for at least half a decade, and the number of countries involved has too. API says it is making a strong push to expand its licensing program worldwide, with major emphasis on China.

 

I may have the answer to all the API / Amsoil talk.

First it appears that some/many of you are right, some of their oils are API licenced and most are not.

I went out and searched around to see what I would find.
Here is part of a Q & A from Amsoil (way too long with lots tech stuff, thought I would just post the main points), it's about what oils are API and why others arn't, I found this pretty interesting.
It does explain some stuff about the testing criteria.
Maybe it will settle some of this for some of you but probably not anything for others. I learned something from it.

================================================== ====

Q. Why aren't all AMSOIL motor oils API licensed

A. Good question. AMSOIL staffers have recently read some message boards with misinformation regarding this issue. They are waching us....BM
Let us address API licensing in depth, as well as the issue of warranties. Some AMSOIL motor oils are API licensed, some are not. If you're concerned about your warranty and feel pressures to use an API licensed oil, even after reading this answer, then the 5W-30 (XLF) or 10W-30 (XLT) XL-7500 or our 15W-40 (PCO) API licensed oils should be your choice. If you are looking for an alternative to frequent oil changes or just want the best performing oil for your car, then one of our top tier non-API licensed synthetic oils are for you.

Read on, and decide for yourself.
API Licensing - Passenger Cars - What is it?
An API (American Petroleum Institute) license indicates that a specific motor oil formulation has passed the minimum performance standards as defined by a series of laboratory bench, physical, chemical and engine tests. These tests were selected and minimum performance standards were set by the API Lubricants Committee to address specific areas such as engine wear, deposits, fuel economy, emissions, etc. The committee is comprised of representatives from automobile, oil and additive companies. The current specification is SJ/GF-2, and in July 2001 the first use of SL/GF-3 will begin.
Costs
The cost for running a test program for a single passenger car motor oil formulation is from $125,000 to $300,000, depending on if the formula passes the tests the first time through or requires multiple test runs or formula modifications to achieve a passing average. (That amount goes to $275,000 to $500,000 for a Heavy Duty Diesel licensing program on a specific formula.) Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $825 per year for non-members and $625 per year for members. There is also a small royalty fee per gallon sold for all gallons over one million. The length of time between new specifications is now approximately 2 to 3 years, which does not allow a great deal of time to recover testing costs.

Who Licenses What Formulas?
Additive companies, such as Lubrizol, Ethyl,, Infinium and Oronite, develop licensed formulas that they offer to oil companies to re-license. It is inexpensive to re-license one of these formulas, and the majority of oil companies choose to do this to avoid the costs associated with testing. This, however, tends to commoditize the market. The same chemistry is being sold under many brand names. Most of the major oil companies do have their own proprietary formulas developed, tested and licensed. All of AMSOIL INC.'s lubricant formulas are unique and proprietary.

I skip some to add this....BM

Why Some AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils Are API Licensed And Some Are Not
1. Full API licensing puts AMSOIL INC. in an inflexible position. Not only would we find it necessary to buy formula components from specific vendors and be at the mercy of their pricing, we would not be able to make any major improvements to the lubricant formulas for 2 to 3 years, without new testing and the associated costs. To solve this problem, the API must establish basestock interchange guidelines for synthetic basestocks just as they have for other basestocks, as well as develop interchange guidelines for other components too.
2. Full API licensing would impose strict phosphorous limitations on our motor oils. This limitation is the main reason most AMSOIL motor oils are not API licensed. AMSOIL INC. currently disagrees with this limitation and feels strongly that the reduced wear and longer oil and additive life achieved through higher levels of properly balanced phosphorous content is more important than the arbitrary API phosphorous limit that does not give any consideration to the NOACK volatility level of an oil. When chemistry is developed that will provide superior engine wear protection with reduced phosphorous levels, or Noack volatility considerations are put in place, then the phosphorous level will become a non-issue.

There you go.

 

You guys just push it way too hard. The reason FTE prohibits dealer's from participating in this forum is so we don't have to endure garbage like this getting dredged up yet again to be shoved in our face.

 

The next question is:

Who here is an Amsoil dealer? No splitting hairs about whether or not you resell, just signed up to get a discount, etc. If you are signed up as a dealer and you're discussing it here... you're a prime example of exactly why we don't allow Amsoil dealers here: because they have a financial bias in the product. Given the posting history of some involved in the thread and people suddenly arriving on the site to get involved in Amsoil discussion, there are some who are highly suspect, especially considering they use the same tired worn out catch-phrases we've heard from Amsoil dealers for 10 years.

Anyone who makes a further post in this thread needs to make it clear. I'll start: I am not an Amsoil dealer, preferred customer nor do I have any affiliation with Amsoil.

Those who are dealers, "perferred customers", etc. its your last post in this section. The section description about it is very clear.