Rob Munach wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Peter Beerson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:02:07 GMT, Rob Munach >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Beerson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:14:01 GMT, Rob Munach >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter D. Hipson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>>>>> API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>>>>>> estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> certification.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
>>>>> members and $1050 for non-members. At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
>>>>> would exceed the cost of the API rating.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly it is more complicated than that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>>>
>>> To me, it would appear that it could be one (or more) of the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> 1) The company doesn't want to spend the money on testing. (Testing
>>> is where the big money is.)
>>>
>>> 2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.
>>>
>>> 3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
>>> (depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
>>> justify certifying a formulation that will probably change in a few
>>> months anyway. (See also #1. Imagine the cost of testing
>>> constantly-changing formulations.)
>>>
>>> 4) They already have a customer base that really doesn't care about
>>> certification and has fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the hype.
>>>
>>> If you have any others, I'm all ears.
>>>
>>> Sorry if I sound confrontational. I don't mean to. I'm just curious
>>> why a company would eschew such a widely accepted performance
>>> certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
>>> they claim such superior performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe the non-API certified Amsoil motor oils have too
>> much phosphorus in the oil to meet the API requirements. The
>> API requirements are driven by the vehicle manufacturers. To
>> much phosphorous can degrade catalytic convertors. However,
>> the compound that contains the phosphorous is a good and
>> relatively inexpensive anti-wear agent. So, you leave out
>> the stuff to protect the catalytic convertor, but reduce the
>> cheap wear fighting additives. There are other additives to
>> fight wear that don't damage catalytic convertors, but they
>> cost more.
>> Good discussion at
>> http://forums.noria.com/eve/ubb.x/a/...95/m/645103923
>>
>> If you trust Amsoil, then go for it. I don't, so I won't. I
>> suppose using non-API certified Amsoil for 15,000 miles (1
>> change) probably won't contaminate your catalytic convertor
>> with any more Phosphorous that changing API certified oil at
>> 5000 mile intervals. At first the Amsoil will introduce more
>> phosphorous into the system, but as the additives are
>> depleted the amount will decrease. With three changes of API
>> certified oil, you'll have three lower level spikes of
>> phosphorous contamination, probably for a similar long term
>> result.
>>
>> Amsoil position on API licensing is at
>> http://www.performanceoiltechnology....ilicensing.htm .
>>
>> Ed
>
> That is a good article and should answer anyone's questions. As it says,
> the Amsoil is much less volitile so it won't be putting as much
> phosphorus in to the system. Another issue is that Amsoil would have to
> reveal their formulation to get liscensed and they are not interested in
> doing that.
>
> To each his own.
>

I've worked in the lubrication business and know that the research for
Phosphorous and ZDDP and their effects on catalytic convertors is not
correlated well enough to convince all oil manufactures of their
detrimental effects. As I understand it, the decision to reduce ZDDP
levels to the number it currently is at (API SM-levels) was a bit arbitrary.

Anyway, as far as Amsoil is concerned, I've had nothing but great
performance from their non-API oils for over 90,000 miles. Also, I
recently purchased this new motor oil software, Engine Oil Selector 2005
(EOS) (http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil
as being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes. The
next highest oil the software ranks is the Valvoline Maxlife Synthetic,
which is not ILSAC-certified (due to lower fuel economy), but meets API
SM and has a better EOS score than Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance.

By the way, I found this comment in the March 2003 issue of
LubesNGreases magazine:

"Most of Shell’s engine oil
products are API licensed,
but in 2000 its Pennzoil division
stepped out of the
bounds and began marketing
unlicensed oils specifically
formulated for cars with higher
mileage, in excess of
75,000 miles. Branded as
Pennzoil High Mileage..."

These high mileage oils generally add more ZDDP to reduce wear in older
cars. So, apparently, Amsoil isn't the only company marketing non-API oil.