amsoil - good or bad?

"John S." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> fweddybear wrote:
>> "John S." > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > fweddybear wrote:
>> >> "I Love Edsels" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > any opinions on Amsoil?
>> >>
>> >> This also bring up another good question..... how is their gear oil,
>> >> say
>> >> the
>> >> 90 weight. It was recommended (and used by) the mechanic at the
>> >> Harley
>> >> shop
>> >> for aftermarket transmission fluid changes. Any opinions on this?
>> >>
>> >> Fwed
>> >
>> > What does Harley recommend for the transmission.
>>
>> Its not a harley tranny....but for their trannys, they of course
>> recommend harley tranny fluid..... i had a baker tranny put in, and the
>> mechanic (a harley mechanic) said he uses amsoil 90 weight gear oil in
>> that....so since the discussion of amsoil oil wasn't getting high
>> reviews,
>> if the gear oil was similar in ratings....
>>
>
> No matter who made it, I would follow the manufacturers recommendation
> first. I think they would be in the best position to determine which
> lubricant meets the technical requirements of the gearbox. There are
> not many other people who would be able to accurately answer your
> question.

Well, in the case of Harley Davidson, they recommend harley oil, and
tranny fluid, but I've never known them to make their own fluids. It is
more than likely made by someone else with their name on it, and of course
their brand is so god damn expensive, you could go out and buy some other
oil (gear or regular) and use it and it might even be better unless they use
the wording "or equivilent". Most people would think even the cheapest of
oils would qualify for being "equivilent", but equivilent is really a broad
definition....
I guess any oil would "work". I am inclinded to use even an inexpensive
filter only because I am anal about changing my oil at the 2000 mile mark
(abouit once a month)..... even 1000 in my truck (which turns out to be
about 3 times a year in the truck)

Fwed

"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Amsoil is a ponzi scheme like Amway soap. It might work, but that
> isn't the IDEA behind it. The IDEA behind it is to sell inventory to
> some other sucker ( eh...associate ) so they can find a sucker (
> eh...customer ) or another associate to fall into the same TRAP!
>
> If it *works,* that's icing on the cake.
>
> Lg
>

Bub, that is an uninformed, offensive and insulting statement. As a former
Amway distributor, it was a standard tenet of the organization of which I
was a part that in order to build a successful business it was *absolutely
necessary* to build, grow and maintain a retail customer base. Merely adding
downline distributors without an equivalent or greater focus on retail would
result in an unreliable and unstable business, and was an all but guaranteed
recipe for failure, not to mention mention a poor profit/income model. I
serviced customers who were over-joyed to find out that I was a distributor
because their former distributor had moved on*** and they *wanted* product
and didn't know where else to get it.

***(Moved, or quit the business when they realized that it was too much like
WORK when what they really wanted was to get rich without actually DOING
anything.)

"Inventory loading" had been discouraged and eliminated before I became
involved in the business. The "upline direct" was *required* to repurchase
any unused and saleable inventory (if they had any, despite policies against
it) from any distributor who wished to discontinue, and, failing that, the
corporation would repurchase the inventory (and sanction the "direct" who
failed to do so). That old "My friend's second cousin's brother knew a
feller that tried that thang and he's got a basement fulla that stuff" has
been bovine excrement for a long, long time.

Now, if you want to argue that MLM business model tends to attract
unscrupulous and/or lazy people who think that they can get rich quick
without really working at it, and who try to "shortcut" the business model
by focusing their efforts on "sponsoring" others (that they hope will do the
real work *for* them) and thereby doom themselves and their downline) to
failure, then I would have to agree wwith you.

If you also wanted to argue that there were some of the same type of people
who also focused more of their efforts on selling independently produced
"tools" (books, tapes, functions, not re-saleable to retail customers
outside the "system") as their primary income stream (which possibly
*could* be perceived as a "Ponzi scheme", or close enough), to the near
exclusion and detriment of the *real* business model, then I would have to
agree with that, too.

MLM is a legitimate business model and there are many good companies selling
many good products using it. People who like Amsoil or "Amway"*** products
and want to buy them are entitled to their opinion, as are you entitled to
your opinion if you *dislike* a particular product, but to paint them all in
a defamatory color of illegality is either misinformed, uneducated or
patently dishonest.

***(The Amway company no longer exists in the same form as it once did.
Technology in general, and the Internet in particular, have led to a
reformation of business practices and marketing. In addition, the advent of
the Internet which has facilitated widespread communication which could not
be "controlled" by unscrupulous people within the various "motivational
systems" has led to their exposure and, in some cases, prosecution,
resulting in a decrease in abuses [some of which were known to exist as far
back as 1982 though pressure from the ADA board inhibited resolution] and a
re-focus on the core business which is, and was always supposed to be,
selling consumable products to customers.)



Disclaimer: I resigned my Amway distributorship in 1999 due to disagreements
with "Upline" "leaders" and their abuses of the "system". I am not
soliciting or offering sponsorship in any MLM opportunity to any reader. I
am currently an inactive participant (read: glorified customer) in something
which is "just like Amway, only better" which provides a certain convenince
in shopping. The income, general business knowledge and financial management
techniques gained as an Amway distributor enabled me to start and run a
different business with less "people" contact and at this time I am
semi-retired (and under 50). Just as in almost any other [legitimate]
business, you aren't going to "make it to the top" without an extreme amound
of dedication and effort, but you *can* make a good income...as good as
you're willing to work for, anyway...and it can open your eyes and provide a
[financial] stepping-stone to new opportunities.

"tom" > wrote in message
...
> my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to
> sell
> it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different
> oils,
> and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when compared
> to
> all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
> pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those ratings
> don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that I
> had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.

The API have traditionally set a *lower* limit on oil quality below which is
unacceptable. There are always two current ratings, one being the latest and
improved while the other is the previous standard which is being run-out.
Besides there being a cost to being certified a lack of certification might
be because a higher level of certain elements are included in the oil than
are set by the standard. This might not be a bad thing for engine wear but
might be detrimental to catalyst life if used and burnt in a worn engine for
instance.

In general there are plenty of superior oils that do meet and exceed API
ratings. There is no better oil than Mobil1 0w/40. Other viscosity grades of
M1 do not have the same chemistry and are therefore not quite as good for
long drain intervals. The 15w/50 is also superior but the viscosity is not
suitable for most engines. This advice only holds good for M1 and other
brands differ but plenty of brands do produce equivalent oils.

Huw

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:15:05 -0500, "tom" >
wrote:

>my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to sell
>it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different oils,
>and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when compared to
>all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
>pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those ratings
>don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that I
>had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.

Valvoline AllFleet is one oil I used a LOT of when in "the business".
Also used a lot of Shell - Rotella on the farm, fleet, and industrial
equipment and their premium normal oil (can't remember the name any
more) on a lot of other vehicles.
Also used a lot of HAvoline, Gastrol GTX, and Kendall GT1.
Never much of a fan of Quaker State or Penzoil.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"Huw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to
>> sell
>> it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different
>> oils,
>> and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when compared
>> to
>> all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
>> pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those ratings
>> don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that I
>> had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.
>
> The API have traditionally set a *lower* limit on oil quality below which
> is unacceptable. There are always two current ratings, one being the
> latest and improved while the other is the previous standard which is
> being run-out.
> Besides there being a cost to being certified a lack of certification
> might be because a higher level of certain elements are included in the
> oil than are set by the standard. This might not be a bad thing for engine
> wear but might be detrimental to catalyst life if used and burnt in a worn
> engine for instance.
>
> In general there are plenty of superior oils that do meet and exceed API
> ratings. There is no better oil than Mobil1 0w/40. Other viscosity grades
> of M1 do not have the same chemistry and are therefore not quite as good
> for long drain intervals. The 15w/50 is also superior but the viscosity
> is not suitable for most engines. This advice only holds good for M1 and
> other brands differ but plenty of brands do produce equivalent oils.
>
> Huw
>

Your post implies that Mobil 1 does not meet or exceed API ratings. That is
simply not true. You do so because you're trying to bring AmSoil up to the
level of Mobil 1. You mention the inferiority of AmSoil, then try to say,
essentially, that Mobil 1 is the same. That's just not accurate.

Your argument in defense of AmSoil is that it doesn't meet API ratings
because it's better. That's silly. That's why the term is "meet or
exceed." AmSoil may have more "stuff" than the ratings require, but it
doesn't meet the minimums for protection, and therefore doesn't even submit
its snakeoil for approval.

CJB

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:09:42 GMT, "Arthur Dent" > wrote:

>
>"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> Amsoil is a ponzi scheme like Amway soap. It might work, but that
>> isn't the IDEA behind it. The IDEA behind it is to sell inventory to
>> some other sucker ( eh...associate ) so they can find a sucker (
>> eh...customer ) or another associate to fall into the same TRAP!
>>
>> If it *works,* that's icing on the cake.
>>
>> Lg
>>
>
>Bub, that is an uninformed, offensive and insulting statement. As a former
>Amway distributor

*former distributor* because you were scammed, just like the rest of
the people I know personally who became involved with that
organization.

Two words:

Ponzi Scheme

"CJB" > wrote in message
news:db6If.20030$0H1.11772@trnddc04...
>
> "Huw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "tom" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to
>>> sell
>>> it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different
>>> oils,
>>> and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when
>>> compared to
>>> all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
>>> pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those
>>> ratings
>>> don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that
>>> I
>>> had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.
>>
>> The API have traditionally set a *lower* limit on oil quality below which
>> is unacceptable. There are always two current ratings, one being the
>> latest and improved while the other is the previous standard which is
>> being run-out.
>> Besides there being a cost to being certified a lack of certification
>> might be because a higher level of certain elements are included in the
>> oil than are set by the standard. This might not be a bad thing for
>> engine wear but might be detrimental to catalyst life if used and burnt
>> in a worn engine for instance.
>>
>> In general there are plenty of superior oils that do meet and exceed API
>> ratings. There is no better oil than Mobil1 0w/40. Other viscosity grades
>> of M1 do not have the same chemistry and are therefore not quite as good
>> for long drain intervals. The 15w/50 is also superior but the viscosity
>> is not suitable for most engines. This advice only holds good for M1 and
>> other brands differ but plenty of brands do produce equivalent oils.
>>
>> Huw
>>
>
> Your post implies that Mobil 1 does not meet or exceed API ratings. That
> is simply not true.

No No I didn't mean to imply that at all. It was obviously clumsily written.
On the contarary, Amsoil is the only oil I know of that doesn't meet minimum
API standards.



You do so because you're trying to bring AmSoil up to the
> level of Mobil 1. You mention the inferiority of AmSoil, then try to say,
> essentially, that Mobil 1 is the same. That's just not accurate.

See above.
Although not all M1 grades are to the same standard all meet API but not all
meet the exacting extended drain interval standards of mainly European
manufacturers. All M1 oils have a superb base oil and quality standard but
do not have the additive package to disperse contaminants for those extended
intervals of 15000 miles and above.

>
> Your argument in defense of AmSoil is that it doesn't meet API ratings
> because it's better. That's silly. That's why the term is "meet or
> exceed."

I am not a defender of amsoil but do know something of their oil. They may
well exceed the API standard by some margin except for a specific area that
I explained which prevents accreditation. Just because it cannot be approved
for the API standard does not automatically infer that it is inferior
[though some oils might well be inferior so watch out].


AmSoil may have more "stuff" than the ratings require, but it
> doesn't meet the minimums for protection, and therefore doesn't even
> submit its snakeoil for approval.
>

I believe Amsoil is better oil than most API approved oil but I have no
reason to suppose it is any better than the latest high performance oils
from other manufacturers that meet mb229.5 or equivilent. Personally I would
use these in preference to any Amsoil product.

Absolutely no reason to use any of these superior oils [amsoil, M1 0w/40 or
otherwise] unless their potential can be and is exploited.

Huw

yup. great oil. but I have no idea why they discontinued marketing it. the
only way to get it now is from Napa. napa 15-40 all fleet is valvoline all
fleet in a Napa package.
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
> Valvoline AllFleet is one oil I used a LOT of when in "the business".
> Also used a lot of Shell - Rotella on the farm, fleet, and industrial
> equipment and their premium normal oil (can't remember the name any
> more) on a lot of other vehicles.
> Also used a lot of HAvoline, Gastrol GTX, and Kendall GT1.
> Never much of a fan of Quaker State or Penzoil.
> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:15:05 -0500, "tom" >
> wrote:
>
>>my snake oil comment was based on the fact that when a dealer tried to
>>sell
>>it to me, and me on it, he handed me a "comparison" sheet of different
>>oils,
>>and amsoil synthetic was at the absolute bottom of the list when compared
>>to
>>all the other "inferior" brands when it came to the A.P.I. ratings. I
>>pointed this little fact out to him and his answer was "oh, those ratings
>>don't mean anything". for the record, the valvoline all fleet plus that I
>>had always used was at the top of the A.P.I. ratings.
>
> Valvoline AllFleet is one oil I used a LOT of when in "the business".
> Also used a lot of Shell - Rotella on the farm, fleet, and industrial
> equipment and their premium normal oil (can't remember the name any
> more) on a lot of other vehicles.

Allfleet or mutifleet oils are those that meet API S standards for petrol
vehicles as well as API C standards for diesel. Today they almost always
meet API CH4 for diesel which is a Super High Performance Diesel [SHPD]
standard for extended drain intervals up to 45000kms.

Combining this high detergent long drain specification with approval for
petrol engines gives the highest quality dino oil available today but if
used in an old petrol engine with many existing deposits it might cause a
problem.
The main drawback is that multifleet [mixed petrol and diesel] heavy duty
oils are mainly available as 15w/40 viscosity which is not always suitable
for all engines. Apart from the viscosity this type of oil is superior in
many ways to lesser synthetics.

Huw

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:42:49 GMT, "CJB" >
wrote:


>Your post implies that Mobil 1 does not meet or exceed API ratings. That is
>simply not true. You do so because you're trying to bring AmSoil up to the
>level of Mobil 1. You mention the inferiority of AmSoil, then try to say,
>essentially, that Mobil 1 is the same. That's just not accurate.
>
>Your argument in defense of AmSoil is that it doesn't meet API ratings
>because it's better. That's silly. That's why the term is "meet or
>exceed." AmSoil may have more "stuff" than the ratings require, but it
>doesn't meet the minimums for protection, and therefore doesn't even submit
>its snakeoil for approval.
>
>CJB
>
The FACT is Amsoil does not have an API specifcation.
This MAY be because it does not meet the spec, or it MAY be they are
too whatever to submit their oil for testing. Either way, the product
is an unknown entity - and if I can not be assured it meets the
minimum requirements and will not cause problems in my engine I will
NOT pay their premium price for their product. If I want to run a
synthentic oil, which up to this point I have not determined to be a
significant advantage to me, I will use one that meets and excedes all
specificatioons called for by the manufacturer of my engine. At this
point, this means an API spec.
I may use a different viscosity than called for by the manufacturer -
one that I feel comfortable with for my operating conditions. I feel
I'm qualified to make that decision for myself and live with any
consequences because viscosity is something that is reasonably easily
understood, where the API specs are a bit more complex. I'm willing to
trade off a small percentage of fuel economy for the aditional
protection I believe my engine recieves from my choice of oil.

I won't try to convince anyone that they should do the same.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***