Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Greasy Spoon
New study from Amsoil
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="UnleashedBeast" data-source="post: 13192655" data-attributes="member: 112023"><p>Jimmy, </p><p></p><p>I do not have hard data in spreadsheets, or in any other detailed methods. Sorry.</p><p></p><p>Simply because Amsoil chose not to pay the fees associated with the API SN licensing doesn't mean it wouldn't pass (or isn't constrained by API SN boundaries). Amsoil's signature series lubricant all have API SN levels of ZDDP and meet every other requirement of the API SN certification test. In fact, it exceeds all requirements. </p><p></p><p>Amsoil chose not to API certify their flagship lubricants for one reason, and one reason only. The API doesn't allow base stock swapping like they do with petroleum lubricants. If they are using a specific base stock from a specific supplier, and that supplier isn't able to meet the demand Amsoil is requesting, that means Amsoil is stuck not able to produce more lubricants until one or two events occur...</p><p></p><p>1. The supplier ramps up production and can meets Amsoil's requirements.</p><p>2. Amsoil chooses another supplier. </p><p></p><p>However, choosing another supplier means that Amsoil now has to re-certify their lubricant with the new base stock, despite it meeting the exact same specifications. The API doesn't allow a manufacturer to change "true" synthetic suppliers without paying the certification fees all over again, completing the testing cycle over again, and we are talking big money. </p><p></p><p>The API allows manufacturers to select different suppliers when it concerns petroleum base stocks, with minimal fees and registry. This shows extreme bias towards petroleum derived stock.</p><p></p><p>XL is petroleum/synthetic blend. OE is 100% petroleum group III. There is no fear of supply shortages with those lines, therefore...they are certified. </p><p></p><p>If the API changed the rules tomorrow, Signature Series would be certified like the rest.</p><p></p><p>I do agree that it wasn't a fair fight on Royal Purple's behalf, not due to Amsoil's lack of API certifications, however....let's face facts. The base line Royal Purple API SN leaves a lot to be desired. I've been watching the performance of it closely, and something isn't right. UOA results haven't performed as expected. This isn't a $9.xx bottle of lubricant. The new HPS formulation has shown elevated shearing percentages you would NEVER expect from a top tier base stock formulation. What's different about the new reformulation?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="UnleashedBeast, post: 13192655, member: 112023"] Jimmy, I do not have hard data in spreadsheets, or in any other detailed methods. Sorry. Simply because Amsoil chose not to pay the fees associated with the API SN licensing doesn't mean it wouldn't pass (or isn't constrained by API SN boundaries). Amsoil's signature series lubricant all have API SN levels of ZDDP and meet every other requirement of the API SN certification test. In fact, it exceeds all requirements. Amsoil chose not to API certify their flagship lubricants for one reason, and one reason only. The API doesn't allow base stock swapping like they do with petroleum lubricants. If they are using a specific base stock from a specific supplier, and that supplier isn't able to meet the demand Amsoil is requesting, that means Amsoil is stuck not able to produce more lubricants until one or two events occur... 1. The supplier ramps up production and can meets Amsoil's requirements. 2. Amsoil chooses another supplier. However, choosing another supplier means that Amsoil now has to re-certify their lubricant with the new base stock, despite it meeting the exact same specifications. The API doesn't allow a manufacturer to change "true" synthetic suppliers without paying the certification fees all over again, completing the testing cycle over again, and we are talking big money. The API allows manufacturers to select different suppliers when it concerns petroleum base stocks, with minimal fees and registry. This shows extreme bias towards petroleum derived stock. XL is petroleum/synthetic blend. OE is 100% petroleum group III. There is no fear of supply shortages with those lines, therefore...they are certified. If the API changed the rules tomorrow, Signature Series would be certified like the rest. I do agree that it wasn't a fair fight on Royal Purple's behalf, not due to Amsoil's lack of API certifications, however....let's face facts. The base line Royal Purple API SN leaves a lot to be desired. I've been watching the performance of it closely, and something isn't right. UOA results haven't performed as expected. This isn't a $9.xx bottle of lubricant. The new HPS formulation has shown elevated shearing percentages you would NEVER expect from a top tier base stock formulation. What's different about the new reformulation? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Greasy Spoon
New study from Amsoil
Top