The Amsoil white paper scared me since I put rp maxgear 75w90 in both differentials in my Jeep Liberty. I had put the rp synchromax in the 6 speed manual gear box and loved the positive improvement over the mopar/penzoil synchromesh. So I figured I would give the maxgear a shot, and have had it in there for a few months with no ill effect. But after reading the amzoil white paper (the rp did terrible) I just purchased the amzoil severe gear 75w90 and plan on putting it in any time. SO, my question to any of you is: did I unnecesarily jump the gun, or am I just being wise. Is rp really that poor?
RP Maxgear poor?
- Thread starter hooperswish1
- Start date
- Status
HMM? Amsoil making claims about the competition making an inferior product. Who would have ever believed it.
RP MaxGear is excellent gear oil. Amsoil needs to spend more time worrying about their own product and less time making statements about the competition( that many times are false or misleading ).
RP MaxGear is excellent gear oil. Amsoil needs to spend more time worrying about their own product and less time making statements about the competition( that many times are false or misleading ).
Perhaps the RP didn't perform as well as Amsoil, but is "x" times better than the FF. So how much protection do you really need?
Yea, I was probably just being paranoid. The other issue I have is this: I had purchased two quarts of 75w90 maxgear for thr front diff, and two quarts of 75w140 maxgear for the rear diff for a little added protection(even though mine is speced for 75w90 for front and rear.) I purchased all four quarts of the amsoil in the 75w90 weight. I thought maybe I will get just a tad better mileage- the jeep is really a pig. Do you think the thinner stuff will get me a tad better mileage? It is hard to say if it had a negative impact earlier beacause I also installed a roof rack around the same time. Any imput is appreciated. Maybe I will just store the amsoil for a couple of years and use it then?
I'm running 85w140 in the rear of my truck (9.5 quarts)...it has held up very well...and it provides better mileage than 75w90 M1 (once it warms up a bit!).
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
HMM? Amsoil making claims about the competition making an inferior product. Who would have ever believed it.
RP MaxGear is excellent gear oil. Amsoil needs to spend more time worrying about their own product and less time making statements about the competition( that many times are false or misleading ).
Amsoil made no claims. They did the research and published the paper. If there was some erroneous "false" information contained in the white paper, please let me know. Sounds to me, as if you haven't actually read the paper: Amsoil Gear Oil Paper
HMM? Amsoil making claims about the competition making an inferior product. Who would have ever believed it.
RP MaxGear is excellent gear oil. Amsoil needs to spend more time worrying about their own product and less time making statements about the competition( that many times are false or misleading ).
Amsoil made no claims. They did the research and published the paper. If there was some erroneous "false" information contained in the white paper, please let me know. Sounds to me, as if you haven't actually read the paper: Amsoil Gear Oil Paper
Originally Posted By: hooperswish1
The Amsoil white paper scared me since I put rp maxgear 75w90 in both differentials in my Jeep Liberty. I had put the rp synchromax in the 6 speed manual gear box and loved the positive improvement over the mopar/penzoil synchromesh. So I figured I would give the maxgear a shot, and have had it in there for a few months with no ill effect. But after reading the amzoil white paper (the rp did terrible) I just purchased the amzoil severe gear 75w90 and plan on putting it in any time. SO, my question to any of you is: did I unnecesarily jump the gun, or am I just being wise. Is rp really that poor?
I would say you jumped the gun. The purpose of the study is not to scare people. It's much asked for data and testing. I also would question that you bought the correct Amsoil product. Tell me more about the Liberty. Year, engine, differentials. Most take the 75W-110 or 75W-140. Where did you buy the 75W-90?
The Amsoil white paper scared me since I put rp maxgear 75w90 in both differentials in my Jeep Liberty. I had put the rp synchromax in the 6 speed manual gear box and loved the positive improvement over the mopar/penzoil synchromesh. So I figured I would give the maxgear a shot, and have had it in there for a few months with no ill effect. But after reading the amzoil white paper (the rp did terrible) I just purchased the amzoil severe gear 75w90 and plan on putting it in any time. SO, my question to any of you is: did I unnecesarily jump the gun, or am I just being wise. Is rp really that poor?
I would say you jumped the gun. The purpose of the study is not to scare people. It's much asked for data and testing. I also would question that you bought the correct Amsoil product. Tell me more about the Liberty. Year, engine, differentials. Most take the 75W-110 or 75W-140. Where did you buy the 75W-90?
And again, aren't we really splitting hairs? I agree with the above post, RP is an improvement over most other gear oils. While it might not be the absolute best, it is leaps and bounds better than average.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: hooperswish1
The Amsoil white paper scared me since I put rp maxgear 75w90 in both differentials in my Jeep Liberty. I had put the rp synchromax in the 6 speed manual gear box and loved the positive improvement over the mopar/penzoil synchromesh. So I figured I would give the maxgear a shot, and have had it in there for a few months with no ill effect. But after reading the amzoil white paper (the rp did terrible) I just purchased the amzoil severe gear 75w90 and plan on putting it in any time. SO, my question to any of you is: did I unnecesarily jump the gun, or am I just being wise. Is rp really that poor?
I would say you jumped the gun. The purpose of the study is not to scare people. It's much asked for data and testing. I also would question that you bought the correct Amsoil product. Tell me more about the Liberty. Year, engine, differentials. Most take the 75W-110 or 75W-140. Where did you buy the 75W-90?
Hello Pablo,
Thanks for the reply on this. I purchased it locally from a gentleman named Paul who actually took the time to bring it to my work for me. "Savefuelcolorado.com" I think (I still have that info at work) is his web sight. He was really great and he brought me a print out of the recommendations for all the fluids for my jeep. It is a 2006 jeep liberty 3.7 liter 6 speed manual.
The diffs are open and the model is the basic sport- no heavy duty towing or anything else.
Originally Posted By: hooperswish1
The Amsoil white paper scared me since I put rp maxgear 75w90 in both differentials in my Jeep Liberty. I had put the rp synchromax in the 6 speed manual gear box and loved the positive improvement over the mopar/penzoil synchromesh. So I figured I would give the maxgear a shot, and have had it in there for a few months with no ill effect. But after reading the amzoil white paper (the rp did terrible) I just purchased the amzoil severe gear 75w90 and plan on putting it in any time. SO, my question to any of you is: did I unnecesarily jump the gun, or am I just being wise. Is rp really that poor?
I would say you jumped the gun. The purpose of the study is not to scare people. It's much asked for data and testing. I also would question that you bought the correct Amsoil product. Tell me more about the Liberty. Year, engine, differentials. Most take the 75W-110 or 75W-140. Where did you buy the 75W-90?
Hello Pablo,
Thanks for the reply on this. I purchased it locally from a gentleman named Paul who actually took the time to bring it to my work for me. "Savefuelcolorado.com" I think (I still have that info at work) is his web sight. He was really great and he brought me a print out of the recommendations for all the fluids for my jeep. It is a 2006 jeep liberty 3.7 liter 6 speed manual.
The diffs are open and the model is the basic sport- no heavy duty towing or anything else.
Last edited:
Quote:
Differential, Front .....GL-5[3]
All Temps......80W-90
SAE 80W-90 Synthetic Gear Lube
Severe Gear 75W-90
SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Gear Lube
Standard Differential, Rear 8 1/4 W/O TT.....GL-5[6]
All Temps......75W-90
Severe Gear 75W-90
SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Gear Lube
Severe Gear 75W-110
I would have recommended the 110 because it's a best match to the old specification, your conditions and that differential.
Differential, Front .....GL-5[3]
All Temps......80W-90
SAE 80W-90 Synthetic Gear Lube
Severe Gear 75W-90
SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Gear Lube
Standard Differential, Rear 8 1/4 W/O TT.....GL-5[6]
All Temps......75W-90
Severe Gear 75W-90
SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Gear Lube
Severe Gear 75W-110
I would have recommended the 110 because it's a best match to the old specification, your conditions and that differential.
Another vote for RP products. They are quality, American made, and their I've never seen their marketing single out other oils to promote themselves. They are proud of their product and just want you to try it. I love that attitude from a corporate standpoint.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
HMM? Amsoil making claims about the competition making an inferior product. Who would have ever believed it.
RP MaxGear is excellent gear oil. Amsoil needs to spend more time worrying about their own product and less time making statements about the competition( that many times are false or misleading ).
Amsoil made no claims. They did the research and published the paper. If there was some erroneous "false" information contained in the white paper, please let me know. Sounds to me, as if you haven't actually read the paper: Amsoil Gear Oil Paper
Amsoil absolutely made claims. That is the entire point of the study and their conclusions. Amsoil is "claiming" things based on the results from the lab they hired and results from their in house tests done during the study. Only if that lab did this on their own, and did 100% of the testing, and then published the results themselves would Amsoil not be claiming things. They are here however.
In questioning the validity of this study I would start 1st thing by asking "why was part done in house and part down out source"? If you are trying to play the "independant lab testing" card have it 100% independant. Also, I place very little credibility on tests that are paid for by a fluid mfg know for shady practices even when done by outside sources. A TRULY independant test is one run by an outside sopurce on their own or commissioned by a company without any of their products involved. It is not really independant when you pay for it and YOUR product is in it.
Actually, there are some questionable claims in the paper. Have YOU actually read it? Amsoil claiming one set of things that is completely different from the test data RP provides. Who do you believe? The company making it or the competition who has a reputation for false and misleading statements about their own products as well as their competitors products? I know who I will believe.
I was in the process of listing the discrepencies I found( had my 1st post up in edit )when my dog got sick and had to be rushed to the emergency vet. By the time I got home I decided to forget it. The second after I posted the 1st time I knew an Amsoil pimp would jump it so I was going to back it up. Guess I betetr so here goes...
On the ASTM D-2270 Viscosity test both Amsoil & RP = 165( high # is good )
I don't know enough about the J306 test to comment on what it means and RP does not provide enough data to compare it to what Amsoil claims. That one you have to just go by what Amsoil says. They say RP failed.
I am going to contact RP and see what they say when I have time.
On the low-temperature viscosity/Brookfield Viscosity Test (ASTM D-2983)There is a MAJOR difference between what Amsoil claims and what RP claims. Based on false claims about an RP product by Amsoil in the past I will believe RP. Using RP's #'s they actually do better than Amsoil. SAE 75W must be less than 150,000 cP at -40°C (-40°F). Amsoil comes in at 68,150 and claims a ridiculously bad 389,500 for RP. RP claims a 59,911.
Amsoil then makes this statement...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil"
Royal Purple and Lucas failed the cold-temperature Brookfield requirements for 75W gear
lubes, as well as the high-temperature requirements for SAE 90 gear lubes, effectively disqualifying them entirely from the
SAE 75W-90 category. Royal Purple Max-Gear, having also failed the Shear Stability Test, was the only gear lube to fail
every parameter of the SAE J306 requirements
I say Bull. I can't contradict the J306 test because RP doesn't give the data but they did better than Amsoil in the Broofield test. Sounds like more false and inaccurate statements by Amsoil about the competition which they are famous for.
In the standard pour point test method(ASTM D-97)Amsoil claims a -37 pour point for RP when RP claims a -40. Not a huge difference but once again Amsooil making a false( IMO )claim. They claim a lower pour point for their product of -50. They then go on to say...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil
It is important to have a low pour point combined with a low Brookfield viscosity value since it is possible to have a good low pour point but only a marginal Brookfield viscosity. Castrol SYNTEC is a good example of this. SYNTEC had the best pour point of the gear lubes tested, but a borderline
Brookfield viscosity pass at 149,850 cP. Lucas 75/90 Synthetic, on the other hand, did not perform well in either area. It
showed a pour point of -37°C (-35°F) and a Brookfield viscosity of greater than 2,000,000 cP. AMSOIL Severe Gear 75W-
90 and Torco SGO Synthetic had the best combined Brookfield and pour point scores.
I would say that is false because they have the completely outrageous 300K Brookfield test data on RP. I highly question the accuracy of that test result. When you factor in RP's claimed 59,911 Brookfield teste result( which was lower than Amsoil )and a respectable -40 pour point test( again their test data better than Amsoils claim ), I would say RP was right there with them in this test.
Can't comment on the Oxidation testing as that data is not available on RP's site.
Next 4 are all related( (2)ASTM D-2783, ASTM D-3233, ASTM D-4172 ).
1) - 4 ball EP weld point. RP has the same test results in both data sheets( 400 )which is the same as the Amsoil.
2) - 4 ball EP load-wear index. RP tests low according to Amsoil. No data from RP to compare to.
3) - falex extreme pressure test. Yeah, okay, RP tested the same as the dino 80W-90's. Please. Can't dispute it of course as that is not data I can check but come on.
4) - 4 ball wear test. RP just below Amsoil. No RP data to compare.
* - so RP performs at the top in 2 but only slightly better or as good as 80W-90 dino on the others? Does anyone else find that hard to believe?
In the Copper Corrosion (ASTM D-130) test Amsoil claims RP fails the GL-5 portion but doesn't test on the MIL( ?? ). RP says they pass the copper corrosion test.
They even try to use Price as a test case in this paper. 1st of all pricing is very different depending on where you buy it. They have RP listed at $13.95 and their product at $11.75. What a JOKE! You can get RP MaxGear anywhere for $9.
In the end this test like all of Amsoil's( and Mobil 1 does it as well )"look how great we are" tests are slective tests chosen to pump them up while putting down their competition. This is not a unique thing to Amsoil or even the synthetic fluid market by any stretch but IMO it is sleezy.
There is also data on RP's site for their product never mentioned in this Amsoil study. So for all those who I just KNOW are thinking there is a reason( ie; it performed poorly so they don't want to admit it )why RP didn't have some of the data posted in this test for me to compare I can say the same about Amsoil. Where are these other tests and why were they not run? How many other tests did you run, that your product performed poorly in, so you didn't include that?
I would like to know how does Amsoil explain some of these very different results claiming poorer #'s than RP got( and one that was way off the chart and really questionable )? How do they explain a failing copper corrosion test when the mfg got a pass? If you are going to take Amsoil at face value on all their claims you have to do the same for RP. So, how does the big differences get explained? I know I have an opinion.
I am curious if Amsoil bothered to check the test results they got vs what the mfg of the other products got so when a huge difference occured they might have rechecked it for accuracy? Or, did they just say wahoo we can trash them now?
Another member summed it up about RP so very accurately...
Originally Posted By: "badtlc'
They are quality, American made, and I've never seen their marketing single out other oils to promote themselves. They are proud of their product and just want you to try it.
That is it in a nutshell describing the biggest difference between Amsoil and RP. Both make a great product but one mfg let's their product speak for itself while the other tries to tear down the competition to pump their product up. IF it is so good simply state that and leave it at that. The biggest Amsoil gripe I have is their sleezy underhanded tacticts and false and misleading statements like we see in this paper about the competition. If Amsoil published a paper saying the Sun would rise in the morning and set in the evening I would not believe it.
Originally Posted By: NHSilverado
HMM? Amsoil making claims about the competition making an inferior product. Who would have ever believed it.
RP MaxGear is excellent gear oil. Amsoil needs to spend more time worrying about their own product and less time making statements about the competition( that many times are false or misleading ).
Amsoil made no claims. They did the research and published the paper. If there was some erroneous "false" information contained in the white paper, please let me know. Sounds to me, as if you haven't actually read the paper: Amsoil Gear Oil Paper
Amsoil absolutely made claims. That is the entire point of the study and their conclusions. Amsoil is "claiming" things based on the results from the lab they hired and results from their in house tests done during the study. Only if that lab did this on their own, and did 100% of the testing, and then published the results themselves would Amsoil not be claiming things. They are here however.
In questioning the validity of this study I would start 1st thing by asking "why was part done in house and part down out source"? If you are trying to play the "independant lab testing" card have it 100% independant. Also, I place very little credibility on tests that are paid for by a fluid mfg know for shady practices even when done by outside sources. A TRULY independant test is one run by an outside sopurce on their own or commissioned by a company without any of their products involved. It is not really independant when you pay for it and YOUR product is in it.
Actually, there are some questionable claims in the paper. Have YOU actually read it? Amsoil claiming one set of things that is completely different from the test data RP provides. Who do you believe? The company making it or the competition who has a reputation for false and misleading statements about their own products as well as their competitors products? I know who I will believe.
I was in the process of listing the discrepencies I found( had my 1st post up in edit )when my dog got sick and had to be rushed to the emergency vet. By the time I got home I decided to forget it. The second after I posted the 1st time I knew an Amsoil pimp would jump it so I was going to back it up. Guess I betetr so here goes...
On the ASTM D-2270 Viscosity test both Amsoil & RP = 165( high # is good )
I don't know enough about the J306 test to comment on what it means and RP does not provide enough data to compare it to what Amsoil claims. That one you have to just go by what Amsoil says. They say RP failed.
On the low-temperature viscosity/Brookfield Viscosity Test (ASTM D-2983)There is a MAJOR difference between what Amsoil claims and what RP claims. Based on false claims about an RP product by Amsoil in the past I will believe RP. Using RP's #'s they actually do better than Amsoil. SAE 75W must be less than 150,000 cP at -40°C (-40°F). Amsoil comes in at 68,150 and claims a ridiculously bad 389,500 for RP. RP claims a 59,911.
Amsoil then makes this statement...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil"
Royal Purple and Lucas failed the cold-temperature Brookfield requirements for 75W gear
lubes, as well as the high-temperature requirements for SAE 90 gear lubes, effectively disqualifying them entirely from the
SAE 75W-90 category. Royal Purple Max-Gear, having also failed the Shear Stability Test, was the only gear lube to fail
every parameter of the SAE J306 requirements
I say Bull. I can't contradict the J306 test because RP doesn't give the data but they did better than Amsoil in the Broofield test. Sounds like more false and inaccurate statements by Amsoil about the competition which they are famous for.
In the standard pour point test method(ASTM D-97)Amsoil claims a -37 pour point for RP when RP claims a -40. Not a huge difference but once again Amsooil making a false( IMO )claim. They claim a lower pour point for their product of -50. They then go on to say...
Originally Posted By: "Amsoil
It is important to have a low pour point combined with a low Brookfield viscosity value since it is possible to have a good low pour point but only a marginal Brookfield viscosity. Castrol SYNTEC is a good example of this. SYNTEC had the best pour point of the gear lubes tested, but a borderline
Brookfield viscosity pass at 149,850 cP. Lucas 75/90 Synthetic, on the other hand, did not perform well in either area. It
showed a pour point of -37°C (-35°F) and a Brookfield viscosity of greater than 2,000,000 cP. AMSOIL Severe Gear 75W-
90 and Torco SGO Synthetic had the best combined Brookfield and pour point scores.
I would say that is false because they have the completely outrageous 300K Brookfield test data on RP. I highly question the accuracy of that test result. When you factor in RP's claimed 59,911 Brookfield teste result( which was lower than Amsoil )and a respectable -40 pour point test( again their test data better than Amsoils claim ), I would say RP was right there with them in this test.
Can't comment on the Oxidation testing as that data is not available on RP's site.
Next 4 are all related( (2)ASTM D-2783, ASTM D-3233, ASTM D-4172 ).
1) - 4 ball EP weld point. RP has the same test results in both data sheets( 400 )which is the same as the Amsoil.
2) - 4 ball EP load-wear index. RP tests low according to Amsoil. No data from RP to compare to.
3) - falex extreme pressure test. Yeah, okay, RP tested the same as the dino 80W-90's. Please. Can't dispute it of course as that is not data I can check but come on.
4) - 4 ball wear test. RP just below Amsoil. No RP data to compare.
* - so RP performs at the top in 2 but only slightly better or as good as 80W-90 dino on the others? Does anyone else find that hard to believe?
In the Copper Corrosion (ASTM D-130) test Amsoil claims RP fails the GL-5 portion but doesn't test on the MIL( ?? ). RP says they pass the copper corrosion test.
They even try to use Price as a test case in this paper. 1st of all pricing is very different depending on where you buy it. They have RP listed at $13.95 and their product at $11.75. What a JOKE! You can get RP MaxGear anywhere for $9.
In the end this test like all of Amsoil's( and Mobil 1 does it as well )"look how great we are" tests are slective tests chosen to pump them up while putting down their competition. This is not a unique thing to Amsoil or even the synthetic fluid market by any stretch but IMO it is sleezy.
There is also data on RP's site for their product never mentioned in this Amsoil study. So for all those who I just KNOW are thinking there is a reason( ie; it performed poorly so they don't want to admit it )why RP didn't have some of the data posted in this test for me to compare I can say the same about Amsoil. Where are these other tests and why were they not run? How many other tests did you run, that your product performed poorly in, so you didn't include that?
I would like to know how does Amsoil explain some of these very different results claiming poorer #'s than RP got( and one that was way off the chart and really questionable )? How do they explain a failing copper corrosion test when the mfg got a pass? If you are going to take Amsoil at face value on all their claims you have to do the same for RP. So, how does the big differences get explained? I know I have an opinion.
Another member summed it up about RP so very accurately...
Originally Posted By: "badtlc'
They are quality, American made, and I've never seen their marketing single out other oils to promote themselves. They are proud of their product and just want you to try it.
That is it in a nutshell describing the biggest difference between Amsoil and RP. Both make a great product but one mfg let's their product speak for itself while the other tries to tear down the competition to pump their product up. IF it is so good simply state that and leave it at that. The biggest Amsoil gripe I have is their sleezy underhanded tacticts and false and misleading statements like we see in this paper about the competition. If Amsoil published a paper saying the Sun would rise in the morning and set in the evening I would not believe it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Calling me or anyone else a "pimp" is simply not worth a response.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Calling me or anyone else a "pimp" is simply not worth a response.
I never called YOU a pimp. It is a general term for those who always push a product as the best over all others and generally they have ties to the mfg as well. You can substitute cheerleader if you want.
BTW, while I have absolutely ZERO connection to RP other than being a lifelong user I qualify as an RP Pimp, cheerleader, pom pom waver, propoganda promoter, or whatever other term you wish to throw at me. I admit it, I love the stuff and highly recommend it. However, unlike many( and that really applies to those loyal to Amsoil & M1 - not all I said "many" )I can give credit to other brands when it is due. I do not trash the other "product" to pump up my preferred brand.
Now, sorry you got upset. My apologies. So how do you explain those differences? Single test error? Do you agree it sounds fishy that such a big difference is there? Will you acknowledge it appears there are some questionable results in the test data on RP? Or, do you accept what Amsoil has posted as fact period? Just curious.
Calling me or anyone else a "pimp" is simply not worth a response.
I never called YOU a pimp. It is a general term for those who always push a product as the best over all others and generally they have ties to the mfg as well. You can substitute cheerleader if you want.
BTW, while I have absolutely ZERO connection to RP other than being a lifelong user I qualify as an RP Pimp, cheerleader, pom pom waver, propoganda promoter, or whatever other term you wish to throw at me. I admit it, I love the stuff and highly recommend it. However, unlike many( and that really applies to those loyal to Amsoil & M1 - not all I said "many" )I can give credit to other brands when it is due. I do not trash the other "product" to pump up my preferred brand.
Now, sorry you got upset. My apologies. So how do you explain those differences? Single test error? Do you agree it sounds fishy that such a big difference is there? Will you acknowledge it appears there are some questionable results in the test data on RP? Or, do you accept what Amsoil has posted as fact period? Just curious.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not "upset" but a bit surprised by your lack of professionalism in a serious topic area. "I knew an Amsoil pimp would jump it (in?)" Your post was in response to mine…..In my small world, the word "pimp" does not equal "cheerleader".
Despite your numerous claims, Amsoil does not make "false" claims. You are correct about one thing. Just about every one of your posts involves Royal Purple. Nothing wrong with that, and glad you are honest about it. I'm not at all sure why you don't think RP makes any less than the normal oil marketing claims. They pretty much lead the pack with HP and wear improvement claims. You so loosely throw around terms like "false", "shady" and "sleezy (sic) underhanded tacticts (sic)". It's kind of funny that you will believe Royal Purple's own test numbers, but in your book Amsoil's are just made up or something.
Amsoil only took a sample of one. Resources are not unlimited, so Amsoil keeps the sample size small. Statistically this is not valid and Amsoil does not claim anything more than the sample failed an individual test, perhaps says the results could or would indicate something about the formulation. Take it at face value. If you read my response to the original poster, I even told him he acted prematurely by draining the RP. Again, a small sample size, purchased at local stores. They were careful about recording the batch code, so the other blenders could check there records or retains. What they measured is what they measured and reported. If you are implying they just "dry labbed" the results then you would be wrong. Amsoil does not typically zoom in and pick on one oil blender. People do want comparative test data, if they just label the samples A,B,C or X,Y, Z people then demand to know what the oils were.
This paper has been discussed in detail in a thread or two here. Also, you are free to email Kevin Dinwiddie at Amsoil to ask him detailed questions about the testing and results.
Despite your numerous claims, Amsoil does not make "false" claims. You are correct about one thing. Just about every one of your posts involves Royal Purple. Nothing wrong with that, and glad you are honest about it. I'm not at all sure why you don't think RP makes any less than the normal oil marketing claims. They pretty much lead the pack with HP and wear improvement claims. You so loosely throw around terms like "false", "shady" and "sleezy (sic) underhanded tacticts (sic)". It's kind of funny that you will believe Royal Purple's own test numbers, but in your book Amsoil's are just made up or something.
Amsoil only took a sample of one. Resources are not unlimited, so Amsoil keeps the sample size small. Statistically this is not valid and Amsoil does not claim anything more than the sample failed an individual test, perhaps says the results could or would indicate something about the formulation. Take it at face value. If you read my response to the original poster, I even told him he acted prematurely by draining the RP. Again, a small sample size, purchased at local stores. They were careful about recording the batch code, so the other blenders could check there records or retains. What they measured is what they measured and reported. If you are implying they just "dry labbed" the results then you would be wrong. Amsoil does not typically zoom in and pick on one oil blender. People do want comparative test data, if they just label the samples A,B,C or X,Y, Z people then demand to know what the oils were.
This paper has been discussed in detail in a thread or two here. Also, you are free to email Kevin Dinwiddie at Amsoil to ask him detailed questions about the testing and results.
Sorry to create such a controversy. I think they both are good oils.I am just glad that both rp and amsoil are American made and that they both lead to free market competition.
So Pablo, putting the 75w90 in as opposed to swapping for the 110 should be fine, right? since that is the factory spec? Or is the factory just putting in the thin stuff for mpg sticker specs? Can I expect mpg improvements with the 90, or is it way to minute to mention? I want good mpg (don't we all) without sacrifices good quality lubrication for 200k of vehicle life I hope. Maybe put in the 90 and only go for say 30k, or does the mileage have nothing to do with it, as it is just too thin. A lot of people here are swearing by the thinner motor oils, so why should gear oils be any different?
Thanks for your reply.
So Pablo, putting the 75w90 in as opposed to swapping for the 110 should be fine, right? since that is the factory spec? Or is the factory just putting in the thin stuff for mpg sticker specs? Can I expect mpg improvements with the 90, or is it way to minute to mention? I want good mpg (don't we all) without sacrifices good quality lubrication for 200k of vehicle life I hope. Maybe put in the 90 and only go for say 30k, or does the mileage have nothing to do with it, as it is just too thin. A lot of people here are swearing by the thinner motor oils, so why should gear oils be any different?
Thanks for your reply.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I'm not "upset" but a bit surprised by your lack of professionalism in a serious topic area. "I knew an Amsoil pimp would jump it (in?)" Your post was in response to mine…..In my small world, the word "pimp" does not equal "cheerleader".
Jump "it" = jump on what I posted.
I already apologized but the constant RP bashing on here gets to me so I sunk to that level in a moment of anger. I will again apologize to you for any misunderstanding. Not much else I can do.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Despite your numerous claims, Amsoil does not make "false" claims.
WRONG! They absolutely do. They have made claims in the past that at least one of their oils was really API certified when it was not for one thing( believe it was an 0W-## oil). The President of Amsoil himself put a statement on their web site apologizing( this would have been around 04-05 +/- ). Also, they were making very specific claims that RP contained a harmful chemical/mineral/additive( or whatever it actually is )and in amounts it did not contain anwyay back in 05 when I was on the HEMI truck club site.
RP was popular there and spoken of often. A member pasted an e-mail he got from Amsoil tech( or it may have been from something similar to this white paper he found - long time back sorry can't remember exact detail )stating RP contained a harmful chemical/mineral/additive in dangerous amounts. There was an RP employee at the time who was a member of the site who jumped right in with the truth. Seems there is a good and a bad version of that chemical/mineral/additive in the oil and RP used the good and in a safe amount. That was forwarded to Amsoil by the OP and he then posted the "ooops our bad" reply. I am sorry I can't recall the chemical/mineral/additive name of the top of my head. I am sure if I saw it I would remember. It was some form of something "MOLY" as I recall( possibly molybdenum but not 100% sure as it was a few years back ). Amsoil even had the same thing in their oil they were slamming RP for having! That most definitely is a FALSE claim and a sleezy one as well.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
You are correct about one thing. Just about every one of your posts involves Royal Purple. Nothing wrong with that, and glad you are honest about it.
Yes, I do post in favor of RP. However, I also give credit to other brands when deserved and do not always recommend RP( recent new Dodge truck post in which I recommend Valvoline and never even bring RP up ). Frankly I am as vocal about RP products as I am because of the bias against it here. I almost feel compelled to post as much as I do because there is so much bias and false info posted about it.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I'm not at all sure why you don't think RP makes any less than the normal oil marketing claims. They pretty much lead the pack with HP and wear improvement claims. You so loosely throw around terms like "false", "shady" and "sleezy (sic) underhanded tacticts (sic)". It's kind of funny that you will believe Royal Purple's own test numbers, but in your book Amsoil's are just made up or something.
I never have said RP does not make marketing claims. Not once! I have said I feel they do so without having to tear down the competition which seems to be Amsoil's SOP. They let their product speak for itself which I find admirable. I throw out those terms because I have seen 1st hand how Amsoil( and Mobil )conduct themselves and I feel they are appropriate terms. There are a lot of things I have seen over the years with Amsoil I don't like. Not going to list them all. They are the basis of why I use the terms though and unlike many who bash RP my claims have some experience and fact behind them your assertion to the contrary not withstanding. I know what I know that I have seen 1st hand.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil only took a sample of one. Resources are not unlimited, so Amsoil keeps the sample size small. Statistically this is not valid and Amsoil does not claim anything more than the sample failed an individual test, perhaps says the results could or would indicate something about the formulation. Take it at face value.
Okay, let me see if I get this right? Amsoil, with their limited funds, just took a single sample and made a simple test and we should take it at face value as no more than that. Results may not be typical and can vary. They are just what they got in this one test. They aren't claiming it is typical of their product nor the competitions or anything just this one test? I believe I got that right. If so, and I am not missing something here in what you meant, then explain to me the way they started this paper off( ie; the introduction ). That sure reads to me like some serious conclusions and that it is implying a lot more than a random store sample and a one time result. It is presented as this is a fact jack and you can take it to the bank( on Amsoil and the competition that was tested ). I must have missed the random sample, one time results not typical and may vary, disclaimer in there. ..
"This comprehensive study of gear lubricants will undoubtedly shake up the marketplace. Fourteen of the most popular brands of gear lube were tested at an independent laboratory in areas such as pour point, 4-ball EP weld point, 4-ball EP load-wear index, Falex extreme pressure and many other tests used in meeting API GL-5 performance requirements and SAE J306 viscosity requirements.
The purpose of the Gear Oil White Paper is to inform consumers about the increasingly severe conditions under which differentials operate and to provide data reflecting the quality and cost differences of many popular synthetic and petroleum gear lubes. With this information, consumers are better prepared to make informed decisions when purchasing gear lubricants. All performance testing was conducted by an independent laboratory. Physical-property testing (viscosity, viscosity index, pour point and foaming after oxidation) was conducted in-house. Gear lube pricing was obtained from the manufacturers or distributors.
This no-frills study is designed to help consumers make informed decisions when selecting gear oils. There is no hype and no sales pitch -- just facts. Never before has so much information on gear oils been delivered in one easy to understand source."
Originally Posted By: Pablo
If you are implying they just "dry labbed" the results then you would be wrong.
Not sure what you mean?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil does not typically zoom in and pick on one oil blender.
Agree pretty much with that. However, they do have a core group that I believe they feel is the main competition such as RP, RL, M1 and they DO try their best to cut them down to pump themselves up. What I see them do anyway.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
People do want comparative test data, if they just label the samples A,B,C or X,Y, Z people then demand to know what the oils were.
Agreed but I question the integrity of any test Amsoil runs or commissions. They have shown to be untrustworthy in my experience so I have doubts about the claims they not only make about the competition but also their own oils. You certainly can feel otherwise.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Also, you are free to email Kevin Dinwiddie at Amsoil to ask him detailed questions about the testing and results.
Last time I spoke with Amsoil Tech was about ATF+4 and their universal ATF. I still have a headache and am still dizzy from the run around I got.
If you ever want to know about RP give David Canitz a call.
Let me just state again that I have no issues with Amsoil's products. They are excellent. In the top 5 out there( ie synthetic fluids ). I do however have big issues with their business practices( there is that better than calling them liars and shady? ). Now, you may choose not to believe me but I have personally seen them lie and twist the truth about the competition and their own product. I don't like that at all and because of it I am soured on that company. I admit it and don't try to hide it at all however but I always state why I don't like them instead of just "it sucks dude" like so many do with RP HERE.
Amsoil's products are great, excellent, top shelf, one of the ebst, hard to beat, primo, etc... just don't believe everything they tell you about the competition and take what they tell you about themselves with some skepticism. I trust John Q public and what he says about their stuff but not so much the company or distributors spouting the company line. As far as RP goes I have never been lied to yet by them nor have I seen them lie nor get caught in a lie( they may have lied - just haven't heard of/seen it - until I do I doubt it ) and they don't go around trashing the competition.
Thus, yes, I do give more credit to what they say than what Amsoil says. Not because I like the product but because it is basd on business ethics and a track record of honesty vs one of less than honest statements.
Hopefully no hard feelings. Just get sick of the RP bashing all the time here. I could care less what oil you use or sell or "promote" here. I find this study highly questionabvle however and would hope others would take it with a grain of salt. Too much of it does not add up.
Regards and again I apologize for the PIMP misunderstanding.
I'm not "upset" but a bit surprised by your lack of professionalism in a serious topic area. "I knew an Amsoil pimp would jump it (in?)" Your post was in response to mine…..In my small world, the word "pimp" does not equal "cheerleader".
Jump "it" = jump on what I posted.
I already apologized but the constant RP bashing on here gets to me so I sunk to that level in a moment of anger. I will again apologize to you for any misunderstanding. Not much else I can do.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Despite your numerous claims, Amsoil does not make "false" claims.
WRONG! They absolutely do. They have made claims in the past that at least one of their oils was really API certified when it was not for one thing( believe it was an 0W-## oil). The President of Amsoil himself put a statement on their web site apologizing( this would have been around 04-05 +/- ). Also, they were making very specific claims that RP contained a harmful chemical/mineral/additive( or whatever it actually is )and in amounts it did not contain anwyay back in 05 when I was on the HEMI truck club site.
RP was popular there and spoken of often. A member pasted an e-mail he got from Amsoil tech( or it may have been from something similar to this white paper he found - long time back sorry can't remember exact detail )stating RP contained a harmful chemical/mineral/additive in dangerous amounts. There was an RP employee at the time who was a member of the site who jumped right in with the truth. Seems there is a good and a bad version of that chemical/mineral/additive in the oil and RP used the good and in a safe amount. That was forwarded to Amsoil by the OP and he then posted the "ooops our bad" reply. I am sorry I can't recall the chemical/mineral/additive name of the top of my head. I am sure if I saw it I would remember. It was some form of something "MOLY" as I recall( possibly molybdenum but not 100% sure as it was a few years back ). Amsoil even had the same thing in their oil they were slamming RP for having! That most definitely is a FALSE claim and a sleezy one as well.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
You are correct about one thing. Just about every one of your posts involves Royal Purple. Nothing wrong with that, and glad you are honest about it.
Yes, I do post in favor of RP. However, I also give credit to other brands when deserved and do not always recommend RP( recent new Dodge truck post in which I recommend Valvoline and never even bring RP up ). Frankly I am as vocal about RP products as I am because of the bias against it here. I almost feel compelled to post as much as I do because there is so much bias and false info posted about it.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I'm not at all sure why you don't think RP makes any less than the normal oil marketing claims. They pretty much lead the pack with HP and wear improvement claims. You so loosely throw around terms like "false", "shady" and "sleezy (sic) underhanded tacticts (sic)". It's kind of funny that you will believe Royal Purple's own test numbers, but in your book Amsoil's are just made up or something.
I never have said RP does not make marketing claims. Not once! I have said I feel they do so without having to tear down the competition which seems to be Amsoil's SOP. They let their product speak for itself which I find admirable. I throw out those terms because I have seen 1st hand how Amsoil( and Mobil )conduct themselves and I feel they are appropriate terms. There are a lot of things I have seen over the years with Amsoil I don't like. Not going to list them all. They are the basis of why I use the terms though and unlike many who bash RP my claims have some experience and fact behind them your assertion to the contrary not withstanding. I know what I know that I have seen 1st hand.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil only took a sample of one. Resources are not unlimited, so Amsoil keeps the sample size small. Statistically this is not valid and Amsoil does not claim anything more than the sample failed an individual test, perhaps says the results could or would indicate something about the formulation. Take it at face value.
Okay, let me see if I get this right? Amsoil, with their limited funds, just took a single sample and made a simple test and we should take it at face value as no more than that. Results may not be typical and can vary. They are just what they got in this one test. They aren't claiming it is typical of their product nor the competitions or anything just this one test? I believe I got that right. If so, and I am not missing something here in what you meant, then explain to me the way they started this paper off( ie; the introduction ). That sure reads to me like some serious conclusions and that it is implying a lot more than a random store sample and a one time result. It is presented as this is a fact jack and you can take it to the bank( on Amsoil and the competition that was tested ). I must have missed the random sample, one time results not typical and may vary, disclaimer in there. ..
"This comprehensive study of gear lubricants will undoubtedly shake up the marketplace. Fourteen of the most popular brands of gear lube were tested at an independent laboratory in areas such as pour point, 4-ball EP weld point, 4-ball EP load-wear index, Falex extreme pressure and many other tests used in meeting API GL-5 performance requirements and SAE J306 viscosity requirements.
The purpose of the Gear Oil White Paper is to inform consumers about the increasingly severe conditions under which differentials operate and to provide data reflecting the quality and cost differences of many popular synthetic and petroleum gear lubes. With this information, consumers are better prepared to make informed decisions when purchasing gear lubricants. All performance testing was conducted by an independent laboratory. Physical-property testing (viscosity, viscosity index, pour point and foaming after oxidation) was conducted in-house. Gear lube pricing was obtained from the manufacturers or distributors.
This no-frills study is designed to help consumers make informed decisions when selecting gear oils. There is no hype and no sales pitch -- just facts. Never before has so much information on gear oils been delivered in one easy to understand source."
Originally Posted By: Pablo
If you are implying they just "dry labbed" the results then you would be wrong.
Not sure what you mean?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Amsoil does not typically zoom in and pick on one oil blender.
Agree pretty much with that. However, they do have a core group that I believe they feel is the main competition such as RP, RL, M1 and they DO try their best to cut them down to pump themselves up. What I see them do anyway.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
People do want comparative test data, if they just label the samples A,B,C or X,Y, Z people then demand to know what the oils were.
Agreed but I question the integrity of any test Amsoil runs or commissions. They have shown to be untrustworthy in my experience so I have doubts about the claims they not only make about the competition but also their own oils. You certainly can feel otherwise.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Also, you are free to email Kevin Dinwiddie at Amsoil to ask him detailed questions about the testing and results.
Last time I spoke with Amsoil Tech was about ATF+4 and their universal ATF. I still have a headache and am still dizzy from the run around I got.
Let me just state again that I have no issues with Amsoil's products. They are excellent. In the top 5 out there( ie synthetic fluids ). I do however have big issues with their business practices( there is that better than calling them liars and shady? ). Now, you may choose not to believe me but I have personally seen them lie and twist the truth about the competition and their own product. I don't like that at all and because of it I am soured on that company. I admit it and don't try to hide it at all however but I always state why I don't like them instead of just "it sucks dude" like so many do with RP HERE.
Amsoil's products are great, excellent, top shelf, one of the ebst, hard to beat, primo, etc... just don't believe everything they tell you about the competition and take what they tell you about themselves with some skepticism. I trust John Q public and what he says about their stuff but not so much the company or distributors spouting the company line. As far as RP goes I have never been lied to yet by them nor have I seen them lie nor get caught in a lie( they may have lied - just haven't heard of/seen it - until I do I doubt it ) and they don't go around trashing the competition.
Thus, yes, I do give more credit to what they say than what Amsoil says. Not because I like the product but because it is basd on business ethics and a track record of honesty vs one of less than honest statements.
Hopefully no hard feelings. Just get sick of the RP bashing all the time here. I could care less what oil you use or sell or "promote" here. I find this study highly questionabvle however and would hope others would take it with a grain of salt. Too much of it does not add up.
Regards and again I apologize for the PIMP misunderstanding.
Originally Posted By: hooperswish1
Sorry to create such a controversy. I think they both are good oils.I am just glad that both rp and amsoil are American made and that they both lead to free market competition.
So Pablo, putting the 75w90 in as opposed to swapping for the 110 should be fine, right? since that is the factory spec? Or is the factory just putting in the thin stuff for mpg sticker specs? Can I expect mpg improvements with the 90, or is it way to minute to mention? I want good mpg (don't we all) without sacrifices good quality lubrication for 200k of vehicle life I hope. Maybe put in the 90 and only go for say 30k, or does the mileage have nothing to do with it, as it is just too thin. A lot of people here are swearing by the thinner motor oils, so why should gear oils be any different?
Thanks for your reply.
No need to apologize. I am actually glad you posted it so I knew it was out there. Thanks.
Sorry to create such a controversy. I think they both are good oils.I am just glad that both rp and amsoil are American made and that they both lead to free market competition.
So Pablo, putting the 75w90 in as opposed to swapping for the 110 should be fine, right? since that is the factory spec? Or is the factory just putting in the thin stuff for mpg sticker specs? Can I expect mpg improvements with the 90, or is it way to minute to mention? I want good mpg (don't we all) without sacrifices good quality lubrication for 200k of vehicle life I hope. Maybe put in the 90 and only go for say 30k, or does the mileage have nothing to do with it, as it is just too thin. A lot of people here are swearing by the thinner motor oils, so why should gear oils be any different?
Thanks for your reply.
No need to apologize. I am actually glad you posted it so I knew it was out there. Thanks.
Originally Posted By: hooperswish1
Sorry to create such a controversy. I think they both are good oils.I am just glad that both rp and amsoil are American made and that they both lead to free market competition.
So Pablo, putting the 75w90 in as opposed to swapping for the 110 should be fine, right? since that is the factory spec? Or is the factory just putting in the thin stuff for mpg sticker specs? Can I expect mpg improvements with the 90, or is it way to minute to mention? I want good mpg (don't we all) without sacrifices good quality lubrication for 200k of vehicle life I hope. Maybe put in the 90 and only go for say 30k, or does the mileage have nothing to do with it, as it is just too thin. A lot of people here are swearing by the thinner motor oils, so why should gear oils be any different?
Thanks for your reply.
hooperswitch - believe me, you created no controversy. Running the 75W-90 in theory will give you better MPG, but you probably won't notice a thing. On the other it is true the 75W-110 will provide slightly better protection. It's just that way with gear oil. Higher viscosity is typically higher film strength and with better EP protection. Is it worth draining out? No. Go 30K.
The piece of knowledge on the viscosity specifications is here:
http://www.lubrizol.com/products/automotive-gear-oil/J306.asp
You see the old 75W-90 specification was split in two. Low end is now 75W-90 and upper end of old spec is now 75W-110. It bugs me that some oil companies are really slow on the uptake on this viscosity change, so some sell oil labeled at 75W-90 that is really is 75W-110.
Sorry to create such a controversy. I think they both are good oils.I am just glad that both rp and amsoil are American made and that they both lead to free market competition.
So Pablo, putting the 75w90 in as opposed to swapping for the 110 should be fine, right? since that is the factory spec? Or is the factory just putting in the thin stuff for mpg sticker specs? Can I expect mpg improvements with the 90, or is it way to minute to mention? I want good mpg (don't we all) without sacrifices good quality lubrication for 200k of vehicle life I hope. Maybe put in the 90 and only go for say 30k, or does the mileage have nothing to do with it, as it is just too thin. A lot of people here are swearing by the thinner motor oils, so why should gear oils be any different?
Thanks for your reply.
hooperswitch - believe me, you created no controversy. Running the 75W-90 in theory will give you better MPG, but you probably won't notice a thing. On the other it is true the 75W-110 will provide slightly better protection. It's just that way with gear oil. Higher viscosity is typically higher film strength and with better EP protection. Is it worth draining out? No. Go 30K.
The piece of knowledge on the viscosity specifications is here:
http://www.lubrizol.com/products/automotive-gear-oil/J306.asp
You see the old 75W-90 specification was split in two. Low end is now 75W-90 and upper end of old spec is now 75W-110. It bugs me that some oil companies are really slow on the uptake on this viscosity change, so some sell oil labeled at 75W-90 that is really is 75W-110.
- Status
Similar threads
