Amsoil ACD or HDD for 3 Rigs

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with your statements. I take issue with your use of the words "do not" as if they are absolute.

"... UOA #'s do not equal wear." Really? Then why do a UOA?

Here's what I would agree on:
UOA wear metals may not equate to wear. They typically will equate to wear, but there are times when other phenomenon can skew the UOA. This "skewing" most often occurs when premium group IV lubes with high ester content are used. It is not an absolute occurence, but there is a propensity. I futher state that when this phenomenon occurs, it has the distinct ability (with absolute assurance) that it can mask other detrimental events if they occur. It occurs in many brands with that type of chemistry. In Amsoil UOAs on BITOG over the last couple of years, this phenomenon has occured well more than 50% of the time.

It is patently factual to state that this phenomenon is "well documented" and true, and I would challenge you to prove my statements as false.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I disagree with your statements.

"... UOA #'s do not equal wear." Really? Then why do a UOA?

Here's what I would agree on:
UOA wear metals may not equate to wear. They typically will equate to wear, but there are times when other phenomenon can skew the UOA. This "skewing" most often occurs when premium group IV lubes with high ester content are used. It is not an absolute occurence, but it is a propensity. I futher state that when this phenomenon occurs, it has the distinct ability (with absolute assurance) that it can mask other detrimental events when if they occur. It occurs in many brands with that type of chemistry. In Amsoil UOAs on BITOG over the last couple of years, this phenomenon has occured well more than 50% of the time. It is patently factual to state that this is "well documented".



UOA's are NOT for oil comparisons. I thought as a mod you would know this. If you don't believe me, talk to Mobil or Redline. Dissolved metals are not wear, or not all wear. There have been documented cases when the UOA showed relatively low FE, for example but ferrography showed some nasty iron bits.

UOA's can and should be used for trending over time - same engine, same oil in use, over time and watching for patterns. You simply have fallen into BITOGobia (as have I) to look and ewe and awe at low metal UOA's and say "nice wear".
 
I know what UOAs are for; I've been using them both professionally and personnaly for many, many years. They most certainly can be used for oil comparisons, but you must have large amounts of data and not just one UOA for that type of use. UOAs help predict many things. They are a direct view of the health of oil, and an indirct view of the health of the equipment. For you to state "UOA #'s do not equal wear" is just plain silly, as if there is total absolution in your decree. What total bunk. Further, I never said that all the content of wear metals was "wear" in this thread, or any other.

You seem to like to be able to make absolute statements, but then fail to be able to back them up. NONE of your comments in this thread speak to the fact that you claimed my statement was false. None of your subsequent comments speak to the contradictory statements of "That's just not true. It's true ...". All the factual basis to the contrary. There clearly is documentation as to many Amsoil UOAs having high Fe and/or Cu. I posted 12, one of which you disagree with. What of the other 11? Do you think they are untrue or not well documented?

Further, apprently it's time again for you to throw down the "moderator" topic again. So I'll yet again challenge you to point out my abuse of power or breaking of rules. Moderators are responsible for enforcing the site rules and administering decisions; nothing more or less. I am participating in this thread as a member, not a moderator. I have no valid reason at this point to "moderate" this thread. I have every intention and priviledge as a "member" to comment on what I see. To this day, I don't understand how you cannot differentiate the difference between Dave-the-member and Dave-the-moderator. This conversation that you and I have every couple months regardig Amsoil has nothing to do with my actions as a moderator, but has everything to do with your desire to deflect from the facts and focus on the obscure. Once again, you do not disappoint. You'd make a great lawyer; when the facts are on your side, argue the facts, but when they are not, attack the opponent.

All that aside, I do wish you and your family to have a great Thanksgiving. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean that I cannot find care enough for you and yours to enjoy the start of the Holiday season.
 
Last edited:
I acknowledged the elevated Cu. We are done discussing this. You alleged Amsoil motor oil causes elevated Fe. I have not seen proof of this. Seems to me I shouldn't have to disprove it.

I wrote
Quote:
Dissolved metals are not wear, or not all wear.
. That's not a very "absolute" statement.

OK I have to disprove your statements - well I did look at the list. Honestly - you have samples with coolant leaks, you have samples with nearly brand new engines, you have samples from Schaffers, and you have samples with long elapsed times....all used in very different conditions in different engines. A total misuse of UOA's for comparative purposes, but if I look at the numbers realistically with a somewhat trained eye there is no general pattern of elevated Fe caused by the motor oil - even in a list that you hand picked.

Yes - have a great holiday!!
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3


willypete
I'd have to suggest not using Amsoil at all, nor any synthetic for that matter. At max OCIs of 10k miles, you could likely get good service from a quality dino 10w-30 HDEO in TX. I suggest you consider a dino like Rotella, Delvac or Delo in 10w-30; the Rotella is becoming fairly easy to find at farm stores and I've even seen it in some O'Rielly parts stores recently. Or, consider T5 or JT8 in semi-syn. They are very robust and will serve all your needs. The JT8 is especially cost effective; I've seen it for $25/2-gallon container.

You certainly can use Amsoil; they are very good products with a strong, solid, well-earned reputation. But your OCI plan isn't going to come anywhere close to getting a decent ROI, and you'll be wasting money big time by using such an expensive fluid.



thumbsup2.gif
There's some sound info you can take to the bank with you.
 
Pablo -

Listed examples from my previous post, in order:

1: Fe at 46, Cu at 364, 10k miles on oil; no evidence of other influencing factors, not “break in” on a vehicle with that many miles.

2: Fe at 53, Cu at 184, 22.5k miles on oil; no evidence of other influencing factors, vehicle at 100k+ miles is certainly not “new” or “break in”.

3: I put this in to show that Amsoil is not the only one that experiences this phenomenon. I did, however, make a mistake when I counted it into the total; my apology.

4: Fe at 34, Cu at 681! 16.5k miles on oil, no other influences. Not a new truck by any means. (Note, Oil Analyzers calls this Cu count as “moderate”. REALLY? That’s their idea of “moderate”? I’d hate to see what they think “extreme” Cu equates to …)

5: Fe 9, Cu 12, 3.5k miles on oil; 32k miles on truck. No evidence of contamination. Numbers are low because of low total oil use, but on a “per mile” basis, they are well above average. This is the one you initially took exception to. If I understand your objection, you claim that the “time” of 4 years contributes to the higher Fe? OK – maybe you’re right. But wouldn’t that just mean that he could use a dino lube, change it more often, and save money while getting less Fe? What’s your point? That to bring the Fe down on a “per year” basis, he should use Amsoil but change it every year, averaging only 875 miles a year per OCI????????

6: Fe at 37, Cu at 74, 14.6k miles on oil. No contamination to note. 126k miles on a PSD.

7: Fe at 28, Cu at 12; only 5k miles on the oil, 20k on the truck on his 4th oil change, which means any “break in” residual should be long gone. First OCI with Rotella, the subsequent three with Amsoil, at approximately 5k mile OCIs. Whatever you say about the numbers, it’s all on Amsoil after three consecutive OCIs, as the “flush” has already occurred after 4 events of 5k mile OCIs. This isn’t break in; this isn’t anything but Amsoil at work.

8: Fe at 26, Cu at 5, 10k miles on the Amsoil, 70k on truck. No evidence of contamination.

9: Fe at 51, Cu at 7, about 10k miles on oil and 40k on truck. No contamination present. Not the first Amsoil load either.

10: Two Amsoil UOAs together, most recent with Fe at 18 and Cu at 188 right at the universal average of 6.7k miles. (The Cu had been 371 and Fe at 33 on the previous UOA!) Truck is NOT new with 25k miles on a Dmax. Both Fe and Cu are trending down; cut about in half from previous numbers. No contamination. I like the direction of the Cu and Fe. But this is NOT indicative of “break in”. Those of us who own Dmax’s never saw that much Cu or Fe during break-in with dino fluids. My personal experience with my Dmax, and talking with many of my acquaintances with Dmax vehicles, shows that these numbers are WAY above the “normal” break in numbers. Is some portion of these numbers in these UOAs “break in”? Probably, but only 20% or so, and that leaves 80% of these levels attributable to the chemistry of Amsoil. To infer this is “break in” is a very lop-sided view of the facts.

11: This UOA shows elevated numbers, but no evidence of contamination. Could be break-in, but it certainly is Amsoil in the crankcase. And again, just like example 10, when one uses Amsoil during break in, the vast majority of the numbers are due to the chemistry.

12: Two Amsoil UOAs together, with Fe at 194 in 25k miles (was 151 at 20k). Cu is well in check at 15 and 12. Being a 2001 PSD, this ain’t break in, and it’s not contamination.



So, I’m confused here about your objections; please state the examples you disagree with.
Just which are the examples where you see clear evidence of contamination?
Which examples had the coolant leaks (you stated it as a plural, so which are they)?
I see one example that is likely some small portion of break-in (example 11); I also emphatically state that the overall quantity is NOT break in, and I (among others) have personal experience as to draw direct experience from when it comes to Dmax engines.
I purposely used a variety of engines and exposures, to show the breadth of the topic, and I stated that previously. What in the world is your objection to that?



This was NOT a list of UOAs for “comparative purposes”, Pablo. This was a list of UOAs (all but one is Amsoil) that shows my initial statement to be true. I stated that there is “well documented” evidence of Amsoil UOAs with high Cu and/or Fe. I went back about two years and got 11 UOAs out of 17 Amsoil UOAs. (Initially I had counted wrong about the Schaeffer one; I’m admitting my error, but it really doesn’t change the total percentage very much as 12/18 and 11/17 are only .02 different in percentage points). I would challenge you to go find, in that same time period, UOAs of conventional oils where approximately 2/3rds of the samples showed abnormally high Fe and Cu.

If you get back to the basis of my post a few pages back, I was commenting that LouieLouie was inferring his lighter grade Amsoil was the cause of his elevated metal counts. I merely countered with the fact that I believe it was not the lighter grade, but simply the Amsoil chemistry. I don’t see the value of using Amsoil if the OP is going to do short OCIs. However, I agree with you that HDD would be an excellent choice if he’s going to extend the OCIs way out. There are some excellent UOA examples that show Amsoil’s products can be used successfully. That’s all I stated initially; nothing more and nothing less. Somehow, once again, you took it as a “Amsoil bash”, when that clearly wasn’t the case. I complimented Amsoil’s products and agreed with you, conditionally, if the OP was going to extend his OCI. Then you ignore the factual basis for my comments about the existence of the high Fe and Cu in Amsoil UOAs, and erroneously attack me as a moderator.

In short, I disagree with the use of any synthetics if the OCIs for the OP’s three rigs are going to be short to moderate; I agree that HDD would be a good choice if the OCI is going to be greatly extended. And I disagree with LouieLouie that his wear metals were due to the lighter grade lube; I believe I’ve shown that, at times, Amsoil and other brands will result in higher Fe and Cu metal counts due to chemistry of the lubes themselves.

Like I said before, why don’t we let the folks review the UOAs for themselves, and make up their own minds?
 
Last edited:
Just as examples, #4 has coolant ingress, one samples was run with a low sump, yes some engines are still breaking in at 20K, especially if the operator gets on it, all factors that effect Fe with any oil.

My point remains that grabbing 11 or 12 UOA's posted on BITOG does not make a grand mean. You certainly are not correct to compare a singular UOA to some number in your head that you call normal. Therefore you can't call what you do statistical analysis. That's all I have to say at this point.

Have a good Holiday season and Happy Thanksgiving!!
 
Example #4 does not have conclusive proof that there is coolant ingress. There is a lack of sodium, indicating that the K alone is not "proof" of coolant. Is it your premise that the total Fe and Cu is completely addressed by your assumption of a coolant leak? That seems like a HUGE leap of faith; frankly I'm not willing to jump on board there. Also, you initially mentioned that multiple UOAs had coolant issues, but is this the only one you're able to point out? A "possible" intusion, and no others? That lacks credibility of your initial criticism; you said there was evidence of "samples with coolant leaks". "Samples" is a plural reference in your complaint, but you only contend one. And even that one is an "iffy" pretense as there is no sodium to go with the potasium. I'm going to be blunt; you're exaggerating your complaints to defelct the facts. There are not multiple examples of coolant intrusion, and only one is a "possible" (but not conclusive) one.

One sample run a bit low on oil? (I assume you're referring to example #2?) I'll say this: So what? Did you read my most recent Dmax UOA? I ran it down to the bottom of the range and NEVER added a drop of oil (on purpose), to see just how bad I could treat the oil, and I NEVER got Fe or Cu levels that high. I flogged my oil as hard and long as I could on purpose to see how "bad" I could treat the oil. Nice try, but a low oil level should NEVER contribute to a high wear metal count that badly as seen in the example I linked, and if that's your statement, then it just goes to show how much "better" a dino can be than a premium syn. Here's my UOA for contrast; I let it get as low as safely possible and my Fe and Cu were fine.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2397861&page=1
What's that say about Amsoil versus a dino 10w-30? Seems to me that my low sump was much better protected than this Amsoil sump to which you refer. On top of that, example #2 shows that he ran a 15 quart sump (IIRC for a 7.3PSD) and lost 4 quarts of oil over 8k miles. I ran a 10 quart sump and lost 2 quarts in 6.5k miles. On a "per mile" basis, my dino 10w-30 Rotella had a "better" sump capacity retention than did the premium Amsoil, even after I abused the oil as hard as I could. What should we conclude here? You state that a low sump capcity was the cause of the high wear numbers in the Amsoil UOA. He lost about 25% oil; I lost 20%. His Cu was 8.2ppm/1k miles; mine was 0.5ppm/1k miles. His Fe was 2.4ppm/1k miles; mine was 2.1ppm/1k miles. In short, I got way less wear metals with less sump loss from a lowly dino oil while floggin' the poo out of my oil. His Fe and Cu were not only high, but were showing an escalation with successive Amsoil UOAs. Let the numbers speak for themselves, and let the masses judge for themselves.

Your comments about break in are subjective; I own a Dmax and I communicate with several others that do. We've NEVER seen "break in" wear that high with dino oils. Sure, there are some engines that are still breaking in at 20k miles. Do me a favor and find/link several dino UOAs at 20k miles with Fe and Cu as high as the ones I showed for Amsoil in the last two years of BITOG UOAs in HDEO.

My numbers are based upon two data bases; Blackstone, and my personal UOA database with more than 500 UOAs. These are not numbers out of my head. There is nothing wrong with comparing or contrasting a singular UOA to a group of data points. What in the world do you think statistical analysis is for? It is a basis to judge and predict a particular situation relevant to other similar circumstances from previous experiences. I agree that 12 UOAs don't make a "grand mean" but certainly the Blackstone "universal average" does. A "grand mean"? Maybe not. But 11 out of 17 UOAs is a big, fat "RED X" warning pointing directly towards Amsoil with "well documented" high Fe and Cu.
 
Last edited:
Just because you won't acknowledge coolant ingress doesn't make it not so. I did say multiple, yes it looks like it was just one, I thought there was another. Point being, every UOA, including yours is unique to your application and your usage. Comparable to itself over time.

I have no idea why the guy was low on oil, but 4 quarts low will certain effect a UOA. 2.1 vs 2.4 ppm is not statistically significant and a portion of that could be due to his low sump.

I'm not digging for breaki UOA's. I'm too tired. You really have no idea how some people drive their vehicles, your flogging could be someone's easy driving.

I'd love to see your 500 Amsoil UOA's someday. That would be cool.

Bottom line Amsoil does not cause high iron wear.
 
And just because you said it was coolant ingress doesn't make it so. I acknowledged it's possible; I do not agree it's confirmed.

Who cares why he was low on oil in example #2? Maybe he did it on purpose like it did; maybe he ignored it and forgot. Facts are hard to refute; the numbers are in front of you. Why did the Amsoil experience a more significant sump volume loss, and have more wear metals present on a per-mile basis, than my dino UOA?

My UOA clearly and articulately defined my severity of driving, and I doubt anyone could have been "harder" on the oil than I was in my UOA. Why did I point this out? Because you claimed that the low sump volume was causing the wear metals to jump up. I posted my UOA to show that a lower sump is not automatically a cause to blame the fluid level. While the OP in example #2 may or may not drive as hard as I did, I'm pretty darn sure he didn't drive any harder than I did.

Your explanation of the wear metals in that example was pointing toward the low sump, as an attempt to dissuade others from believing that the chemistry is at work, was it not? I'm not buying that as a reasonable explanation. I agree that a low sump might contribute some small amount, but the vast majority of that example was chemistry reaction, and for you to state otherwise seems silly, at least to me. You're grasping for straws there.

I never stated that Amsoil causes high Fe wear in this thread. Again, you jump to a conclusion based upon your suppostion of my position. I have stated many times (in this thread and others) that there are many Amsoil UOAs that have high Fe and/or Cu counts. That is FACTUAL. I've linked them, and you've given some pretty lame excuses for them. But I NEVER said the fluid caused high wear. (I will note here that Blackstone is on record in one of these UOAs and stating that the high Cu and Fe were "abrasive" and that continued use was ill-advised.) I am pointing out that the fact that high Fe and Cu exist in those UOAs. It's YOUR conclusion that Amsoil didn't cause the high wear metal counts. Other people are not bound to your conclusions, and have the ability to make up their own minds. I merely point out the facts; I let others think for themselves.


What a lot of this comes down to, Pablo, is a matter of (shall we say) perspective. I'll explain ...

There are a lot of successful Amsoil UOAs; I agree with that. Amsoil makes a great product line; I agree with that. There are times when using Amsoil, or other premium syn, can make good fiscal sense; I agree with that.

But there are times when Amsoil (and other brands like it) do not make sense. There are times when these brands cause odd phenomenon like spiked wear metal counts; you're welcome to deny it, but I don't think you'd be very credible if you did.

When these spiked UOAs are viewed only among themselves, they don't seem too abnormal. If we ONLY looked at Amsoil UOAs with high Fe and Cu, then they would have a unique level of "average" Fe and Cu. That "normal" would be high to the rest of us, but it would be acceptable in that little niche world. We see this "point of view" in the differnce between a Blackstone UOA and an OA UOA for Amsoil fluids.
I will quote Blackstone from example #1:
Universal averages show normal wear for the 6.6L Duramax after 6,600 miles of oil use. Your
15W/40 oil was in use 10,255 miles and we found iron (steel parts) and copper (brass/bronze parts) reading
high, with copper at a whopping 364 ppm. That copper can be from the turbo, engine bushings or an oil
cooler. This much metal in the oil makes it too abrasive for extended use, and long oil runs like this one may
cause more problems down the road. We suggest a 3,000-mile oil change and check back to monitor wear.
Caution: copper!

They caution Cu at 364ppm and call it "whopping" and say it can cause wear.

Here is the OA viewpoint of Cu in UOA example #4 where Cu is 681ppm:
UOA by Oil Analyzers: LAB COMMENTS: Data flagged for observation only; Copper is at a MODERATE LEVEL; Suspect most of the copper may be coming from the lube cooler (as applicable); Potassium is at a MINOR LEVEL; Potassium sources: coolant (antifreeze), lube additive or supplement, solder flux, coating on new bearings, rust preventive coating, or environmental. Your note was taken into consideration; Oil is suitable for continued use. Re-sample in 7,000 miles or 125 hours.
Overall severity of report--------2 (abnormal)

Note that they call Cu "moderate" and the overall report "abnormal". What the heck does that mean? 681 "moderate" ppm of Cu ok for continued use, but it's "severity 2 abnormal"? Also note that they say that "most" of the Cu "may" be from the cooler; they leave open the possibility of Cu ALSO being from another source! Let's read their words and analyze; "suspect" (as in cannot prove), "most" (as in not all), "may" (as in other possibilities exist). They call out the UOA as "abnormal" but then say to go ahead and use the oil? What the heck? Talk about a mixed message ...

Blackstone sees UOAs from as WIDE variety of sources and brands and grades and base stocks and such. OA probably sees a MUCH NARROWER view of oils; mostly Amsoil I would suspect. (They do, after all, specifically mention Amsoil on their home page and are associated with Amsoil in some fassion, are they not?). Are they biased? Probably not ... But I can say that because they see a vast majority of their UOAs being Amsoil, then their viewpoint is going to be skewed, is it not? Why would Blackstone call 364ppm of Cu and 46ppm of Fe as abrasive but OA calls 681 ppm of Cu and 34ppm of Fe "moderate"? Blackstone has no loyality to anyone but the paying customer. OA has a relationship with Amsoil. I'll let people decide for themselves how that might play out. But it IS a factual, fair observation, no matter how you might spin it, Pablo.

Time for one of my famous analogies ...
If one lived in a crime-infested Detroit block, then murder and robbery might seem "normal". You hear frequent gunshots, you and your friends are often concerned about the threats. But it seems "normal" because the view is very narrow; you don't travel out of the couple blocks where you grew up. You only see what immediately surrounds you on a daily basis.

Others of us don't live in that environment, and realize that type of living is only "normal" for the niche within a niche. The experiences within that small neighborhood don't equate to the outside world.

My point is that some (but not all) Amsoil UOAs will exhibit high Fe and Cu; on this site I've shown that 11 out of 17 have this phenomenon. You can try to explain away the occurences with "possible" causes (it might be coolant, it might be low oil levels) but those issues exist outside of the Amsoil world, too, and the wear metal counts are not nearly as effected. That leaves us with the reasonable conclusion that the chemistry of Amsoil, and other brands, contribute to higher metal counts. To ask us to believe otherwise is to ask us to ignore the facts.

Perhaps in the Amsoil world 200ppm, 300ppm, and 600ppm of Cu is "normal", but it ain't so in my world. Perhaps in the Amsoil world, 30ppm or 50ppm or 70ppm of Fe is OK, but not in my world. These counts are "high" on a per-miles basis in the UOA examples I linked previoulsy.

I am NOT saying that using Amsoil is the kiss of death. To the contrary, there are times when I agree and recommend the use of Amsoil as quite a good decision. In fact, in this very thread I agree with you (conditionally) that the use of HDD might be a good tool here for the OP (who's probably already lost interest ...).

But I do NOT agree that every Amsoil UOA under the sun is OK just because a salesman and/or biased lab says so.
 
Last edited:
Now you are saying Amsoil labs are biased and Blackstone is spot on with their comments? I was ready to let it drop, but you keep adding snippets of your bias and lack of knowledge in your long posts. Amsoil yes does collect funds for UOA's. However the labs used around around the country are Polaris. Amsoil contracts with the labs. Amsoil selected Polaris based on their technical ability. Polaris with all their labs sees many more and a much broader spectrum of lubricants than Blackstone.

http://www.polarislabs.com/

If somehow you think Blackstone's comments are gospel and Polaris purposely tenderfoots Amsoil samples, well all I can say is good luck with that. I can now see how you thought copper is somehow an abrasive metal in an iron engine. Talk about grasping at straws.

Lastly - I NEVER said Amsoil is the best in ALL applications. Nor did I say all Amsoil UOA's are great. I agree some of the UOA's you hand selected look terrible. But I'm sure a knowledgeable person (apparently not you or I
lol.gif
) could get the issues sorted out without brand swapping.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Paul
 
Yes, I believe it's possbile that the OA labs are biased in their reports.

By "biased" I mean that they trend to one end of the spectrum. Let me be clear that I do NOT intend to infer or believe them to be unethical or malicious. I'm state (like my analogy of Detroit) that because they see many UOAs come with Amsoil as the lubes with these high Fe and Cu counts, they don't have a large clear view of "normal". Their viewpoint of "normal" is skewed. So yes, I think that they may be biased. It's "normal" to see high Cu and Fe at times in premium lube UOAS, just like it's "normal" to hear gunfire in Detroit. Not desirable; just "normal".


We all get to see lots of UOAs from lots of labs. Blackstone is very popular, but they are not the only game in town. CAT labs, OA, and many, many local labs exist. For a while at Ford, we did our own UOAs in the chem lab rather than sending our samples out.

OA is the only lab source that I know of that calls 684ppm of Cu "moderate". And when I called Blackstone, and our regional CAT source, and the lab at DA, they all agreed with Blackstone that 600+ppm of Cu is way above normal, not desirable, and when considered in combination with the elevated FE, a cause for an OCI because of the potential for wear concerns. So, yes, I believe that both you and OA are "biased". You've come to accept these elevated numbers as "normal", and within the niche of the niche, they might be. But they are NOT normal to the rest of the world.

And I cannot fathom how a lab states 684ppm of Cu is "moderate", but rates a UOA as "severity 2 abnormal" and then tells a guy to keep running the lube. Like I said, a very mixed message. But, I've also seen some bizzare comments from nearly other lab out there. No, I don't take comments as the gospel. But I find the dichotomy of the statements reagarding the Cu levels a bit in opposition; would you disagree?

No, I've never heard you say that Amsoil is best for all aplications. There have been times when I think you've been very honest and agree that syn's don't make sense for short to moderate OCIs. But, I never said you stated otherwise.

Lastly, I took 11 of the 17 going back about two years. I saw no sense in posting all 17 of the 17 because they were not all examples of my topic. All 17 samples though, do show a strong propensity (well more than 50%) for Amsoil to have elevated Cu and Fe. Would you want me to go back further? I can if you wish. How many more examples of high Cu and Fe would you like to see?

I had a great Thanksgiving, and I truly hope that yours went very well, too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top