AMSOIL AND A 2014 CHEVY SILVERADO

[kschachn]

Exactly, where is the limit? What if I choose to use coolant instead of oil? Surely that isn't covered.

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I also don't agree with their interpretation that "consumers have the freedom to use aftermarket products of their choice without fear of losing the original limited or implied vehicle warranty," but I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. My understanding of MM was that yes, you can use aftermarket products, but those products must still adhere to the OEM requirements/specifications. So back to that 1% SA limit that the other poster noted above....

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Exactly, where is the limit? What if I choose to use coolant instead of oil? Surely that isn't covered.

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I also don't agree with their interpretation that "consumers have the freedom to use aftermarket products of their choice without fear of losing the original limited or implied vehicle warranty," but I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. My understanding of MM was that yes, you can use aftermarket products, but those products must still adhere to the OEM requirements/specifications. So back to that 1% SA limit that the other poster noted above....

Interesting. If you use the wrong coolant I'd say you'd be on the hook for repairs. If you fill a cooling system with OAT coolant that calls for HOAT, or one of the one size fits all coolants you might be opening up a can of worms. Especially if you overheat, or plug up the cooling system, and it is the coolant wasn't spec'd for the engine. Long gone are the days of coolant is coolant.

With regard to using an oil that doesn't have the proper certifications, that's real easy. Blow up an engine, tow it into the dealer and it will sit there weeks until the finger pointing stops, and a court decides who pays. No oil company or car mfg is going to smile and pay out if they can find a way out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

 

[zpinch]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: zpinch
Seriously, DOES the Magnusson Moss Act protect consumers at all with regard to warranty requirements like Dexos?

Amsoil's official stance on this is on their website:

Quote:
How does using AMSOIL synthetic motor oil affect new vehicle warranties?

Answer: Using AMSOIL synthetic motor oil has no affect on vehicle warranties. A federal law called the Magnuson-Moss Act (1975) prevents original equipment manufacturers from putting conditions on vehicle warranties attached to any product or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name, unless the manufacturer provides that product or service free of charge. This means consumers have the freedom to use aftermarket products of their choice without fear of losing the original limited or implied vehicle warranty. For additional information, contact the AMSOIL Technical Department at (715) 399-TECH (8324) or [email protected].

But to me, the above doesn't really answer the question. Notice the part I underlined. Is a manufacturer oil specification (such as dexos1) considered a product or service? To me, it's not. It's a specification detailing what the product must be like, just like you have specifications for tires, airbags, seat belts, headlights, etc.

I also don't agree with their interpretation that "consumers have the freedom to use aftermarket products of their choice without fear of losing the original limited or implied vehicle warranty," but I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. My understanding of MM was that yes, you can use aftermarket products, but those products must still adhere to the OEM requirements/specifications. So back to that 1% SA limit that the other poster noted above....

Yes, I know, that is why I am questioning this. Does this mean GM should have to cover the cost of oil changes if Dexos is required for warranty? That is what I understand from the M.M. Act.

 

[GM4LIFE]

Any GM engine will be ok running Amsoil, but do I want to take GM to court and fight them on it? Will Amsoil buy me a new engine without a court fight either? I don't want to bother or hassle with it, so I only run a Dexos 1 approved synthetic oil in my GM vehicles. Better safe than sorry.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: zpinch
Does this mean GM should have to cover the cost of oil changes if Dexos is required for warranty? That is what I understand from the M.M. Act.

No, because Dexos is not a product or service. It is just a specification, and there are many products out there that meet this specification.

The only circumstance where MM is applicable is when a car manufacturer forces you to use one single product, and that product happens to be the one they sell, leaving the consumer with no choice. This is not the case here at all. Many companies make dexos1 certified oils, so the consumer has plenty of choice.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
Any GM engine will be ok running Amsoil, but do I want to take GM to court and fight them on it? Will Amsoil buy me a new engine without a court fight either? I don't want to bother or hassle with it, so I only run a Dexos 1 approved synthetic oil in my GM vehicles. Better safe than sorry.


That my friend is the gist of the argument, you hit nail on the head.
I think its safe to apply that to any other manufacturer.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: zpinch
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: zpinch
Seriously, DOES the Magnusson Moss Act protect consumers at all with regard to warranty requirements like Dexos?

Amsoil's official stance on this is on their website:

Quote:
How does using AMSOIL synthetic motor oil affect new vehicle warranties?

Answer: Using AMSOIL synthetic motor oil has no affect on vehicle warranties. A federal law called the Magnuson-Moss Act (1975) prevents original equipment manufacturers from putting conditions on vehicle warranties attached to any product or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name, unless the manufacturer provides that product or service free of charge. This means consumers have the freedom to use aftermarket products of their choice without fear of losing the original limited or implied vehicle warranty. For additional information, contact the AMSOIL Technical Department at (715) 399-TECH (8324) or [email protected].

But to me, the above doesn't really answer the question. Notice the part I underlined. Is a manufacturer oil specification (such as dexos1) considered a product or service? To me, it's not. It's a specification detailing what the product must be like, just like you have specifications for tires, airbags, seat belts, headlights, etc.

I also don't agree with their interpretation that "consumers have the freedom to use aftermarket products of their choice without fear of losing the original limited or implied vehicle warranty," but I am not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. My understanding of MM was that yes, you can use aftermarket products, but those products must still adhere to the OEM requirements/specifications. So back to that 1% SA limit that the other poster noted above....

Yes, I know, that is why I am questioning this. Does this mean GM should have to cover the cost of oil changes if Dexos is required for warranty? That is what I understand from the M.M. Act.


No, only if GM required you to use GM-branded oil.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: GM4LIFE
Any GM engine will be ok running Amsoil, but do I want to take GM to court and fight them on it? Will Amsoil buy me a new engine without a court fight either? I don't want to bother or hassle with it, so I only run a Dexos 1 approved synthetic oil in my GM vehicles. Better safe than sorry.


That my friend is the gist of the argument, you hit nail on the head.
I think its safe to apply that to any other manufacturer.


Exactly, who needs the hassle, and why bother?

 

[Brons2]

Some people probably feel strongly enough about this Dexos power grab by GM to use a great oil that doesn't carry the certification...like Amsoil.

Note that I am not a user of Amsoil or any Dexos certified products, not on purpose anyway. I think the M1EP in my wife's car is Dexos certified, but whatever.

 

[Shannow]

If it comes to battle stations, I still think you would have a far better case with an API approved oil, of the correct viscosity with other manufacturer's ACTUAL certifications rather than a "trust us"

 

[zpinch]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If it comes to battle stations, I still think you would have a far better case with an API approved oil, of the correct viscosity with other manufacturer's ACTUAL certifications rather than a "trust us"


I don't think a legal term as "Recommended for" is a 'trust us' statement, it IS the proper oil for the job, just doesn't have the fancy logo.

"Suitable for" is a different story, it is NOT a legal term.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If it comes to battle stations, I still think you would have a far better case with an API approved oil, of the correct viscosity with other manufacturer's ACTUAL certifications rather than a "trust us"


Great point, I'd rather have Shell or Mobil in my corner. I had this discussion with a long lost friend who I sold cars with several years ago. He is now a service writer for a Ford and Toyota dealership. We discussed warranties and oil changes yesterday. Here's what he had to say about engine warranties regarding oil related failures. The first thing they do is check the oil level, the next thing is to see if it was dealer serviced and the history. If it was DIY they ask to see the log and invoices for oil and filters. If a person decides to not follow the OM, regarding the oil, viscosity, and time/mile constraints they are left holding the bag. It was that simple. If an oil company says their oil meets or exceeds the spec and you can change your oil once a year, or every 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000 miles and that differs from the OM then he tells the customer they can call the oil company and put in a warranty claim with them. When he spelled it out like that it made a lot of sense. The oil company did not design the engine, sell the car, warranty the engine, or set the interval for oil changes and grades, the car maker did. Don't follow the car makers guidelines you could find yourself asking the oil company to cover the warranty.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: zpinch
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If it comes to battle stations, I still think you would have a far better case with an API approved oil, of the correct viscosity with other manufacturer's ACTUAL certifications rather than a "trust us"


I don't think a legal term as "Recommended for" is a 'trust us' statement, it IS the proper oil for the job, just doesn't have the fancy logo.

"Suitable for" is a different story, it is NOT a legal term.


Really? Recommended by whom the vehicles manufacturer or the company that produced the oil?
If a company is selling a non licensed or approved product (in this case Amsoil) then they by default have to assume the lubrication part of the warranty.
The vehicle manufacturer cannot be expected to warranty something recommended by someone else if it isn't a licensed or approved by them.

IMHO it sure does come down to "trust us" what else could it be? You are trusting them that whatever they recommend even though not approved or licensed will work fine in the engine , transmission, diff, etc.
Its a total trust issue, when things do go bad you also trust them to cough up for the new engine or component. Not a position i would want to find myself in.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: zpinch
I don't think a legal term as "Recommended for" is a 'trust us' statement, it IS the proper oil for the job, just doesn't have the fancy logo.

"Suitable for" is a different story, it is NOT a legal term.

What makes one a legal term but not the other? I see little to no difference between the two.

 

[Indydriver]

Originally Posted By: zuluplus30

Per the 2014 Silverado Owners Manual:

SAE 0W-20 is the best viscosity grade for the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines.

Interesting. The 6.2 in my 2014 Camaro calls for 5w30. The 5.3 in my 2007 Tahoe calls for 5w30.

 

[zpinch]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: zpinch
I don't think a legal term as "Recommended for" is a 'trust us' statement, it IS the proper oil for the job, just doesn't have the fancy logo.

"Suitable for" is a different story, it is NOT a legal term.

What makes one a legal term but not the other? I see little to no difference between the two.


It's the same as comparing "It is...." and "To the best of my knowledge..."

 

[Shannow]

"IT IS" is a statement of fact...Amsoil are saying "recommended for applications requiring"

That's not a statement of fact, it's not stating that the oil meets the specification, and it's not a "legal" term except in weasel words to fleece another customer.

e.g. clearly ACD does NOT meet A3/B4, it's HTHS it too low for the minimum specification for A3/B4...Amsoil still recommend it for applications requiring A3/B4, in spite of that.

What other specifications are they fudging, stretching, implying ?

Which is exactly why they use the "recommended for applications", rather than the more definite legal terms that they COULD have adopted...only if it were true, however.

 

[zpinch]

OMG, it's not 3.5 HTHS! 3.4 HTHS will make your engine explode! Better tell all the other oil makers the same thing...

And BTW, ACD is a A3/B3 oil, no B4.

This thread is done.

EDIT: Also, "recommended for" is a legal term, if your engine blows up, and it can be proven that the oil was responsible, Amsoil is on the hook BECAUSE they used that term.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: zpinch
OMG, it's not 3.5 HTHS! 3.4 HTHS will make your engine explode!

It's not a question of what it'll do. It's a question of principle and how this information can be used to give you grief over a potential warranty claim.

Quote:

Better tell all the other oil makers the same thing...

The other oil makers that say "meets" instead of "recommended for" know what the HT/HS viscosity should be.

Quote:
And BTW, ACD is a A3/B3 oil, no B4.

It doesn't change the fact that HT/HS viscosity needs to be at least 3.5 cP.


Quote:
EDIT: Also, "recommended for" is a legal term, if your engine blows up, and it can be proven that the oil was responsible, Amsoil is on the hook BECAUSE they used that term.

We are going in circles here. Yes, Amsoil is on the hook, but as was pointed out earlier, every corporation has a legal team that gets paid to get them off that hook. While in the end the customer will likely be taken care of, it just adds unnecessary aggravation to the whole process.

BTW, zuluplus30's question about SSO and XL exceeding dexos1 specified SAPS limit has also gone unanswered.

 

[zuluplus30]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: zuluplus30

Per the 2014 Silverado Owners Manual:

SAE 0W-20 is the best viscosity grade for the 5.3L and 6.2L V8 engines.

Interesting. The 6.2 in my 2014 Camaro calls for 5w30. The 5.3 in my 2007 Tahoe calls for 5w30.


Is the 6.2 in you Camaro DI? The 5.3 and 6.2 in the trucks are all direct injected and require 0w-20. Ironically the 4.3 truck motors are also newly redesigned DI that has identical architecture to the Gen 5 V8s but it requires 5w30. ? Sometimes I don't get GM.