Amsoil base stocks not what they used to be?

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Yes EXACTLY. Just people claiming stuff. It's all marketing fluff. Amsoil is no better or worse.


Well amsoil didn't dilute their oils with cheap group 3 when it was decided group 3s were "close enough" to synthetic(mobil). The company has consistently stuck to their guns with their product and didn't fool the consumer into thinking they were still getting what they paid for when it comes to synthetic(mobil). Amsoil as a company has shown time and time again that the company has integrity. All business's care about their bottom line,amsoil left their product the same even though it would have helped their bottom line to follow the pack with their weaker group 3 oils,and still badged them synthetic. They didn't. And the uneducated public still believes the mobil 1 bull even though their formulation has changed how many times to a cheaper product,but the cost to consumer stays the same.


Amsoil uses bogus 4-ball wear testing and TFOUT testing to prove....nothing. They followed Mobil's lead and went to PAO's after their original formulation was abandoned. Oh, they didn't develop that either.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Some time ago Amsoil wanted to get the point across about not focusing on one aspect ONLY because then the competition would just up their number and exceed that parameter....Amsoil used to have (around 2003-2004) "100% PAO" on the cases. I pointed out, "hey the oil isn't 100% PAO, it's got some esters", and they said, "yeah you are correct" and whammo off the case it came. If they put 75% PAO, then the concern is someone will say 80% PAO and so on


Hi Pablo,

With all due respect, I just don't understand this. No one says they have to state a percentage on the label, just "based on PAO and esters" will do fine. It seems to me that if a company is trying to sell a product at a higher price than its main competitors because it contains higher cost ingredients, it would make great sense to say so. Instead, a carefully worded "ducking" of the question naturally raises eyebrows. I have heard for years on this board from Amsoil representatives that the top line products contain only PAOs and esters, and it is surprising to now find that corporate will not confirm this in writing on the website.

While I agree that base oils are only part of the quality equation, I don't get at all why a company would not actively promote its use of expensive and premium base oils, especially when this clearly distinguishes them from competitors and justifies the higher price tag. I marketed high priced synthetic ester base oils for 30 years and never failed to promote every advantage they offered. There is nothing proprietary about confirming the use of PAOs and esters. After all, the base oils in several other of their products are openly disclosed.

Do you have anything recent in writing from corporate backing your statements that you can share with us. If not, I'm sure you can understand a degree of skepticism here. I'm not trying to flame Amsoil, but the OP's question is a valid one.

Tom NJ

 

[Pablo]

Tom,

It's exactly as I stated. Amsoil is not in the composition claim game.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: DragRace
[RT] ProjUltraZ,

Seriously whats the purpose if this picture? It adds nothing to this discussion.


Pretty much the same as buster's posts. I love when the Mobil team descends. Let's face facts, Mobil does copy Amsoil. Oh you guys won't ever admit it, but Amsoil was really the first to market extended drain synthetic oil. Sure Al didn't invent synthetic oil. Neither did Mobil. But Mobil knew they needed some extended drain claims and does bounce around a bit with the claims as does Amsoil. Oh and yes of course Amsoil does buy SOME base oils from Mobil. But not all of them, Amsoil has the freedom to explore all the suppliers. Mobil can, but is it in their best interest?

 

[Bayman]

Originally Posted By: DragRace
[RT] ProjUltraZ,

Seriously whats the purpose if this picture? It adds nothing to this discussion.


Soap Opera!

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
With all due respect, I just don't understand this. No one says they have to state a percentage on the label, just "based on PAO and esters" will do fine. It seems to me that if a company is trying to sell a product at a higher price than its main competitors because it contains higher cost ingredients, it would make great sense to say so. Instead, a carefully worded "ducking" of the question naturally raises eyebrows. I have heard for years on this board from Amsoil representatives that the top line products contain only PAOs and esters, and it is surprising to now find that corporate will not confirm this in writing on the website.


Agreed 100%

It seems that giving the dealers the ability to claim Signature Series is a "100% pure synthetic" PAO/ester formulation would only help the sales pitch, especially when upselling from OE/XL or converting others from competing premium synthetic brands.

Amsoil's official answer sure does seem evasive.

 

[jetmech1]

Quote:
Hi Pablo,

With all due respect, I just don't understand this. No one says they have to state a percentage on the label, just "based on PAO and esters" will do fine. It seems to me that if a company is trying to sell a product at a higher price than its main competitors because it contains higher cost ingredients, it would make great sense to say so. Instead, a carefully worded "ducking" of the question naturally raises eyebrows. I have heard for years on this board from Amsoil representatives that the top line products contain only PAOs and esters, and it is surprising to now find that corporate will not confirm this in writing on the website.

While I agree that base oils are only part of the quality equation, I don't get at all why a company would not actively promote its use of expensive and premium base oils, especially when this clearly distinguishes them from competitors and justifies the higher price tag. I marketed high priced synthetic ester base oils for 30 years and never failed to promote every advantage they offered. There is nothing proprietary about confirming the use of PAOs and esters. After all, the base oils in several other of their products are openly disclosed.

Do you have anything recent in writing from corporate backing your statements that you can share with us. If not, I'm sure you can understand a degree of skepticism here. I'm not trying to flame Amsoil, but the OP's question is a valid one.

Tom NJ


Pablo,
While I do understand your earlier response concerning the "marketing angle", Tom has re-stated my concerns and question better than me. There is no valid reason why Amsoil just doesn't come right out and say that their Signature Series is comprised of 100% PAO's and esters. It's only to their advantage. Otherwise, it just looks, well...."fishy".

While we may only comprise a tiny fraction of discriminating consumers, I for one, would like to see an "official statement" from Amsoil directly concerning this. This is in no way meant to be disparaging or disrespectful to you. I do feel that we have a right to know directly from them.

Quote:
Amsoil used to have (around 2003-2004) "100% PAO" on the cases. I pointed out, "hey the oil isn't 100% PAO, it's got some esters", and they said, "yeah you are correct" and whammo off the case it came.


If you were able to correct them on this, this shouldn't pose much of a problem......unless they have something to hide.

 

[Pablo]

I will ask them.

 

[Ben99GT]

Compare...

Originally Posted By: Amsoil
AMSOIL maintains formulation details as proprietary and does not divulge specifics regarding the type of synthetic base stocks used in its synthetic lubricants.


Originally Posted By: Red Line
Red Line formulates fully-synthetic oils and advanced additives using the world's finest base stocks. Rather than cutting costs by blending in petroleum products, Red Line's motor oils and gears oils use superior ester base stocks that provide extreme stability at high temperatures and superior film strength at lower viscosities where more power can be produced.


Originally Posted By: Red Line
Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks, the only lubricants which can withstand the tremendous heat of modern jet engines. This high-temperature stability makes our motor oil a necessity to properly lubricate a turbocharger or hot-running engine. The synthetic base stocks have a natural multigrade property, which means that large amounts of unstable polymeric thickeners, like those used in petroleum oils, are not required to manufacture our multigrades.


I don't see how Amsoil's position is beneficial from a marketing perspective.

 

[Pablo]

Why doesn't Redline mention their oils have a high % of PAO? Are they being evasive and fishy?

 

[91344George]

I think this thread was started as a promotional stunt.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Why doesn't Redline mention their oils have a high % of PAO?


Proof of high PAO percentage?

Quote:
Are they being evasive and fishy?


Red Line has always readily admitted their oils contain PAO when asked.

 

[Pablo]

At least 30-40%, maybe some oils more. Easy - check the price.

So why don't they say it up front? Marketing.

It's all marketing. You may not agree with Amsoil's marketing but it's their choice. Again, what % of their market is BITOG? Tiny.

Let's face it, you guys are WAY too wrapped up about base oils. I used to be this way myself up until, maybe 2-3 years ago. It simply does not matter to me what the heck joebobredpurplepuke oil claims their base oils to be.

 

[buster]

I think Redline uses that terminology because the majority base oil is ester, where as the ester component in most all other synthetics is 15% or less in most cases.

Amsoil is doing no wrong with their explanation, but when you're paying for an expensive oil I can see why people would want to know a bit more about what determines that premium price.

Another angle. If you pay for the premium price for the top of the line Amsoil oil, you're not buying an oil that is licensed either.

 

[jetmech1]

Let's see if Pablo can get them to commit to a clear answer. It might take a day or two. I hope we can keep the thread open till then.

Pablo, if this gets locked, please PM me.

Thanks, Mark

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
At least 30-40%, maybe some oils more. Easy - check the price.


Really?

Quote:
So why don't they say it up front? Marketing.


But they give an actual answer when asked, which is hardly evasive and fishy.

Quote:
It's all marketing. You may not agree with Amsoil's marketing but it's their choice. Again, what % of their market is BITOG? Tiny.


In what way would claiming Signature Series as a pure Group IV/V oil hurt them? BITOG is one of the few places where oils containing group III/III+ aren't looked down upon for the most part. I can't tell you how many people I talk in the performance world who buy Amsoil (and Royal Purple) because they believe it to be a pure synthetic unlike Mobil 1, Syntec, Platinum, etc.

I'm not bashing Amsoil, in fact I actually became a dealer for them last year, this is just something I haven't understood for a while now.

 

[buster]

It's a shame Royal Sulfur has to resort to one arm bandit testing. It's probably a decent product.

 

[[RT] ProjUltraZ]

i thought it was funny, and i haven't used M1 since the 90s

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: [RT
ProjUltraZ] i thought it was funny, and i haven't used M1 since the 90s


No worries,this thread is pretty much going in ten different directions,just like any other thread like this goes...

 

[jaj]

Hold the phone! Am I remembering this wrong? I recall that a few years ago, Amsoil's XL series was heart of their "extended drain" "real" Grp 4/5 synthetic oil product line.

Then they introduced OE and were quite candid about making it with downgraded base oils so they could aim it at the API licensed market segment and still be competitive.

Then they introduced Signature Series as an Al Amatuzio endorsed specialty product touted to be even more "special" than XL.

Now Pablo says that XL is Grp III and that the Signature Series is their "real" Grp 4/5 synthetic.

This leaves me wondering if Amsoil replaced Grp 4/5 with Grp 3 in the XL product without telling folks who've continued to buy it in good faith thinking it's the old Grp 4/5 formula.

Say it ain't so!