Has Amsoil ever gotten their full synthetic oils API certified?
AMSOIL
- Thread starter westex39
- Start date
- Status
I think the term you're looking for is API licensed...only the xw-20 and xw-30 grades can be "Certified for gas engines".
Note: The Amsoil 15w40 synthetic blend (PCO) is also a licensed formulation and also meets the specs for Cummins/Mack/Detroit Diesel.
Since most folks running Amsoil are using extended drains, I'm not sure licensing them would provide much added value. You are really depending on their oil warranty when you go this route.
TS
Note: The Amsoil 15w40 synthetic blend (PCO) is also a licensed formulation and also meets the specs for Cummins/Mack/Detroit Diesel.
Since most folks running Amsoil are using extended drains, I'm not sure licensing them would provide much added value. You are really depending on their oil warranty when you go this route.
TS
Amsoil has not submitted any true (vs full) Group IV/V oils to API for "certification" during this modern (1996+) era.
As far as I know Amsoil has no intention of doing so, if this is the meaning of your question.
Amsoil fully meets the performance requirements of SM (and SL) as claimed and fully meets the constituent limitations of SM as claimed.
IMHO, Amsoil rejects the API control on formulation improvement.
As far as I know Amsoil has no intention of doing so, if this is the meaning of your question.
Amsoil fully meets the performance requirements of SM (and SL) as claimed and fully meets the constituent limitations of SM as claimed.
IMHO, Amsoil rejects the API control on formulation improvement.
As Pablo mentioned, Amsoil is meeting the 800 ppm chemical limits for phosphorus with their latest ASL and ATM formulations. I believe the latest version of the Series 2000/0w-30 also meets this spec limit, based on recent UOA's. So for anyone who was concerned about Cat Con degradation, that's not an issue anymore.
TS
TS
The reason for this question is for warranty concerns. My owners manual states "use only API certified oils". The warranty could be voided if this oils are not used. Seems stupid to me. I guess it's just one more way for them to duck out of fixing and engine problem.
I really like Amsoil. I used it for years without a problem. I was a dealer at one time (1978 - 1981)
thanks
westex
I really like Amsoil. I used it for years without a problem. I was a dealer at one time (1978 - 1981)
thanks
westex
westex39: Check the wording! If it says recommended they "recommend" that if it says required it's a different ball game. Under the Warren Mangunson act (SP) you have specific rights sometimes above those spelled out. In an instance of warranty it is the mfg to prove that the oil did not meet their specs and that their part was NOT faulty.
Somewhat like Nebraskan said, the manufacturer can only deny a warranty claim IF it can be proven that the problem was due to lack of lubrication or using the wrong oil. I wouldn't worry about the warranty issues and would use the Amsoil. If (big if) something happens lubrication related, Amsoil's warrant will pay for repairs.
That's a common fallacy. A manufacturer can deny a warranty claim because they are having a bad hair day. Then it's up to you to take them to arbitration or court. Courts aren't perfect. Anytime you get wrapped up in the legal system it's a bit of a **** shoot whether you will win, whether you are in the right or not.
A manufacturer is far less likely to weasel out of a warranty if you have fully complied with it's terms.
How many cases of Amsoil paying on a warranty claim that the manufacturer refused to pay can you document? Maybe some of the Amsoil sales reps here can give a few examples. This isn't a slam at Amsoil, just pointing out how it's easy for the car owner to get caught between two companies pointing fingers at each other.
No, that's not correct. Under the federal Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act (MMWA), neither the mfr nor the dealer may "void" a warranty for using a non-approved oil. If an owner makes a wty claim, and the mfr decides it wants to deny the claim, the mfr has the burden of proving that something that the owner (or some other 3rd party) did was the cause of the failure (versus a properly covered defect). And even if there is a valid, sustainable reason for denying one claim, the wty is in no sense "voided".
For example, let's say you fill your 5w-20 engine with SAE 60 in the dead of winter. Not surprisingly, your engine shortly blows up. The mfr would probably deny your (silly) wty claim, as they could easily prove you killed it (though it would still take the testimony of a qualified engineer to meet the burden of proof). In contrast, if your radio also failed, or if a door handle came off, the wty must still cover those things, as the mfr could never prove that the use of improper oil damaged the radio or door. In other words, your wty is not void at all (though individual claims may be denied).
In the case of Amsoil, the products are close to functionally identical to the licensed competitors. Though I could be wrong, I find it almost impossible to imagine some scenario in which a failure could be isolated to use of Amsoil where it could be said that the failure would not have happened if the owner had used an SL or SM oil.
Note, this applies only to mfr new car wtys, not aftermarket extended wtys. If any reader has a question about their rights or obligations, they should consult a lawyer in their jurisdiction.
Bottom line: Not a common fallacy. Amsoil's warranty is strong and good and the burden of proof is on the manufacturer if the manufacturer claims the oil caused the problem.
The only time I know for a fact Amsoil paid a claim was a Toyota sludge engine. The owner even admitted to not checking the oil at 2X,XXX miles.
The only time I know for a fact Amsoil paid a claim was a Toyota sludge engine. The owner even admitted to not checking the oil at 2X,XXX miles.
XS:
I'd be the first to agree that it's virtually always better to do what you can to avoid a fight if you can -- even if it's a fight you know you will win.
That said, the one thing you're overlooking, and you're far from alone on this, is that the mfr loses a MMWA case, they are on the hook for the owner's attorney's fees and costs. Furthermore, in some states anyway, if they engage in a pattern of frivolous claim denials (the bad hair day you mention...), the mfr exposes itself to liability for punitive damages. The mfr's lawyers, if they're worth 1/10th of what they're being paid, will be studiously shutting down the baseless denial cases (read: quick settlement) in order to avoid disproportionate owner's atty fee, and punitive damages, liability.
Isn't it simpler just to put in an API Sunburst oil and rest easy?
ekpolk, while you're the attorney and are technically correct, I more with XS650 on this one. Most people (and we've seen a few here), just don't have the stomach, time or want the hassle of a fight, no matter how strong their case is. The manufacturers attorneys know this.quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
XS:
I'd be the first to agree that it's virtually always better to do what you can to avoid a fight if you can -- even if it's a fight you know you will win.
That said, the one thing you're overlooking, and you're far from alone on this, is that the mfr loses a MMWA case, they are on the hook for the owner's attorney's fees and costs. Furthermore, in some states anyway, if they engage in a pattern of frivolous claim denials (the bad hair day you mention...), the mfr exposes itself to liability for punitive damages. The mfr's lawyers, if they're worth 1/10th of what they're being paid, will be studiously shutting down the baseless denial cases (read: quick settlement) in order to avoid disproportionate owner's atty fee, and punitive damages, liability.
Look at all the issues that took some time to be acknowledged by the manufacturers, if they did at all: GM piston slap, Toyota, VW, Chrysler sludgers, etc, etc. When people show up with the proper documentation, usually it's the end of the battle.
Seems to me it's just easier to follow the manufacturer's recommendation through the warranty period. Use of a supposedly superior oil during this short period is very unlikely to significantly lengthen the life of your engine.
By that line of reasoning I should use Honda oil.
If people can't rest using Amsoil's top tier oils in new cars and want to wisely stick with the mfr's recommended max OCI and still use Amsoil, then use the XL line. It has proven itself as a great oil, too. I use the XL 5W-20 in the Ody.
If people can't rest using Amsoil's top tier oils in new cars and want to wisely stick with the mfr's recommended max OCI and still use Amsoil, then use the XL line. It has proven itself as a great oil, too. I use the XL 5W-20 in the Ody.
I really don't disagree with you guys. My point is simply that if someone, for whatever reason, strongly wants to use a good non-API cert oil, like Amsoil, they can do so without fear of losing wty coverage (though I can't guarantee they might not end up in a fight...). And, of course, in the case of Amsoil, they stand behind their product as well.
Without question, it is best to be in a situation where if you have a blow up, you get a new engine with no fuss. OTOH, most cases will not turn into major battles like the Cathy Covington thing, or even a full-blown trial. I would envision most such cases going like this: client comes to see me. I take case after carefully determining whether or not client was at fault (if so, I gently recommend that they go buy a new engine...). If I take the case, I try to get rid of it quickly so I can move on to more profitable things. That means getting in touch with their legal dept ASAP (that day if possible) and politely pointing out the facts of the case, and that I will settle now for nothing beyond a new engine for my client, but also that I will fight them if necessary, and they will pay me (a lot) if I have to. I've handled only a few car wty things, but taking a similar tack in comparable insurance cases results in a very high quick settlement rate (btw, when I reopen my practice, I plan to add MMWA cases to my "product line" -- thanks BITOG!!!).
Again, I can't really argue against the "safest" course, but I do think that unless you use something really stupid in place of the API recommended oil, you'll be fine.
Lets not get too ridiculous here, Honda doesn't say use Honda oil. The say use API certified oil.
Pablo, if Amsoil comes out with a 5-20 or 0-20 group 4/5 would you switch to it from the XL? or are you staying with the 7.5 XL line for the warranty period...loaded question? maybe!
Doesnt it cost around 100000$ to certify?
They arent making it by the millions? billions?
that someone like exxon-mobil does. If they sold
100000 thats 1$/qt now im sure they sell more than
that but its still a large chunk for a starburst.
They arent making it by the millions? billions?
that someone like exxon-mobil does. If they sold
100000 thats 1$/qt now im sure they sell more than
that but its still a large chunk for a starburst.
Don't worry about the sunburst
How do they know you "didn't" put in the sunburst API certified, guaranteed to be best, certified, and blessed by the Pope.??
- Status