jombl,
We've gottan waaaay off the point of this thread. I'd certainly like to sit and have coffee with you because I'd like to understand where you're coming from and why we're so clearly missing each other.
I think you've jumped to some pretty amazing conclusions in your last post. I spoke of certification and being a pilot, and you jumped to suggest that I'm flying around with uncertified parts in an airplane and threatening people on the ground? How in the world did you get there? (For reference, however - please review the 'experimental/amateur built' portion of the FAA regs. In some parts of the country, there are more 'homebuilt' aircraft above the population than 'certified' aircraft - and the overall experimental/amateur built accident rate is lower than the certificated general aviation fleet. Just another instance where an uncertified but skilled enthusiast can sometimes do a job better than someone with a minimum-standard 'certification'.)
I've already told you in this and other threads that I agree with your highlighted point - that VW has the right to create a lube spec and mandate it's use - so I really don't understand how/why there's any room for further comment on that point.
I've also already told you with my comments on the aftermarket industry and how I understand the requirements and limitations on US car warranty that the point of any 505.01 discussion, and especially a 505.01 'meets/exceeds' discussion, has nothing to do with Mag/Moss tie-in sales - but simply with the right in the US to use a product that doesn't have a VW stamp of approval on it. Therefore, I think the SEMA/waterpump/aftermarket sales comment is appropriate to the discussion. This also suggests to me that your comment about the Supreme Court UPHOLDING the tie-in provision of Mag/Moss in a case that has nothing to do with the auto industry has no bearing on our discussion. Therefore, I don't believe there's any room for us to argue about Mag/Moss and/or tie-in sales or associated guidance.
IF we can agree that the purpose of any OEM spec is to either confirm the current state of the art, or raise the bar to a higher minimum standard, then I simply submit these as additional background information:
http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/Highest_Quality_medium.wmv
http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/first_in_synthetics_medium.wmv
Hopefully back on task - I enjoy getting into the specifics of lubricants - and I enjoy learning how the different formulation choices affect the performace of a lube. It is at least for that reason that I welcome whatever tech info P1 can bring to the community.
Andy
PS: RE: Jr's Car: You've at least partially confirmed the 'inside information' I passed on to you - congratulations! AMSOIL isn't paying the $$$$s required for sponsorship, therefore you won't see the company's logo on the car, or a product endorsement on their website. So - unless you have a tie to either the folks at AMSOIL that sold the products and advised the chief mechanic, or with the race team, the information will remain 'uncertified'. That doesn't make it any less true, however -- and this is the main gist of my position in our discussions. As I understand it, the race team kept losing differentials in races and the products provided by sponsors, and those purchased by the team, were failing them. I don't know what the previous products were. One of the mechanics on the team working on the race cars is an AMSOIL dealer and understood that the company's Severe Gear lubes offer about 8X the protection of any other gear lube in the world. That led to the team purchasing - not being sponsored by and receiving free product - but buying SVG for use in the race cars. The approximate timeframe is/was fall of 2004. I expect it's working well for them - as it's predacessor - the Series 2000 gear lubes - were formulated specifically for Bobby Unser and his Pike's Peak hill-climb differentials. More info:
http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/Unser_Indy_medium.wmv and
http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/PikesPeak.wmv