Amsoil In this Thread only

FWIW - it seems 5w-30 and 5w-40 oils can be OEM approved by all three German companies VW - 50501, MB - 229.51 & BMW - LONGLIFE04.

Does this mean VW50501 is on par with the most advanced MB and BMW specs? Probably, but they're likely not all identical / interchangeable. So if an oil's only approved to MB229.51, like the one TS and DD are discussing, it probably could not be confidently used where VW50501 or BMW LL04 are required.

VW507.00 appears to be the most restrictive of the OEM specs, which seems odd since all three companies will use the MB/Bosch BLUETEC emissions technology.

Also, some companies choose, for whatever reasons, to build an oil expressly for a single specification, like MB229.51 or the OEM "Specific" line from Motul. If you have one oil that's MB229.51 approved and another that has MB229.51/VW50501/BMW-LL04 approvals, just because the latter is also approved to VW and BMW OEM specs does not mean it will outperform the first oil in an MB.

Cheers!

TwoSlick said:

Andy,

You'll note that the new Valvoline product also meets the generic ACEA C3-04 spec, which is for the mid SAPS level products. So Amsoil did indeed have one of the first - if not the first - reformulated VW 505.01 oils on the market in North America that took into account this update of the 505.01 specification. The first generation products from Castrol, et al did not meet the chemical limits for sulfated ash or phosphorus. A review of the UOA's from when the PD engine was first introduced several years ago shows this very clearly....

There is no doubt that ExxonMobil could import one of their VW 505.01 offerings and sell it in the US, but quite frankly the mass market simply isn't there. It would make even less sense for them to brew up such an oil domestically, unless it also met a bunch of other European specs. I understand that Mercedes dealers are now carrying a mid SAPS, MB 229.51 oil made by EOM, but I don't know if it's also speced to VW 505.01?

TS

Click to expand...

Roj, Ted - I understand. I came away with that impression as well. Both Alan and Dr. Yu make it clear that the goal for the new AFL was 'world class Euro oil'. The data is there for anyone that cares to look.

I think it's a great marketing decision to make a more 'general purpose' product (VW, Benz, etc.) to spread the market risk. The development and testing of the new additive package couldn't have been inexpensive. I'm glad that other companies are starting to use it as well.

I visited with one Benz dealership and a couple of Dodge dealers earlier in the summer. Both were using Mobil 1 0W-40 for their flexi-interval oil. This doesn't appear to be 229.51, though. What's the new EOM 229.51?

Andy

SUNRG said:

Andy, If you're going to post while wearing your Amsoil salesman hat, lauding AFL while devaluing other products, IMHO you should at least be referencing demonstrably correct information:

Click to expand...

My posts typed while wearing my sales hat include a signature file that clearly states my affiliation.

Shall I require the same of you? You still refuse to disclose your relationship with oil companies you get free products from, and seem to be somewhat upset with me after I refused to give you the free oil for your Benz that you asked for.

The first independent information I found that 505.01 changed was posted nearly immediately here. There was no attempt to spin or otherwise cloud the issue. I already knew the answer, but couldn't prove it with info from outside AMSOIL, so I kept digging until I found independent verification.

SUNRG said:

Your accusation that the competition is not building their 2nd gen. 505.01 oils to also meet BMW and MB specs is demonstrably incorrect. And, where can your assertion that AFL was built on the updated Jul05 50501 spec be confirmed?

Click to expand...

You've already pointed out that the new products also meet the Benz and BMW specs. Here - I've turned - hit me again.

That AFL was built to the July '05 spec could have been directly confirmed had you taken me up on my offer last May. I've been looking for independent verification that the spec changed, since not everyone believes word from AMSOIL. It can be indirectly 'confirmed' by looking at chemical composition and the 502/505 vs. 500/505 hierarchy. It can also be indirectly 'confirmed' by examining the other specs, as Ted has already discussed. I suggest you listen to what he says. He's a very experienced chemical engineer and analyst.

As far as I'm concerned, I think the change in specs from the old Elf and Motul 505.01 products sans 502.00, Benz, or BMW to the new products with, is proof that these companies are relying on work done at least in part by AMSOIL to develop the new additive package. I suspect the primary reason for the delay in getting them to market is the 6-9 month average for Wolfsburg's approval process. No, I can't prove those opinions.

SUNRG said:

Post your opinions, as opinions, all you'd like. However, when you post that your (Amsoil) products are better than others without demostrably correct information or with demonstrably incorrect information (or as in this case, a combination of both) you are going to meet some resistance.

Click to expand...

Rob, I can tell you that in the absence of clouds, at noon, the sky will be blue and I have no doubt that you'll provide some resistance. You're in no position to tell anyone how they may post anything. I'll change my position when you become a moderator.

There's a difference between lauding and stating fact. I know which version of the 505.01 spec the oil was formulated against. (fact) I didn't know in Jan '06 which version of 505.01 the oil was formulated against. (fact) Our knowledge of the ins and outs of 505.01, warranty, and oil requirements for the US market have evolved considerably since I posted the 505.01 doc more than a year ago. (fact)

I'm glad that Elf and Motul and a couple of others have delivered their Gen 2 products. They should be a nice upgrade from the earlier Gen 1 oils. (opinion)

There's absolutely nothing I can do to help you see thru your prejudices. (fact) You are on record saying that you will never get into another discussion about AMSOIL. (fact) You've also stated that you'd include AFL UOA results in your PD oil testing thread, yet refused to include both UOA and VOA them when submitted.

I've been working very, very hard to provide info in a 'vendor neutral' way and provide proof where/when I can. (fact) That AMSOIL's product was first on the street with the new 502.00/505.00/505.01 'lineage' has been covered before. (fact)

I offered to give you full access to the people involved in the reformulation. (fact) I've done my absolute best to report facts, and to work to keep conversations on track. (fact)

I'm sorry that doen't appear to work for you. (opinion)

Have a nice afternoon.

Both of you guys are providing great information. So just shake hands, agree to disagree on some things but not on others, and keep educating the rest of us about motor oil.

Andy,

I expect the main reason why Amsoil waited to release their 505.01 offering was to work with their additive and basestock suppliers to meet these other European specs. Don't forget the original 5w-40 product they replaced was BMW LL-01,MB 229.5 and VW/Audi 502.00 rated, as well as meeting VW 505.00 and ACEA A3/B4.

I suspect that the majority of sales of the Amsoil 5w-40 is for VW/Audi applications, however.

to be clear, nothing that has been referenced or posted confirms AFL was built to the new 505.01 specification.

there are two ways any oil's conformity to an OEM oil spec can be verified:

1. OEM approval letter
2. document all aspects of an OEM specification, then document independant lab confirmation that an oil meets or exceeds all aspects of the OEM specification

while all aspects of OEM specifications are not common knowledge, ACEA specs are.

all aspects of ACEA C3-04 have been available for anyone to see since they were created in 2004 (hence the 04 in C3-04) LINK

it seems reasonable that AFL was built to ACEA C3-04.

• there was plenty of time to do it
• what little info can be gleaned from AFL VOA and data sheets suggests that it could be ACEA C3-04 compliant [all aspects of C3-04 are here LINK, and I personally don't know enough about AFL to confirm that all aspects have been met]

IMHO, it would be crazy to release a new oil branded as a "euro diesel oil" in 2006 and not have it meet ACEA C3-04. However, aspects of AFL correlating with ACEA C3-04 is not evidence that AFL was formulated to the 7/05 50501 specification.

A little info on ACEA C3-04:

The ACEA 2004 European Oil Sequences for Service-fill Oils comprise 2 sets (classes) of sequences: one for Gasoline​

and Light Duty Diesel engines; and one for engines with after treatment devices. Within each of these sets there are
categories which reflect different performance requirements - four (A1/B1, A3/B3, A3/B4 & A5/B5) for gasoline and light
duty diesel engines; three (C1, C2, C3) for low SAPS oils and engines with after treatment devices.

Click to expand...

C3​

Stable, stay-in-grade oil intended for use as catalyst compatible oil in vehicles with DPF and TWC in high performance car and light van diesel and gasoline engines. These oils will increase the DPF and TWC duration.​

Click to expand...

Of course, oils built to the 1999 505.01 spec were not also built to an ACEA spec that would be released half a decade later, but I expect all new formulations will also be ACEA C3-04.

This post is not meant to be inflammatory. If anyone can demonstrate knowledge of all aspects of 7/05 50501, then document independant lab confirmation that AFL meets/exceeds all aspects of 7/05 50501 - we can all be objectively confident that the oil was built to this specification.

Cheers!

I found them!

Exhibit 'A' is from mid-2004.

Exhibit 'B' is my '96 (with 15W-40 synthetic) in a point slightly farther north. What am I doing in San Antonio, anyway? I miss those trees and Lake Superior. Home.

Where did you used to live?

Bob_Fout said:

Where did you used to live?

Click to expand...

The top two photos are from Copper Harbor, MI, the third from the Houghton, MI side of the Keewenaw waterway. I was stationed in Srn Illinois (Belleville) when I took the trip 'up home'.

Stationed at Scott AFB?

Bob_Fout said:

Stationed at Scott AFB?

Click to expand...

Sure was!

TornadoRed said:

Both of you guys are providing great information. So just shake hands, agree to disagree on some things but not on others, and keep educating the rest of us about motor oil.

Click to expand...

X2

G

SUNRG said:

Your accusation that the competition is not building their 2nd gen. 505.01 oils to also meet BMW and MB specs is demonstrably incorrect.

Click to expand...

In the context of showing that AFL is a 2nd generation product, I think it's quite correct. Motul Specific 505.01 only lists VW and Ford specs, as does Elf Excellium DID and Castrol TXT.

It appears that one difference between the gen 1 and gen 2 products is the prerequisite hierarchy - Gen 1 500.00, 505.00 - Gen 2 502.00, 505.00. It appears a second is the inclusion of ACEA Cx and the latest BMW and Benz (229.51). Third is the addition of other viscosity grades in addition to the gen 1 5W-40 restriction.

AMSOIL had the first gen 2 product on the US market from 1 Jan '06 thru the arrival of Elf in September as I pointed out in August. I don't think Motul's gen2 product has landed yet.

I look forward to putting VOA and performance side-by-side for the gen2 products.

SUNRG said:

And, where can your assertion that AFL was built on the updated Jul05 50501 spec be confirmed?

Click to expand...

In the interest of fairness, prove Motul was formulated to the 2nd gen spec as you stated. I've already confirmed my assertion to my satisfaction and gave you the opportunity to do the same. I trust that, for now, that will be sufficient.

SUNRG said:

...If anyone can demonstrate knowledge of all aspects of 7/05 50501, then document independant lab confirmation that AFL meets/exceeds all aspects of 7/05 50501 - we can all be objectively confident that the oil was built to this specification.

Click to expand...

My focus has been to treat all products equally - that means we subject all products to equal scrutiny - right?

I have talked with the people that managed the reformulation of AFL and know what level of due diligence they went thru to make sure the oil exceeds the specs on the bottle. I say exceeds because AMSOIL corporate mentality is that ties are unacceptable - that means the oil has to outperform everything else in some way. So, knowing the people, talking with them about the reformulation, and understanding their point of view, I have absolutely no trouble at all dropping to a 'lowest common denominator' and being 100% comfortable that the products at least meet the specs on the bottle. I've offered you access to people that can absolutely confirm those facts - and you've not availed yourself to this source of information.

I personally (opinion!) give them an extra couple of points simply because they trail blazed the new spec with a partner. They could have waited until someone else developed an additive package, then simply licensed it. But they were already in the upgrade process for the other specs - from Benz 229.5 to .51, for example.

SUNRG said:

while all aspects of OEM specifications are not common knowledge...

Click to expand...

These aspects are not common knowledge to the PUBLIC but they are common knowledge to the people making the oil and to the labs testing the oil. That's the only way the oil can be produced and tested. I hope this has been sufficiently proven by my earlier contact with Southwest Research Institute, as the only US lab certified by VW to run VW tests - they have the VW specs and test to them daily - and that MUST include ALL the performance requirements.

SUNRG said:

...ACEA specs are...

Click to expand...

Yes they are - as are all the earlier VW specs. In addition, the ACEA and most of the Euro OEM system is one of self-certification. This, at least for the ACEA side of the issue, is clearly outlined in the initial pages of the ACEA docs.

AMSOIL is bound to the exact same requirements for ACEA and OEM specs as any other company - and they are further saddled with full product liability in probably the most litigious country in the world. This fact alone is even more startling, considering there hasn't been a single challenge to ANY of the company's claims - bottles, datasheets, white papers, comparisons - none.

Remember the Castrol Syntec move to Group III? Remember how many companies were involved in going after Castrol - including Mobil? What's stopping VWAG or VWoA from suing AMSOIL out of existence? Maybe the truth?



These are all from your spreadsheet, except the AMSOIL and Bardahl numbers you didn't choose to include.

I'll update this when I see a VOA from the other Gen 2 505.01 products, and when I can find a VOA for the old AFL formula.

'Till then...

Andy

Andy, I was stationed at K.I.Sawyer, Marquette, MI for 8 BLISSFUL winters!

AndyH said:

I've offered you access to people that can absolutely confirm those facts - and you've not availed yourself to this source of information.

Click to expand...

Late one Sunday night last May (11:18pm 21May05) you posted in a thread "Come on up to Superior (Wisconsin) before Thursday (25May05) noon and I'll get you some time with the folks that reworked the oil and you can verify everything I've told you."

Since that time you've referenced that offer and posted ad nauseam that I've "not availed myself to this source of information".

If the information needed to confirm what you claim about AFL exists [document all aspects of 7/05 50501, then document independant lab confirmation that AFL meets/exceeds all aspects], it can be emailed to me.

Also, you keep posting:

You've also stated that you'd include AFL UOA results in your PD oil testing thread, yet refused to include both UOA and VOA them when submitted.

Click to expand...

These are all from your spreadsheet, except the AMSOIL and Bardahl numbers you didn't choose to include.

Click to expand...

In October you posted:

... things like omitting a 505.01 VOA from your PD analysis spreadsheet because it was from a company you didn't like

Click to expand...

In October I clearly explained LINK:

Andy,

I stopped updating the VOA/UOA spreadsheet when hutchman began working on an online VOA/UOA data application in Nov. of 2005. hutchman's still chipping away at bringing this online, and when he does, any Amsoil VOA that's applicable to any TDI is welcome to be added. The new online TDI VOA/UOA database will be all inclusive - any TDI, any oil used in a TDI, all years.

Click to expand...

Every VOA and UOA entry is dated on the PD Oil Spreadsheet. I stopped updating the spreadsheet in Nov05. No VOA or UOA information from ANY oil has been added to it since Nov05. As stated previously, when hutchman does get the web VOA/UOA application online it will be all inclusive - any TDI, any oil used in a TDI, all years.

Lastly you requested:

AndyH said:

In the interest of fairness, prove Motul was formulated to the 2nd gen spec

Click to expand...

As I've posted, there are two ways to do this:

1. OEM approval letter
2. document all aspects of an OEM specification, then document independant lab confirmation that an oil meets or exceeds all aspects of the OEM specification

The first letter below dated 14Nov05 confirms the new Motul 50501/50200 is approved to the OEM VW50501 specification updated Jul05. The second letter below, dated 02Sep02, is an example of an approval letter to the original 50501 specification created in 1999:





FWIW - i did not have a copy of a Motul 50501/50200 approval letter, so before i began composing this reply i emailed a Motul distributer and requested it. by the time i'd written the first few paragraphs above the Motul 50501/50200 approval letter was in my inbox. in minutes, Motul delivered confirmation of their product claim.

in contrast Andy, you required that i travel from Roanoke, VA to Superior, WI - at my expense, on short notice, during a work week - to confirm your AFL claims?

if you have this: [document all aspects of 7/05 50501, then document independant lab confirmation that AFL meets/exceeds all aspects], and i sincerely hope you do, please just post it so this issue can be finally put to rest.

I agree with TR. Some very good info here.
JB

MYLittleTDI said:

Andy, I was stationed at K.I.Sawyer, Marquette, MI for 8 BLISSFUL winters!

Click to expand...

Ok, eh! rub it in! After 21 years in blue, my cross country skis finally died of boredom in 'winter wonderlands' like Tucson and San Antonio. No pasties, no Vollworths, no Finnish girls, no smelt, and no ice fishing. Of course, I didn't have to use a broomstick to poke holes in snowbanks to find my car in the morning very often...

The weather's a bit different in Wichita Falls I bet!

Letters: Nothing in the letters says first or 2nd generation, does it? You're assuming the same thing with the letter that we're assuming without it - that the appearance of 502.00 means 2nd generation. I told you that before you received the letter.

Spreadsheet: No more updates after November? Rubbish. The Bardahl analysis that you did was from May 05 and should have been included if it was simply a date issue. According to the analysis report, the Quakerstate sample was bottled 25 Dec 05 and tested on the 29th of December. I'm fairly confident it was added to the spreadsheet after November. The spreadsheet was clearly alive until at least Jan '06, and the thread wasn't parked until after the 24 Aug 06 post - so there was time to add the AMSOIL data as well.

And come on, Rob - it's a spreadsheet that you maintained for a project you started. Add data, save, upload to web server. Done.

You said earlier in the year that you would include AFL in the data. Then when presented with the data, you ignored it. Your reasons are clearly posted on the forum, and they have nothing to do with either performance or a data cutoff date.

Sorry man - I offered access to the chemists working on the oil - not a regional sales rep. You were about 1200 miles away from information you couldn't get anywhere else. Folks came in from all over the US - including Alaska and HI - from Canada and Puerto Rico and New Zealand. School was full and there was a waiting list. There were people there from AMSOIL, Lubrizol, Infineum, WIX, and Donaldson. You could have connected with people that have been solving lubrication challenges since before you were born. You could have compared notes with folks that came from Texaco, Mobil, Castrol, Lubrication Engineers, and others.

No letters for you, Rob. But you (and everyone else) already know that. Certified or not, there's a reason why oil additive company reps become AMSOIL dealers. And why testing lab personnel switch once they find out what they just finished testing. The same reasons other oil companies use AMSOIL in their pipeline equipment. It's not because of a minimum spec.

Yup. I've crossed a line from data to sales. I'll proudly append my signature file.

Andy

SUNRG,

With all due respect, the generic ACEA C3-04 spec IS the basis for the new VW 505.01 specification, as well as for BMW/LL-04 and MB 229.51.

How do I know? Well the short answer is that it's my business to know this stuff, since I sell oil for all these applications.... I don't know what you do for a living?, but I think you'd laugh out loud if someone on the internet claimed to know as much about your job requirements as you do, simply by virtue of a little "Googling". In fact, the term "Internet Expert" is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned.

TS

re: speadsheet - i was wrong. the last update i made to the spreadsheet was in Dec05, not Nov05.

re: Bardahl - Bardahl XTC is 50500 approved. in 2004 Bardahl's website claimed XTC was also in the 50501 approval process. i have access to the 50501 approved oil lists since 2004, XTC is on none of them. an oil submitted to VW for 50501 approval, would not appear on subsequent VW50501 approved oil lists, if it failed to meet the 50501 spec...

TS - i am not an expert. for this reason, i do prefer things to be documentable. and, take everything i post with grains of salt (see my signature).

keep in mind that the entirety of this discussion is taking place over the internet - everything you the "expert" are posting too.

SUNRG said:

re: Bardahl - Bardahl XTC is 50500 approved.

Click to expand...

Appears correct. Their approval letter is posted. But this isn't relevant to the discussion.

SUNRG said:

...in 2004 Bardahl's website claimed XTC was also in the 50501 approval process. i have access to the 50501 approved oil lists since 2004, XTC is on none of them. an oil submitted to VW for 50501 approval, would not appear on subsequent VW50501 approved oil lists, if it failed to meet the 50501 spec...

Click to expand...

Bardahl XTC is widely known here to not be 'released in accordance with VWAG 505.01'. It's a 'recommended for' product.

And this is the issue - does it deserve to be compared with other 505.01 products?

We know directly from VWoA that the US warranty is not dependent on selecting a product from the approved products list. Therefore, their value is little more than 'nice to know'. Ditto the 505.01 release letters. The products don't have to be approved to maintain warranty. Therefore, the value of the approval letters is also in the 'nice to know' area.

Those that desire to see and compare all the available products - released by VW or not - would benefit from seeing the data listed. Those that don't recognize non-released products - those that desire to select only products from the VW list - probably don't see any need to include those non-approved products.

I think the last paragraph defines our conflict with regard to 'approved' VS. 'unapproved' products.

I see the omission of all available products (at least until we have the applicable VW specs in our possession and understand how to interpret them) as bias. I see data omission as censorship and/or manipulation. I don't think this is in the best interests of this group.

TwoSlick said:

SUNRG,

With all due respect, the generic ACEA C3-04 spec IS the basis for the new VW 505.01 specification, as well as for BMW/LL-04 and MB 229.51.

How do I know? Well the short answer is that it's my business to know this stuff, since I sell oil for all these applications.... I don't know what you do for a living?, but I think you'd laugh out loud if someone on the internet claimed to know as much about your job requirements as you do, simply by virtue of a little "Googling". In fact, the term "Internet Expert" is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned.

TS

Click to expand...

I suspect your modesty results in severely understating your ability to provide accurate information and insight.

There are about five people I recommend folks pay attention to on this forum...and you're two of them.

Thank you for being here!

C'mon guys, lighten up!

I've got it, why don't you all sit back, maybe have a cold one or two, and relax while waiting for my PD to come unglued because of the Delvac 1 I'm running in it.


G

GMARK said:

C'mon guys, lighten up!

I've got it, why don't you all sit back, maybe have a cold one or two, and relaxe while waiting for my PD to come unglued because of the Delvac 1 I'm running in it.


G

Click to expand...

OK! I'm enjoying one of these as I type:cheers!

[PS - IMHO i think your PDs going to be just fine]

GMARK said:

C'mon guys, lighten up!

I've got it, why don't you all sit back, maybe have a cold one or two, and relaxe while waiting for my PD to come unglued because of the Delvac 1 I'm running in it.


G

Click to expand...

Naaa! We'll be waiting waaaaay to long.

SUNRG,

Had a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and big Mexican dinner, and all is forgiven...

Here's a tip...if you haven't tried it, all the stuff from "Bridgeport Brewing" company in Oregon is simply excellent! I particularly like their IPA and Blackstrap Molasses Stout! Pricey @ $8.00/6 pack (Publix and Kroger carry the stuff), but worth a special occasion.

TS

i'll definitely give Bridgeport Brewing a try! another great Oregon recreational beverage is Bridgeview's Pino Noir (also available at Kroger for ~$14). cheers!

the generic ACEA C3-04 spec IS the basis for the new VW 505.01 specification

Click to expand...

FWIW (and i'm not trying to re-ignite this thread, just share relevant info) the newest Castrol TXT 50501 / 50200 isn't ACEA C3-04. [images below are from a bottle of TXT i picked up today from my dealer - $6/liter]

Sunrg,

I have no idea what additive chemistry is in this bottle, but here are some things to consider....

1) Castrol is an OEM supplier to VWOA and this product is intended to be stocked by Vw/Audi dealers for exclusive use in VW/Audi diesel AND gas engines. Hence they replaced the obsolete VW 500.00 spec with VW 502.00, which is the current VW/Audi gas spec in North America. Castrol sells other formlations in Europe for the BMW LL-04 and MB 229.51 diesel specs, so it probably didn't make sense to make this a more general purpose oil, or add confusion by listing other specs.

2) You'll note this label also lists the ACEA B4 (TDI diesel) performance spec and not the ACEA B3 (IDI diesel) spec like the original VW 505.01 formulations from several years back. If you compare the engine test matrix for B4 and the new ACEA C3-04 (ref: www.lubrizol.com), specifications, you'll see they are very similar. In fact meeting ACEA C3-04 requires almost all the same bench and engine sequence tests as ACEA B4, but some of the test limits on wear/deposits are more stringent for C3-04, ie it's an upgrade to the B4 spec.

3) If VW dealers plan to stock this oil long term for use in the new common rail, VW/Audi diesels with particle filters, then it has to meet the ACEA C3-04 spec. If they plan on this being a product only for current and older VW/Audi engines, then it's not necessarily a low ash/phosphorus/sulfur type additive chemistry. In this case, you'll see the VW 507.00 spec oils arriving at VW/Audi dealers in the next year or so....

I have to say, this stuff is hard for me to keep up with, even though I have a vested interest in doing so. It must be horribly confusing for a VW customer who only wants a simple explanation about the lube requirements for his new vehicle.

TS

Using SynPower 5W-40 for my first oil change...

The whole issue seems like it shoud be relatively simple, BUT even though the Valvoline Bottle states it meets 505.01 and ACEA C3 there is doubt cast..

I just bought the SynPower 5W-40 for my first oil change on my 03 that has 47,000 miles. Based upon a suggestion in this thread I plan to get it tested at 5,000 & perhaps 7,500 intervals just to be positive it is holding up for a full 10K interval. Maybe I can even contribute something worthwhile by posting the results.

Does this sound like a prudent enough move, considering I don't feel like driving the 15 miles to return the 6 bottles I have in hand???

If I remember correctly it cost something like $16 to have the testing done?

1heavyfoot said:

Based upon a suggestion in this thread I plan to get it tested at 5,000 & perhaps 7,500 intervals just to be positive it is holding up for a full 10K interval. Maybe I can even contribute something worthwhile by posting the results.

Does this sound like a prudent enough move, considering I don't feel like driving the 15 miles to return the 6 bottles I have in hand???

Click to expand...

I'm one of those who are very skeptical about the Valvoline products. So I would very much like to see any and all UOA tests from the Synpower 5w40.