Here I am

Synthetic Engine OIl

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

B.O.V. question

4 or 5 inch exhaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cenex maxtron DEO

synthetic blend

works great

love it

ran it in my last two cummins

doesnt leave any sooty deposits like rotella, actually cleans all the crap out



however



it doesnt have the right code rating (dont remember which one)



but I called the tech line and was told it had the same additive package as the oil that does have the right code rating for the 3rd gens, they just havent gone through the licensing process. He said once they do , the price will go up , but for now only $2/quart x 13 = $26



delvac 1 is what? $5/quart x 13 = $65





Ya ya ya , extra $40 to ensure your motor, no big deal

:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Sled Puller

To my knowledge, Amsoil only ever lost one court case over the spelling of their name.



However, some of the "as seen on tv" additive companies are in endless court battles, and usually lose, paying millions in fines for false advertising to the FTC.

They pay the fine, change their label and go right back to it.



Amsoil, on the other hand, has had the same advertising for 30 years. Extended drains, meets or exceeds, etc.



Anyone know of a court case where they were sued for false advertising?:confused:

Or, better yet, a case where a factory warranty was denied on a car becuase of the use of Amsoil?



A thread on dieselram.com cited a case where DC denied a warranty claim on a transmission due to using Amsoil ATF.

Amsoil ATF warranty denial
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"However, some of the "as seen on tv" additive companies are in endless court battles, and usually lose, paying millions in fines for false advertising to the FTC.

They pay the fine, change their label and go right back to it. "




I believe the term for the above is "anecdotal" statement - something stated as FACT,without the slightest shred of supporting evidence... ;) ;)



Yeah, it DOES ocassionally occur - but not at anything approaching epidemic proportions, or to all "snakeoil" vendors. What it boils down to, is ya pays yer $$$ and taked yer chances...



And no Wayne, I don't "know too much", I just TALK too much - but shucks, I'm retired, the weather has been poor, and not much to do but this internet stuff...



(Wayne, Amsoilman, is a GREAT guy, and one of my favorites here!) (and if any of you want Amsoil products, HE is the guy to deal with!)
 
"However, some of the "as seen on tv" additive companies are in endless court battles, and usually lose, paying millions in fines for false advertising to the FTC.



For Release: September 2, 1999



Prolong Super Lubricants Settles FTC Charges



Performance Claims for Motor Oil Additive Were Unsubstantiated



Prolong Super Lubricants, Inc. , marketer of one of the largest selling motor oil additives sold in the U. S. , has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the firm made unsubstantiated claims for its automobile motor oil additive, Prolong Engine Treatment Concentrate (ETC). Prolong Super Lubricants, Inc. is based in Irvine, California.



The complaint detailing the charges alleges that Prolong made unsubstantiated claims that compared to motor oil alone, Prolong ETC: reduces engine wear at start-up; and extends the duration of engine life.



The complaint also alleges that Prolong made unsubstantiated claims that ETC: reduces corrosion in engines; and protects against engine breakdowns.



The complaint further alleges Prolong made unsubstantiated claims that: benefits that may be achieved by using Prolong ETC in race cars or under racing conditions can be achieved in ordinary automobiles in conventional use; and testimonials and endorsements of consumers made in advertising reflected the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use Prolong.



This settlement is the latest in a series of FTC law-enforcement initiatives targeting claims made by engine treatment manufacturers. The Commission recently charged the marketers of Dura Lube and Motor Up with making unsubstantiated claims for their brands of motor oil additives. Those complaints are awaiting administrative trial. The FTC previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the marketers of Valvoline, Slick 50, and STP, other major brands of engine treatment products.



The Prolong settlement would require scientific substantiation for a broad range of claims relating to Prolong ETC, or any other product sold for use in an automobile, relating to engine-wear reduction, engine-life extension, corrosion reduction, protection against engine breakdown, or racing benefits being achievable in ordinary driving. The settlement would also require substantiation for claims made for any product marketed by Prolong Super Lubricants, relating to the product's performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use.



In addition, the order would bar misrepresentations relating to tests, studies or research, and would bar misleading demonstrations, pictures, experiments or tests relating to any product's features, superiority or comparability. If Prolong employs user testimonials or endorsements in promotional

material in the future to depict typical consumer experience with any product, it would be required to have scientific substantiation for the representation, or disclose what results ordinary consumers could expect to achieve, and the applicability of the endorser's experience. Finally, the settlement contains certain administrative record keeping and reporting provisions to allow the agency to monitor compliance.



The Commission vote to accept the proposed settlement was 4-0, with Commissioner Orson Swindle concurring in part and dissenting in part. In his statement, Commissioner Swindle said,



" I support the provisions in the proposed order prohibiting Prolong from making . . . claims in the future without adequate substantiation. The consent agreement, however,also contains provisions prohibiting Prolong, in connection with the sale of any

product, from misrepresenting the existence or results of tests and from misrepresenting that a demonstration confirms the benefits of a product. While firms should not misrepresent the existence or results of tests or demonstrations, it is inappropriate to include specific establishment and demonstration requirements as remedies in an order without corresponding complaint allegations. In this case, and in others from the recent past, there is a troubling lack of symmetry between the complaint and the order. "



An announcement regarding the proposed consent agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20580.







NOTE: Consent agreements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.



Copies of the complaint, consent and Commissioner Swindle's statement are available from the FTC's web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20580; 877-FTC-HELP (877-382-4357); TDD for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502.

Consent agreements subject to public comment also are available by calling 202-326-3627. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710.



MEDIA CONTACT:

Claudia Bourne Farrell

Office of Public Affairs

202-326-2181



STAFF CONTACT:

Gerald E. Wright

Western Region

415-356-5270
 
KEEP in mind that the above is NOT related to FAILURES, only that the affected companies made claims they had no documented proof to back up - in point of fact, their stuff MIGHT have been as good as they claimed - they simply didn't have *test lab* PROOF it did... ;)



Shucks Wayne, give me a pointer where someone actually sued Prolong for an actual FAILURE and won, I'll apologize in bold caps!



And *I* don't even USE Prolong... :) :) :)
 
Last edited:
From the other site... . "A friend of mine at another shop just called me and told me about a customer of his that has a 2002 2500 2X4 diesel that 3 dealerships had just denied warranty on his truck with 34,000 miles on it. "



Thats the way it starts out. A friend of mine said... .....



I would love to hear what the owner has to say and the delaership, and Amsoil, not a friend of the guy posting... etc.....



The guy posting just seems like a chicken little, "OEM ONLY!!! I TOLD YOU GUYS!!!

LOL!

With attitudes like that, all the parts stores will be out of business.
 
Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q

KEEP in mind that the above is NOT related to FAILURES, only that the affected companies made claims they had no documented proof to back up - in point of fact, their stuff MIGHT have been as good as they claimed - they simply didn't have *test lab* PROOF it did... ;)








Now that statement has me thinking... .



Some on this site have badgered the Amsoil dealers about not having "proof" their product does indeed, do what the Amsoil literature says it do.



Using your... logic,(?) Gary, the FTC just sits around and nails the companies that make bold statements about what their product can do, but have no documented proof.



Yet they have never filed against Amsoil.



Therefore, we must deduce, that Amsoil speaks the truth, if they have enough proof to keep the FTC off their back for THIRTY(30)YEARS!!!!



Thanks for sticking up for truth in advertisng Gary! Your a bud!:D
 
HEY GENE - I keep TELLIN' ya I *like* synthetics, just can't afford or justify the cost, us being on Social Security and all...



Now if you were REALLY as appreciative as you claim, you'd be a bud and send me case of 15/40 for my truck... :) :)
 
For Release: March 29, 2000



Dura Lube, Motor Up Settle FTC Charges Settlements Will Bar Deceptive and Unsubstantiated Performance Claims; Dura Lube to Pay $2 Million in Consumer Redress



Additive marketers Dura Lube and Motor Up, and their principals, have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that performance claims for their engine treatments were deceptive and unsubstantiated in violation of federal law. The two proposed settlements will bar false and unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, or attributes of these products. In addition, Dura Lube will pay $2 million in consumer redress to be distributed by the FTC. The FTC has previously halted allegedly deceptive ads for Prolong Engine Treatment, Valvoline Engine Treatment, Slick 50 Engine Treatment and STP Engine Treatment.



"Consumers deserve advertising that is truthful and performance claims that are substantiated," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC intends to make sure they get it. "



In FTC complaints issued against Motor Up on April 8, 1999 and Dura Lube on April 29, 1999, the agency alleged that the companies used false and unsubstantiated claims to promote their engine treatments. One administrative trial proceeded against Motor Up Corporation, its subsidiary Motor Up America, and their principal, Kyle Burns. Another went forward against Herman S. Howard, Scott Howard and six Dura Lube corporations they control. The proposed settlements announced

today resolve those complaints and end the trial process.



The FTC alleged that both Dura Lube and Motor Up used labeling, packaging, infomercials, and other ads that represented, among other things, that compared to motor oil alone, their products

reduce engine wear; extend engine life; and help prevent engine breakdowns or reduce the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressure is lost. The ads for both products also represented that they protect engines for up to 50,000 miles, according to the complaints. Motor Up ads also allegedly claimed that their product prevents engine corrosion, will not drain out from the engine even when the oil is changed, and protects against engine wear even without motor oil. Dura Lube ads allegedly claimed that their product reduces emissions and improves gas mileage by up to 35%.



The FTC alleges that the companies did not possess or rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate any of their performance claims, and therefore the claims were deceptive.



Both Dura Lube and Motor Up ads showed tests and product demonstrations that they claimed "proved" the efficiancy and superiority of their products. The FTC alleged that the tests did not prove the claims, and therefore the companies' assertions that they did were false.



Dura Lube ads featured a former NASA astronaut endorsing the product, allegedly representing that he had expertise in the evaluation of automobile engine lubrication and that he had endorsed Dura Lube on the basis of independent, objective and valid testing. The FTC alleged that the astronaut did not have that expertise and had not endorsed Dura Lube based on ndependent, objective or valid testing. In addition, the complaint contends Dura Lube falsely claimed that its product did not contain any chlorinated compound and that it had been tested by the Environmental Protection Agency.



The proposed settlements would bar Dura Lube and Motor Up and their principals from making any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of any automotive engine oil additive unless they possess competent and reliable evidence to support the claims. Both settlements

also would bar misrepresentations about tests and the use of misleading or false demonstrations in connection with the marketing of any product for use in a motor vehicle.



The settlement with Dura Lube also would prohibit unsubstantiated performance claims for any product for use in a motor vehicle, and misleading or false demonstrations for any product. In addition, it would prohibit false claims that Dura Lube Engine Treatment contains no chlorinated compound or that it has been tested by the Environmental Protection Agency; and unsubstantiated claims that Dura Lube meets the requirements or standards of any government or standard-setting organization. It also would bar misrepresentations about the qualifications of product endorsers. The proposed settlement would require Dura Lube to notify product distributors in writing regarding the FTC complaint and order, visit distributors' facilities to replace Dura Lube labels and packaging with labels and packaging that comply with the order, and report to the FTC any distributor who

disseminates Dura Lube claims in violation of the order. Finally, Dura Lube will pay $2 million in consumer redress.



The Motor Up settlement would prohibit unsubstantiated performance claims for any fuel treatment,motor oil, grease, transmission fluid, or brake fluid. Motor Up Corporation, Inc. , is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Motor Up America, Inc. , a wholly owned subsidiary, is based in Stuart, Florida. Kyle Burns is president of Motor Up Corporation.



In addition to Herman S. Howard and Scott Howard, of Stamford, Connecticut, the FTC complaint named Stamford-based Dura Lube Corporation, Howe Laboratories, Inc. , The Media Group, Inc. , and National Communications Corporation, all of which played a role in marketing Dura Lube Engine Treatment. Also named are American Direct Marketing, Inc. , based in Nashville, Tennessee, which markets the product directly to consumers, and Crescent Marketing, Inc. , d/b/a Crescent Manufacturing, Inc. , headquartered in Eden, New York, which manufactures and packages Dura Lube.



The Commission votes to accept the proposed settlements were 5-0 . An announcement regarding the proposed consent agreements will be published in the Federal Register shortly. The agreements will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until April 28, 2000, after which the Commission will decide whether to make them final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20580. ;)
 
Originally posted by ralphr

I've always used amsoil's 15W 40 "heavy duty marine engine stuff, however has anybody used the series 2000 which I understand is 0W 30. I s that to light for our engines? coments questions etc...



ralphr it's 5W30 and I've tried both in my last truck. IMO it depends where you live.



When I ran oil samples my wear metals went up considerably with Amsoil 5W30, in fact higher than when I was running Delo 400. Other guys get better numbers with it. I decided it was too thin for me because it was 110+ degrees here when I ran it. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're in milder or cooler climates. Definitely not worth the extra cost, but there are those who don't agree (I can't imagine that :rolleyes: )



Vaughn
 
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ralphr

I've always used amsoil's 15W 40 "heavy duty marine engine stuff, however has anybody used the series 2000 which I understand is 0W 30. I s that to light for our engines? coments questions etc...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are truly talking about the Series "2000" oil from Amsoil, it is a 0W-30 oil. It does have a CF API Rating, but I think you should be using a CH or CI rating in the CTD, and that would be the Sereis 3000 5W-30 oil, or the AME 15W-40 oil.



Wayne

amsoilman
 
Amsoilman-



Where did you find that article? If there's a website that has that sort of thing I'd like to read more. For instance, was the ruling made permanent?



-Ryan
 
Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q

HEY GENE - I keep TELLIN' ya I *like* synthetics, just can't afford or justify the cost, us being on Social Security and all...



Now if you were REALLY as appreciative as you claim, you'd be a bud and send me case of 15/40 for my truck... :) :)





Gary,

If you would have voted democrat all those yars, you would have more money!;)

Now, I would love to do that for you, (even though I'm a bit miffed that you plug Wayne and not me, old guy brohterhood I guess?!?!!:p :p :D )

But I just couldn't give you high quality Amsoil synthetic for two reasons.



I just don't think I could bear it, when you gunk it up with STP,(sorry Richard Petty) then filter it with toilet paper!!!:{ :eek:

LMAO!!
 
"Gary,

If you would have voted democrat all those yars, you would have more money!"




This is what I'd like to attach to my sig line, but not enough room:



If you REALLY want to see the blueprint for what Liberal Democrats envision for ALL America, just look at California and New York - those are the 2 "poster states" for how they want ALL the USA to look and operate... Like what you see? Then keep voting Democrat!;) ;)
 
Synthetics have not been proven to be useful in all applications. Without question they have been proven to be both effective and cost efficient in transmissions and differentials. Most synthetics suffer less break down from the shearing action of the gears due to the molecular structure of the oil.



Engine oils do a variety of things besides straight lubrication. They transfer heat, suspend combustion by-products, clean surfaces, break down combustion acids, and I've probably forgotten quite a few more.



Synthetics do better than conventional oils in some areas and not as well in others. For example, without a good additive package the are poor carriers of combustion products. This leads my to my point.



Through years of experience and testing, the forulation of conventional diesel motor oils is just about optimum in terms of what the engine needs.



Arguably, a good synthetic could be better than conventional oils, but the areas in which it excels aren't necesarily areas that are critical to engine operation.



Am I suggesting that AMSOIL or other synthetic lubricants are bad for your engine? Absolutely not. However, the economics of running synthetics just aren't there. If you disagree, why do you suppose that better than 95% of major trucking firms use conventional diesel lubricants? 'cause it saves them money and provides excellent service.



I do not sell or endorse any particular product. I just tell it the way it is.



If synthetics make you feel warm and fuzzy then you should use synthetics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top