Correct me if I'm wrong, however, I am unaware of any form of silicone that can successfully function as both a lubricant AND a coolant. As far as achieving your goal of a life-time fill, I think we'll see the demise of the IC engine long before we see that.
By the way, why are you changing your oil "every few thousand miles" anyway? Put a quality fully synthetic oil in there and drive it for 20,000 miles.
I totally agree with Shipo. Ran a Ford Thunderbird 2.3 Turbo Coupe for 325K miles with Mobile 1 oil changes every 30K (that was when it needed a tune up) and changing the filter every 5K. At 325K miles when I sold the car it used about 1 quart of oil every 5K miles. I was in Germany at the time and ran the car at 115MPH (the limit on the cruise control for a Ford) quite often as I lived 200 miles from work. Currently do the same with a Mercedes turbo diesel.
Shipo, on the other hand, I'm halfway convinced that you could probably weld shut the hood on a lot of cars, especially those with big, understressed V8s (think Mercury Grand Marquis) and not touch them until 100K. I believe in using synthetic oil in a regular OCI interval not because they engine may last any longer (it probably won't, at least during my ownership). Kind of like a somewhat skeptical Catholic who still follows the rules in case it turns out that there is a heaven.
Not so incidentally, the membership in the Automotive Rebuilders Association is plummeting. No one needs a rebuilt car engine any more. Even the terms "valve job" and "re-ring it" are archaic.
"No one needs a rebuilt car engine any more. Even the terms "valve job" and "re-ring it" are archaic."
Funny thing, there was a guy running around here in the TownHall a year or two back who was constantly harping about lots of silly things, one of which was the need to use MMO in the gas tank to keep the valves and rings lubricated (so that you wouldn't need a valve or ring job at say 75,000 miles) now that TEL isn't a component of gasoline any longer.
When I pointed out that Lead was not a valve and ring lubricant but a knock inhibitor/octane enhancer and that putting MMO in the gas tank was worthless, if not counter productive, the fireworks started. Now you come along with a metric that he might actually believe, unfortunately he's taken his MMO and gone off to play elsewhere. So, where were you a year or two back when I needed ya?
What is "the whole Amsoil thing" you're referring to? I use Amsoil & feel it is the best oil in the world. Mobil 1 only does so well because they spend so much on marketing compared to some of the better oils. Just curious...
Whew. I had to go back to the stone-ages to find an adequate explanation as to why silicones are not used as engine lubricants. Apparently, the coefficient of friction for polydimethylsiloxanes (silicone oils) is too high (on steel surfaces) and causes excessive wear on sliding surfaces. Gainer, GC "Silicone Oils for Lubricating Steel versus steel", Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 46, 11, 1954, 2355. Well, better wasting 3 hours on Scifinder than wasting $10,000 on a Chevy Aveo.
I've had 3 GM cars with the reliable 3.8L V6 engine. I still have a 1988 Olds with 175K miles. But I just blew the second engine in a 1997 Park Ave. It was a new replacement for the original engine in 2003 at 95K miles. The replacement had 45K miles when it threw a rod, three months after the 3 year warranty expired. The one thing that I can think of that was common to both failed engines was that I started out using synthetic oil in both engines. About the 4th to 6th oil change in each engine the mechanic installed regular oil when I forgot to specify synthetic. So, in each case, I decided to just stay with regular oil from then on.I can't imagine why this would be responsible for the failures, but it is too unlikely that I would have two engine failures in such a reliable engine. Has anyone ever tested that scenario, that is switching from synthetic and looking at the long term effects?
The "whole Amsoil thing" that I was referring to was itself a reference to a comment made by blckislandguy. In that comment he mentioned his distaste for products sold via a pyramid marketing scheme, I happen to agree, hence my comment.
Regarding your feeling that Amsoil is the best oil in the world, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but try as I might, I've yet to see any scientific studies to back that up. Simply dismissing the success that Mobil has had with Mobil 1 to marketing is, I believe, quite disingenuous. The fact is that Mobil has been producing Mobil 1 in some form for decades and as such it has been proven to be a supremely good lubricant based upon bazillions of miles of driving history.
Is Mobil 1 the absolute best oil in the world? Don't know, don't care. Is Amsoil? How about the German made Castrol Syntec? Same answer. Is Mobil 1 clustered (and differentiated by a very narrow margin) within the best 5 oils in the world? Yup. Is Mobil 1 capable of protecting engines in an environment far more challenging that mine? Yup again.
While I'm on the subject, another thing that bugs me about Amsoil is that the "claim" to meet certain specifications that are put forth by the engine manufacturers (i.e. BMW-LL01 and VW-503.01), however, unlike Castrol and Mobil, the folks at Amsoil have never sent their oil out to be certified as meeting those standards. Hell, I can pour a bunch of castor oil in a can and "claim" it meets 503.01 too. Does it? Oddly enough, it might. Errr, it "might" with one BIG caveat, castor oil is only good for one pass through the engine, and must then be ejected. Obviously this is quite messy. :surprise:
I've never seen anything to even remotely hint that a brief stint with regular oil is even remotely bad. In my case, I switched our 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan with the 3.8 in it over to Synthetic oil within the first 20,000 miles, however, when I took it in to the dealer for its 30K check-up, the dealer put their basic bilge oil in it (in spite of the fact that I told them that I had JUST changed my own oil and to leave that part of the 30K service undone). I let it go something like six or even seven thousand miles and then went back to Mobil 1. That engine now has almost 114,000 on the clock and going strong.
Regarding your engines. How did the first one fail? A rod as well?
As a general comment, throwing a rod (in a car that isn't being raced) is typically due to excessive heat brought on by oil starvation. That in turn can be caused by failed/clogged filters, failed oil pumps, gizmo toilet paper filters, clogged oil pickup screens or simply not enough oil in the pan.
Other possible causes are bad metallurgy in the rods themselves, a slipped or improperly installed bearing (either the main that feeds that part of the crank or the rod bearing itself).
I'm sure that any decent engine guy can look at the remains of your engine and determine the cause of the failure. After all, engine forensics aren't rocket science. ;-)
however, when I took it in to the dealer for its 30K check-up, the dealer put their basic bilge oil in it (in spite of the fact that I told them that I had JUST changed my own oil and to leave that part of the 30K service undone).
Had to laugh. Makes me feel better about printing out my own special instructions (use owner oil, return empties etc) and hanging them on the mirror so the actual mechanic sees them (that fine print stuff on the work order gets overlooked).
Of course my worst experience was buying a new Honda CR-V at an otherwise great Honda dealer with a brand new refurbished service department, which offered Mobil 1 oil changes at a reasonable upcharge. I decided to switch to Mobil 1 off the mark and was surprised when I went to pay the cashier and found out they had put 5-30 in, instead of 5-20. When I went back to the service advisor, he tried to argue that 5-20 was wrong for the car (this was a 2005) and 5-30 was right - he actually told me Honda was wrong to put a 20 weight oil in a vehicle the size of the CR-V. I made them put the right oil in, and never took the vehicle back for service there, although I had started out intending to. I went to my former Honda dealer where I could watch them do the oil change.
Over the last several years I've done a lot of historical research on fuels for IC engines, it is amazing what you can find in the various archives currently published on the Net. In an odd cathartic sort of way I've actually enjoyed combing through the NACA (precursor to NASA) archives, which BTW go all of the way back to the "nineteen teens".
The "whole Amsoil thing" includes pyramid marketing schemes that convince otherwise innocent small town people to become "dealers", unsubstantiated claims, high prices, etc. If the oil was as good as they say it is you would think that Porsche etc. would use it, NASCAR guys would demand it, large construction fleets would buy it by the 55 gal drum etc. None of this exists.
Let's say I want to use synthetic oil at my next oil change. All of my cars are sports cars that are low to the ground. I don't have a garage lift and I'm getting out of the mode of jacking up my car to change my own oil, so I take the car to the shop and ask them to put in Mobil 1.
How do I know that they actually put Mobil 1 in the car? Call me cynical, but I can almost guarantee that most dealerships and shops will use at least some low grade oil to dilute the cost and profit more from the customer.
Nothing substitutes for standing there watching the deed done in front of your eyes. But as a practical question, why would you deal with someone you have doubts about?
I think a lot of people on this board are interested in synthetics as a way to prolong engine life. No one though as discussed the very common habit of people starting their engine, throwing the car in gear and driving off while the oil pressure warning buzzer is still ringing. This I think should shorten engine life tremendously. Additionally, for those that do do this, maybe they should NOT run synthetic because it is so slippery that it runs off the cylinder walls and doesn't leave a nice residue as does the dino stuff?
There is of course a solution to this (beyond practicing patience or getting divorced). One can buy so called "safety gauges" that are used on unattended stationary engines. When the oil pressure is too low or water temp too high the engine is shut down pending a manual restart!
Let me offer this up for discussion. Your assertion might well be true. However, because we are led (or do it of our own volition) to focus on the incorrect end of the power curve we do not truly capture the heart of the issue.
So to me the heart of the issue IS....: (According to most experts) 80% (vast majority) of engine wear comes from (DRY) start up. (wear) We might consider two things and/or in combination.
1. eliminate DRY start up wear
2. less start ups would tend to let the engine last longer.
3. combination
This is easily solve by a subsystem that 99.9% of the passenger fleet does NOT have- PREOILERS.
So for lack of a 149 dollar AFTERMARKET part (I am sure the oems can put it on standard for FAR cheaper) we in effect fail to stem 80% of engine part wear.
In conclusion, NEITHER synthetic NOR conventional oil in the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet guard against (DRY) start up wear.
So for an interesting test on an engine designed for 20,000 hour design life, which if you can recover or eliminate say a LARGE % of the 80% of engine wear due to dry start up, will one last up to 80% longer = 16,000 hours = 36,000 miles!!! To convert this: @ 50 mph avg speed, that is 1,000,000 miles vs 1,800,000 miles !!! If we can put this in the context of the avg age of the passenger vehicle fleet is 7.5-8.5 years. The salvage rate is 7-7.5% per year. The average US driver does between 12,000-15,000 per year
Hopefully this is graphic enough to keep the discussion flowing.
The reason this technology doesn't catch on with the average passenger car driver I think is that it is really much more suited to commercial fleets. Why? Because a Greyhound Bus for instance, is built to last 500K miles internally and externally. The average passenger car will degrade substantially in body, trim, etc., long before that. What you'd end up with is a great heart in a broken down old man. What's a 1996 Corolla worth, all rusted and banged with no brakes and a bad transmission and ripped seats, even with a great running engine? Same as one with a bad running engine.
By the (hypothetical) example you use, It is not saying much for the longer term quality of that Yotota!
I think part of the structural change (if the oil crisis is REALLY a crisis) is a multi pronged approach. One goal for example might be to bring up the AVERAGE salvage age of the FLEET. I am sure in the statistics of OEM manufacturing there is an estimate of how much energy it takes to oem a new vehicle. Also how much energy saved or lost to keep a used one on the road. My guess however is some of those type answers do not work in their favor. As you probably would also agree body work is way more expensive that mechanical work.
Also there is the statistical inevitability of a car being damaged or demolished with a perfectly good engine in it---still ready for the scrap heap nonetheless.
The greatest marketing challenge for synthetic oil manufacturers seems to be the annoying ability of modern engines to last a very long time (long enough for 99% of users) using common off the shelf motor oils.
Over the years I've run across certain weird engine problems that seem to never show up under "normal" high mileage (i.e. 200K or less). Just recently on another forum I stumbled across a Chrysler/Dodge 3.8 liter minivan engine that was having a problem with what sounded like a noisy valve train that suddenly became even noisier, coupled with a misfire on one cylinder.
The owner was posting not to find out how to cure the source of the noise but to figure out how to put a new engine in his Town & Country. A few posts later he dropped another tidbit if information regarding his plans, namely that he had found an engine with "only" 130,000 miles on it that he was considering buying as a replacement. Needless to say other posters were curious to find out about the existing engine. Turns out that his van had 360,000 miles on it, and while it was in good operating condition, something was clearly wrong with the top end on one side of the V6.
In the end he did in fact purchase the other engine and put it in. Once the old one was out he performed a little forensic study on the source of the problem. It turns out that one of the four rocker arm shaft bosses had cracked (the end one at that). On the 3.8 liter engine the boss is basically a riser that extends from the top of the cylinder head casting (which is iron) and is them machined so that the rocker arm shaft can be bolted into it. Anyway, once the boss cracked, the rocker arm shaft was effectively secured only on one side of the two rocker arms for the #1 cylinder, and eventually the shaft itself cracked (hence the noise that suddenly got worse).
So, bringing this back full circle, modern engines are now capable of running hundreds of thousands of miles with the latest lubricants, however, even when the rest of the body doesn't disintegrate around the engine, the engine itself can run into metallurgically related fatigue problems. So I have to ask, "How many miles do we really require our engines to run?" Personally, if I ever have the need to push a car as far as it will go, I'm thinking that if it goes 250,000 or more that it can fail any time it wants to and I won't complain. ;-)
Well for sure that is true, but somewhere folded in the yearly salvage rates are the statistics of which you speak., ie it would not change much in the macro picture.
The second item is one that is truly not challenging. By this I mean that if it is indeed true by qwiky lube assn statistics that the AVG change is 5,000 mile OCI's with a normal range of 3,5,7.5k, it would seem few venture beyond that for conventional oil changes. My other take is conventional oil standards are truly to a higher standard IF my 10,000 mile OCI for a Honda Civic can be a standard. So while I have been doing 15,000 mile oil changes for a very long time and mileage (765,000 miles) it has been with the 5,000 conventional oil change in mind. So clearly it might be time to revisit the 15,000 mile OCI as conservative!?
Indeed I do a 25,000 mile OCI on a TDI with synthetic (Mobil One T & S aka Delvac One 5w40) I doubt if there are any takers for the same OCI with conventional oil under the same circumstances!?
So in the case of 250,000 miles, with synthetic we are talking anywhere between 10-17 oil changes (15,000 to 20,000 miles per OCI) vs a more regular 50-84 oil changes (3,000-5,000 per OCI). So again if 250,000 is the drop dead point (figuratively of course) why would one want to change it more vs changing it less?
Also I was plenty amazed to only lose 44% of the vehicles value over 14 years or 3.125% per year (16k pp sold for 9k with app 250,000 miles and 15,000 oci's. In my humble opinion and probably the buyers too, the body was good for easily another 15 years or a life of 30 years.
I would feel the same, about 250K. After that, you really have to consider safety issues from structural failures in the car's chassis/steeering/brakes. I have found enough benefits (in certain applications) from synthetic to not worry about engine longevity after 250K.
Since I only put maybe 10,000 miles per year on a car, 150,000 mile life is probably plenty for me. I don't think I'd keep a car for 25 years...15, maybe.
We have a 15 year old, 150,000 mi Sentra that one of our kids drives. The engine keeps running, but the car is pretty crappy in many other ways.
Could someone please explain to me the advantage (if any )of using synthetic motor oil as compared to regular oil. I have a new 2006 Toyota 4Runner which I intend on keeping a long time and I'm wondering which type of oil to use. Thanks!! :confuse: ">
If you scroll back in this message thread about three months, there has already been a pretty lively debate on that topic! (Though I am sure ruking and shipo are ready to throw some more oil on that fire! :P )
I believe you're from Canada correct? If so, your 4Runner in those winter months will definitely benefit from the use of synthetics. Cold starts, warmups, driving conditions/style, short/stop and go drivings, oil change intervals, miles etc. the list goes on.
How is it sold via a pyramid marketing scheme? I sign on to the Amsoil web-site & order. It comes by mail a few days later. And the studies exist that show Amsoil to be superior to Mobil 1. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that 2 specs aren't used often enough for comparison. Those are the Four Ball Wear Test and Noack Volatility. These are two very good indicators of how well an oil protects & how well it holds up.
"How is it sold via a pyramid marketing scheme? I sign on to the Amsoil web-site & order. It comes by mail a few days later."
That you can buy it directly from them does in no way mean that Amsoil's main marketing methods are via the Pyramid scam.
"And the studies exist that show Amsoil to be superior to Mobil 1."
Ummm-hmmm, and were pray tell did you find all of those studies? The Amsoil web site per chance?
"Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that 2 specs aren't used often enough for comparison. Those are the Four Ball Wear Test and Noack Volatility. These are two very good indicators of how well an oil protects & how well it holds up."
Ummm, well no. The 4-Ball test is archaic at best and all the Noack test does is measure evaporative loss. Neither one of them have a single thing to do with how well an oil protects a modern engine. FWIW, I prefer to go with the various standards as set forth by the engine manufacturers themselves. As it turns out, VW seems to have the strictest published standards currently out (although the BMW LL04 is soon to be published, errr, if it hasn't already), and as such, I look for oils that have been certified to meet said standards (i.e. VW 503.01 for gasoline engines). Mobil 1 0W-40 and German Castrol Syntec 0W-30 are both certified to meet that standard, however, none of the Amsoil oils carry such a certification.
Still didn't answer the question... how is Amsoil sold via a pyramid marketing scheme? As for where I found the studies... I tend to compare the published product information from the manufacturer's product sheets. I don't agree that these tests are archaic or that they don't show how well an oil protects a modern engine but I think we might have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the Amsoil Pyramid scam, it is what it is. Nuff said.
Regarding your comment:
"I tend to compare the published product information from the manufacturer's product sheets."
Personally I don't generally believe most of what comes out of the Amsoil camp, however, playing by your rules I've compared the specs from the single oil from both the Amsoil and Mobil 1 product lines that are geared for European cars (in an attempt to compare apples to apples), namely European Car Formula Synthetic 5W-40 Motor Oil (AFL) and Mobil 1 0W-40:
--------- Specification ---------------------- Amsoil ---- Mobil 1 Viscosity @ 40C (lower is better) ------- 80.8 ------- 80.0 Viscosity @ 100C (higher is better) ---- 13.7 ------- 14.3 Viscosity Index (higher is better) -------- 174 -------- 187 Flash point (higher is better) ------------ 230C ------ 236C Pour point (lower is better) --------------- -42C ------- -54C HTHS @ 150C (higher is better) ---------- 3.7 --------- 3.6
I don't know about you but, marketing hype aside I think I'll stick with Mobil 1.
Hmmm... so still no explanation as to why you call it "the Amsoil Pyramid scam" other than "it is what it is." Interesting... nuff said.
If we're going to compare "apples to apples" we really should consider something other than your two oils that are "geared for European cars" especially since they are both 40 weight oils in hot temps but not the same rating in cold (0 vs. 5). I would use the 0w-30 for comparison but interestingly the Mobil 1 0w-30 product data sheet is a dead link. Interesting... you'd think Mobil wouldn't have those problems with all the big marketing bucks they spend. Instead I'll compare the Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w-30 to Amsoil Synthetic 5w-30, which is the oil I use. Both are 100% synthetic oils, not hydrocracked like some of their other oils. Both are designed for extended drain use, as all Amsoil oils are and have been for decades even though this is something new for Mobil. Both are designed for 1 year use (15,000 miles for Mobil 1 & 25,000 for Amsoil). And both are the same 5w-30 grade most importantly:
Specification Amsoil Mobil 1 Viscosity @ 40C (lower is better) 57.3 57.3 Viscosity @ 100C (higher is better) 10.6 10.25 Viscosity Index (higher is better) 185 169 Flash point (higher is better) 228C 226C Pour point (lower is better) -51C -45C HTHS @150C (higher is better) 3.2 3.08
But I suppose you'll want to revert to the "I don't generally believe most of what comes out of the Amsoil camp" argument. You're probably right... I'm sure they falsified their ASTM testing. Don't get me wrong, Mobil 1 is a great oil. I use it in my other car because I don't plan on keeping it long & I can get Mobil 1 cheap at Sam's. The original point I was trying to make was that there are other synthetics (including Amsoil... the first ever) even though you hear a lot about Mobil 1.
Also, here's some interesting reading from the "Motor Oil Bible" by Michael Kaufman. It is available free online so no copyright issues. Just the opinion of a Lube Industry Engineer about those "archaic" tests I mentioned earlier.
Four Ball Wear Test (ASTM D-4172) According to the ASTM.org website (click here): "This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine." So, the indication is that the Four Ball Wear Test is useful for establishing how well a lubricant will prevent wear in situations where there is sliding contact going on. Many companies that do not publish 4 Ball test results say that the test is not useful for testing engine oils because it doesn't recreate conditions that are actually found within an engine. I disagree. There are multiple components of an engine that see sliding contact with other components and where excessive wear can occur if not adequately protected by a lubricant film. An excellent example is the camshaft, lifters and pushrods or the camshaft and rocker arms in an overhead cam engine. There is also sliding motion between the piston and the cylinder, and I'm quite certain if they thought about it long enough, they'd think of multiple other locations in the engine where sliding contact occurs. I fail to see how the anti-wear properties of a lubricant would not be relevant in these areas. In fact, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that the reason most companies don't publish and won't provide 4-ball data is because it would make them look bad. How is it performed? The four ball wear test is performed by rotating one ball bearing on three fixed bearings. The motor oil is used to form a film between the bearings. The test can be done at a variety of temperatures, pressures and RPM. For instance, some tests will be done at 40 kg of pressure, 75 degrees C and 1200 RPM while others might be done at 60 kg of pressure, 150 degrees C and 1800 RPM. Obviously, the latter test has higher pressure, higher temperature and a faster rotating ball bearing - all of which place more stress on the lubricant. At the end of the test, the wear scar is measured on each of the three stationary balls and averaged for a final "wear scar measurement" in millimeters. The smaller this number, the better an oil will protect an engine at any point of sliding contact. Be careful, however, to be sure you're comparing equivalent test results. Testing done at lower temperature, pressure and rpm is likely to show a much smaller wear scar than testing at the higher levels. This test, like the NOACK, seems to be catching on in the industry, but I wouldn't call it an industry standard yet. Many companies, although I'm nearly certain they run this test, don't publish the data. And, since this test is not currently required for any particular certification, you can't be certain that a company has run it.
Noack Volatility Test (DIN 51581) The NOACK Volatility Test is one that is becoming more common on motor oil tech sheets, but still is not always provided. However, in my opinion, it is one of the most important technical specifications you can look at to determine the quality of an oil. It is a test which was originally established in Europe by an organization similar to the ASTM here in the US. DIN (as in DIN 51581) stands for Deutsche Industrie Norm (I know "Industry" is with a "y" not "ie" - try telling the Europeans that). To the best of my knowledge, the first company in the US to use this test was AMSOIL Inc. Since then the test has become more of an industry norm. In fact, oil manufacturers now MUST run a NOACK test on their oils to meet current industry standards. For instance, diesel oils must have a NOACK score of 17% or lower to meet API CH-4 standards. To meet the latest API SL standards, gasoline oils must have a NOACK score of 15% or lower. So, if you request a NOACK score and the manufacturer tells you they don't have it, you know they're lying. That had to run it to establish API specification levels. They may not want to provide it, but they've got the data. The NOACK test exposes an oil to a high temperature environment of 250 degrees C (almost 500 degrees F) for one hour. Other standardized environmental conditions are also set to make sure that the test is always performed in the same manner. The test is designed to determine the amount of evaporation that will occur over the course of this one hour time period. The final score is listed as a percentage of weight loss by the end of the test. Many petroleum oils will score well above 15% weight loss, while most synthetics will easily score below 10%. In a general sense, the lower the viscosity grade and/or the wider the multi-grade "gap", the more weight loss you are likely to see on the NOACK. For instance, an SAE 30 will evaporate more quickly than an SAE 60 motor oil. Also, a 0w30 will evaporate more quickly than a 10w30. The difference may not be much, but there will almost certainly be a difference. Keep in mind that this does not necessarily indicate less engine protection. More evaporation simply indicates how much oil consumption you will see over time, not how much engine wear will occur.
Of the four referenced oils, the Mobil 1 0W-40 is clearly the best on paper (which doesn't necessarily translate to the best in any given engine, but since you only care about specs that should be enough).
Regarding the four ball test, per my research on the issue, it is a test that was developed to determine how new oil formulations would work with older engines that had long since ceased production. The technology put into newer engines effectively render this test irrelevant. As for what the "Bible" says, one man's opinion. Where's the science to back up his statements? I mean "really", when was the last time you had a car (or even heard of a car) that had a cam lobe go flat or a lifter wear through because of an oil that had a low score on the four ball test? I've wrenched on cars for over three decades and I've seen exactly one cam/lifter failure (on one lobe only), and that was in a beat up old Ford that had cheap conventional oil dumped into it and then run until another quart was needed. The oil and the filter were never changed. If you listen to Amsoil, the four ball test is one of the most important tests in the world. If you cut through the noise (which is very difficult because of all of the web sites that quote the Amsoil bilge, word for word in most cases), you'll find that it is a completely irrelevant test for modern engines (also one man's opinion and also without any scientific backing).
Regarding the Noack evap test, I see zero relevance between how well an engine is protected and the Noack score of the oil in said engine. The fact is that the oil is certainly stable enough if one doesn't have to be constantly adding oil (assuming the engine isn't consuming it). Specific to Mobil 1, the worst car for (Mobil 1) oil consumption that I've ever had is my 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan. That engine has about 115,000 miles on it and is using a quart of oil about every 7,500 miles. My two BMWs didn't even consume a full quart in 15,000 miles. So, I guess the Noack is "good enough".
I think if I had to really go through all this research between Mobil One Redline and Amsoil, I would indeed experience analysis paralysis. As a bare minimum, all three are among the best oils (group IV) than one can buy.
I personally would have no qualms in running ANY of the brands in the correct applications and specifications in 0w40 and 5w40.
I currently use the Mobil One 5w40 (aka Delvac One 5w40)with 25,000 OCI's and do it for a number of reasons
1. I have run Mobil One (5w30) for a long time with 15,000 OCI's and for a few miles.(765,000 miles) So I have a little history with the products.
2. 5w40 for its applications and specification is a VERY robust oil and the oem calls for 5w40. I would use 0w40 if 5w40 were not available.
3. It is commonly available
4. It costs less than either Redline or Amsoil
5. I do not have to pay for shipping twice.
6. Beyond the very next oil change and one spare qt, I do not have to stock it
You can't compare two oils of two different grades & say the 0w-40 wins. That's like comparing a 30 weight & a 40 weight & saying one brand is better because it flows better. Apples to apples 5w30 Amsoil clearly is the better oil.
It indeed may be. However they have made no real statistical study showing it to be true or false in say two side by side cars in 250,000 miles.
But as the real world would have it, sometimes reality doesnt match the statistical tests or even the marketing effort. As this same web site did a A/B side by side test in the same vehicle with /Mobil/Redline and Redline did not do nearly as well as Mobil One.
Why explain something that just "is"? Look at their structure, classic Pyramid. Nuff said.
Regarding flashy marketing, geez, that's kinda disingenuous don't you think? Try doing a search on the internet for any Synthetic oil related information of substance and 90% or better of the results are related to Amsoil (directly or via one of their pyramided resellers). Hit any of those sites and all you will see is the same old Amsoil drivel, "Blah, blah, blah..." Claiming that any one of the fully synthetic oils is better than the rest is splitting a hair at best and likely wrong at the worst. For my part, I'll buy the oils that are certified to meet the standards called for by the folks that designed and built my engines. That by the way immediately excludes Amsoil.
pyramid schemes are illegal, and the laws against them are enforced. selling amsoil via their distributor-program or whatever-they-call it - is *legal*. hence their structure is not technically a pyramid scheme. network-marketing may be annoying but it is legal. i'd probably consider AMSOIL for my VW TDIs if they offered an oil that was independently certified to VW 505.01 spec.
Yeah I think it is difficult to ignore that BOTH Redline and Amsoil SAY and probably do the testing to meet the myraid of standards. But in truth, due to cost and marketing concerns, do not submit to the independent testing and on going certification procedures to be certified for those specifications.
If an oil company doesn't certify their oils to meet certain standards then there is no way to know if the oil really meets all of the criteria for any given standard. They might could well easily meet 90% of a standard, however, due to a number of compounds that they use to meet the criteria for certain tests, they fail on that last 10% when going for certification. Case in point, I saw a quote from a petroleum engineer some time back regarding a shear test (IIRC), where he was saying something like, "Sure, there are many things we could add to improve our shear numbers, however, those same things wouldn't translate well into an engine oil in the real world."
Said another way, Redline and Amsoil can say that their oils meet the standards, however, until they are independently certified, there is no way to really know if the oils do what their makers say they do. Is it really worth having to foot the bill for a new engine or a new catalytic converter or some other peripheral component because you were using an oil that "almost" met the standards required for your engine?
Could it be that Amsoil is using the internet direct availability for their oils as a means to dodge the Pyramid laws?
FWIW, I looked into becoming an Amsoil dealer a number of years back (pre-internet as we know it today) and the "Plan" looked to be very similar to Amway's plan (and I've have any number of family and friends who have A) tried to rope me in on that scheme, and then lost their hind quarters financially because they stuck with it too long). Yuk, no thanks. Have they (Amsoil) changed their plan since then? Not that I've heard. Does this all mean that they are still using a pyramid plan? Well, if it looks like a pyramid, smells like a pyramid and tastes like a pyramid, then what else would you call it?
It's a MLM set-up with a few twists. Many many internet forums, from RV people to classic car forums, etc. debate this very question about Amsoil constantly. No one has resolved it or proved it one way or the other, but suspicions never seem to go away either.
Comments
By the way, why are you changing your oil "every few thousand miles" anyway? Put a quality fully synthetic oil in there and drive it for 20,000 miles.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Regards, NRK
Not so incidentally, the membership in the Automotive Rebuilders Association is plummeting. No one needs a rebuilt car engine any more. Even the terms "valve job" and "re-ring it" are archaic.
Funny thing, there was a guy running around here in the TownHall a year or two back who was constantly harping about lots of silly things, one of which was the need to use MMO in the gas tank to keep the valves and rings lubricated (so that you wouldn't need a valve or ring job at say 75,000 miles) now that TEL isn't a component of gasoline any longer.
When I pointed out that Lead was not a valve and ring lubricant but a knock inhibitor/octane enhancer and that putting MMO in the gas tank was worthless, if not counter productive, the fireworks started. Now you come along with a metric that he might actually believe, unfortunately he's taken his MMO and gone off to play elsewhere. So, where were you a year or two back when I needed ya?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Gainer, GC "Silicone Oils for Lubricating Steel versus steel", Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 46, 11, 1954, 2355. Well, better wasting 3 hours on Scifinder than wasting $10,000 on a Chevy Aveo.
Regarding your feeling that Amsoil is the best oil in the world, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but try as I might, I've yet to see any scientific studies to back that up. Simply dismissing the success that Mobil has had with Mobil 1 to marketing is, I believe, quite disingenuous. The fact is that Mobil has been producing Mobil 1 in some form for decades and as such it has been proven to be a supremely good lubricant based upon bazillions of miles of driving history.
Is Mobil 1 the absolute best oil in the world? Don't know, don't care. Is Amsoil? How about the German made Castrol Syntec? Same answer. Is Mobil 1 clustered (and differentiated by a very narrow margin) within the best 5 oils in the world? Yup. Is Mobil 1 capable of protecting engines in an environment far more challenging that mine? Yup again.
While I'm on the subject, another thing that bugs me about Amsoil is that the "claim" to meet certain specifications that are put forth by the engine manufacturers (i.e. BMW-LL01 and VW-503.01), however, unlike Castrol and Mobil, the folks at Amsoil have never sent their oil out to be certified as meeting those standards. Hell, I can pour a bunch of castor oil in a can and "claim" it meets 503.01 too. Does it? Oddly enough, it might. Errr, it "might" with one BIG caveat, castor oil is only good for one pass through the engine, and must then be ejected. Obviously this is quite messy. :surprise:
Best Regards,
Shipo
Regarding your engines. How did the first one fail? A rod as well?
As a general comment, throwing a rod (in a car that isn't being raced) is typically due to excessive heat brought on by oil starvation. That in turn can be caused by failed/clogged filters, failed oil pumps, gizmo toilet paper filters, clogged oil pickup screens or simply not enough oil in the pan.
Other possible causes are bad metallurgy in the rods themselves, a slipped or improperly installed bearing (either the main that feeds that part of the crank or the rod bearing itself).
I'm sure that any decent engine guy can look at the remains of your engine and determine the cause of the failure. After all, engine forensics aren't rocket science. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
Had to laugh. Makes me feel better about printing out my own special instructions (use owner oil, return empties etc) and hanging them on the mirror so the actual mechanic sees them (that fine print stuff on the work order gets overlooked).
Of course my worst experience was buying a new Honda CR-V at an otherwise great Honda dealer with a brand new refurbished service department, which offered Mobil 1 oil changes at a reasonable upcharge. I decided to switch to Mobil 1 off the mark and was surprised when I went to pay the cashier and found out they had put 5-30 in, instead of 5-20. When I went back to the service advisor, he tried to argue that 5-20 was wrong for the car (this was a 2005) and 5-30 was right - he actually told me Honda was wrong to put a 20 weight oil in a vehicle the size of the CR-V. I made them put the right oil in, and never took the vehicle back for service there, although I had started out intending to. I went to my former Honda dealer where I could watch them do the oil change.
Over the last several years I've done a lot of historical research on fuels for IC engines, it is amazing what you can find in the various archives currently published on the Net. In an odd cathartic sort of way I've actually enjoyed combing through the NACA (precursor to NASA) archives, which BTW go all of the way back to the "nineteen teens".
Best Regards,
Shipo
Errr, what did I do?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Let's say I want to use synthetic oil at my next oil change. All of my cars are sports cars that are low to the ground. I don't have a garage lift and I'm getting out of the mode of jacking up my car to change my own oil, so I take the car to the shop and ask them to put in Mobil 1.
How do I know that they actually put Mobil 1 in the car? Call me cynical, but I can almost guarantee that most dealerships and shops will use at least some low grade oil to dilute the cost and profit more from the customer.
There is of course a solution to this (beyond practicing patience or getting divorced). One can buy so called "safety gauges" that are used on unattended stationary engines. When the oil pressure is too low or water temp too high the engine is shut down pending a manual restart!
So to me the heart of the issue IS....: (According to most experts) 80% (vast majority) of engine wear comes from (DRY) start up. (wear) We might consider two things and/or in combination.
1. eliminate DRY start up wear
2. less start ups would tend to let the engine last longer.
3. combination
This is easily solve by a subsystem that 99.9% of the passenger fleet does NOT have- PREOILERS.
http://www.streetortrack.com/preoilerunits.asp
So for lack of a 149 dollar AFTERMARKET part (I am sure the oems can put it on standard for FAR cheaper) we in effect fail to stem 80% of engine part wear.
In conclusion, NEITHER synthetic NOR conventional oil in the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet guard against (DRY) start up wear.
So for an interesting test on an engine designed for 20,000 hour design life, which if you can recover or eliminate say a LARGE % of the 80% of engine wear due to dry start up, will one last up to 80% longer = 16,000 hours = 36,000 miles!!! To convert this: @ 50 mph avg speed, that is 1,000,000 miles vs 1,800,000 miles !!! If we can put this in the context of the avg age of the passenger vehicle fleet is 7.5-8.5 years. The salvage rate is 7-7.5% per year. The average US driver does between 12,000-15,000 per year
Hopefully this is graphic enough to keep the discussion flowing.
I think part of the structural change (if the oil crisis is REALLY a crisis)
The greatest marketing challenge for synthetic oil manufacturers seems to be the annoying ability of modern engines to last a very long time (long enough for 99% of users) using common off the shelf motor oils.
The owner was posting not to find out how to cure the source of the noise but to figure out how to put a new engine in his Town & Country. A few posts later he dropped another tidbit if information regarding his plans, namely that he had found an engine with "only" 130,000 miles on it that he was considering buying as a replacement. Needless to say other posters were curious to find out about the existing engine. Turns out that his van had 360,000 miles on it, and while it was in good operating condition, something was clearly wrong with the top end on one side of the V6.
In the end he did in fact purchase the other engine and put it in. Once the old one was out he performed a little forensic study on the source of the problem. It turns out that one of the four rocker arm shaft bosses had cracked (the end one at that). On the 3.8 liter engine the boss is basically a riser that extends from the top of the cylinder head casting (which is iron) and is them machined so that the rocker arm shaft can be bolted into it. Anyway, once the boss cracked, the rocker arm shaft was effectively secured only on one side of the two rocker arms for the #1 cylinder, and eventually the shaft itself cracked (hence the noise that suddenly got worse).
So, bringing this back full circle, modern engines are now capable of running hundreds of thousands of miles with the latest lubricants, however, even when the rest of the body doesn't disintegrate around the engine, the engine itself can run into metallurgically related fatigue problems. So I have to ask, "How many miles do we really require our engines to run?" Personally, if I ever have the need to push a car as far as it will go, I'm thinking that if it goes 250,000 or more that it can fail any time it wants to and I won't complain. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
The second item is one that is truly not challenging. By this I mean that if it is indeed true by qwiky lube assn statistics that the AVG change is 5,000 mile OCI's with a normal range of 3,5,7.5k, it would seem few venture beyond that for conventional oil changes. My other take is conventional oil standards are truly to a higher standard IF my 10,000 mile OCI for a Honda Civic can be a standard. So while I have been doing 15,000 mile oil changes for a very long time and mileage (765,000 miles) it has been with the 5,000 conventional oil change in mind. So clearly it might be time to revisit the 15,000 mile OCI as conservative!?
Indeed I do a 25,000 mile OCI on a TDI with synthetic (Mobil One T & S aka Delvac One 5w40) I doubt if there are any takers for the same OCI with conventional oil under the same circumstances!?
So in the case of 250,000 miles, with synthetic we are talking anywhere between 10-17 oil changes (15,000 to 20,000 miles per OCI) vs a more regular 50-84 oil changes (3,000-5,000 per OCI). So again if 250,000 is the drop dead point (figuratively of course) why would one want to change it more vs changing it less?
Also I was plenty amazed to only lose 44% of the vehicles value over 14 years or 3.125% per year (16k pp sold for 9k with app 250,000 miles and 15,000 oci's. In my humble opinion and probably the buyers too, the body was good for easily another 15 years or a life of 30 years.
We have a 15 year old, 150,000 mi Sentra that one of our kids drives. The engine keeps running, but the car is pretty crappy in many other ways.
That you can buy it directly from them does in no way mean that Amsoil's main marketing methods are via the Pyramid scam.
"And the studies exist that show Amsoil to be superior to Mobil 1."
Ummm-hmmm, and were pray tell did you find all of those studies? The Amsoil web site per chance?
"Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that 2 specs aren't used often enough for comparison. Those are the Four Ball Wear Test and Noack Volatility. These are two very good indicators of how well an oil protects & how well it holds up."
Ummm, well no. The 4-Ball test is archaic at best and all the Noack test does is measure evaporative loss. Neither one of them have a single thing to do with how well an oil protects a modern engine. FWIW, I prefer to go with the various standards as set forth by the engine manufacturers themselves. As it turns out, VW seems to have the strictest published standards currently out (although the BMW LL04 is soon to be published, errr, if it hasn't already), and as such, I look for oils that have been certified to meet said standards (i.e. VW 503.01 for gasoline engines). Mobil 1 0W-40 and German Castrol Syntec 0W-30 are both certified to meet that standard, however, none of the Amsoil oils carry such a certification.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Regarding your comment:
"I tend to compare the published product information from the manufacturer's product sheets."
Personally I don't generally believe most of what comes out of the Amsoil camp, however, playing by your rules I've compared the specs from the single oil from both the Amsoil and Mobil 1 product lines that are geared for European cars (in an attempt to compare apples to apples), namely European Car Formula Synthetic 5W-40 Motor Oil (AFL) and Mobil 1 0W-40:
--------- Specification ---------------------- Amsoil ---- Mobil 1
Viscosity @ 40C (lower is better) ------- 80.8 ------- 80.0
Viscosity @ 100C (higher is better) ---- 13.7 ------- 14.3
Viscosity Index (higher is better) -------- 174 -------- 187
Flash point (higher is better) ------------ 230C ------ 236C
Pour point (lower is better) --------------- -42C ------- -54C
HTHS @ 150C (higher is better) ---------- 3.7 --------- 3.6
I don't know about you but, marketing hype aside I think I'll stick with Mobil 1.
Best Regards,
Shipo
If we're going to compare "apples to apples" we really should consider something other than your two oils that are "geared for European cars" especially since they are both 40 weight oils in hot temps but not the same rating in cold (0 vs. 5). I would use the 0w-30 for comparison but interestingly the Mobil 1 0w-30 product data sheet is a dead link. Interesting... you'd think Mobil wouldn't have those problems with all the big marketing bucks they spend.
Specification Amsoil Mobil 1
Viscosity @ 40C (lower is better) 57.3 57.3
Viscosity @ 100C (higher is better) 10.6 10.25
Viscosity Index (higher is better) 185 169
Flash point (higher is better) 228C 226C
Pour point (lower is better) -51C -45C
HTHS @150C (higher is better) 3.2 3.08
But I suppose you'll want to revert to the "I don't generally believe most of what comes out of the Amsoil camp" argument. You're probably right... I'm sure they falsified their ASTM testing. Don't get me wrong, Mobil 1 is a great oil. I use it in my other car because I don't plan on keeping it long & I can get Mobil 1 cheap at Sam's. The original point I was trying to make was that there are other synthetics (including Amsoil... the first ever) even though you hear a lot about Mobil 1.
Four Ball Wear Test (ASTM D-4172)
According to the ASTM.org website (click here): "This test method covers a procedure for
making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact
by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine."
So, the indication is that the Four Ball Wear Test is useful for establishing how well a lubricant will
prevent wear in situations where there is sliding contact going on. Many companies that do not publish
4 Ball test results say that the test is not useful for testing engine oils because it doesn't recreate
conditions that are actually found within an engine. I disagree.
There are multiple components of an engine that see sliding contact with other components and where
excessive wear can occur if not adequately protected by a lubricant film. An excellent example is the
camshaft, lifters and pushrods or the camshaft and rocker arms in an overhead cam engine.
There is also sliding motion between the piston and the cylinder, and I'm quite certain if they thought
about it long enough, they'd think of multiple other locations in the engine where sliding contact occurs.
I fail to see how the anti-wear properties of a lubricant would not be relevant in these areas. In fact, I'd
be willing to go out on a limb and say that the reason most companies don't publish and won't provide
4-ball data is because it would make them look bad.
How is it performed?
The four ball wear test is performed by rotating one ball bearing on three fixed bearings. The motor oil
is used to form a film between the bearings. The test can be done at a variety of temperatures,
pressures and RPM.
For instance, some tests will be done at 40 kg of pressure, 75 degrees C and 1200 RPM while others
might be done at 60 kg of pressure, 150 degrees C and 1800 RPM. Obviously, the latter test has higher
pressure, higher temperature and a faster rotating ball bearing - all of which place more stress on the
lubricant.
At the end of the test, the wear scar is measured on each of the three stationary balls and averaged for
a final "wear scar measurement" in millimeters. The smaller this number, the better an oil will protect an
engine at any point of sliding contact.
Be careful, however, to be sure you're comparing equivalent test results. Testing done at lower
temperature, pressure and rpm is likely to show a much smaller wear scar than testing at the higher
levels.
This test, like the NOACK, seems to be catching on in the industry, but I wouldn't call it an industry
standard yet. Many companies, although I'm nearly certain they run this test, don't publish the data.
And, since this test is not currently required for any particular certification, you can't be certain that a
company has run it.
Noack Volatility Test (DIN 51581)
The NOACK Volatility Test is one that is becoming more common on motor oil tech sheets, but still is
not always provided. However, in my opinion, it is one of the most important technical specifications
you can look at to determine the quality of an oil.
It is a test which was originally established in Europe by an organization similar to the ASTM here in the
US. DIN (as in DIN 51581) stands for Deutsche Industrie Norm (I know "Industry" is with a "y" not "ie" -
try telling the Europeans that). To the best of my knowledge, the first company in the US to use this test
was AMSOIL Inc. Since then the test has become more of an industry norm.
In fact, oil manufacturers now MUST run a NOACK test on their oils to meet current industry standards.
For instance, diesel oils must have a NOACK score of 17% or lower to meet API CH-4 standards. To
meet the latest API SL standards, gasoline oils must have a NOACK score of 15% or lower.
So, if you request a NOACK score and the manufacturer tells you they don't have it, you know they're
lying. That had to run it to establish API specification levels. They may not want to provide it, but
they've got the data.
The NOACK test exposes an oil to a high temperature environment of 250 degrees C (almost 500
degrees F) for one hour. Other standardized environmental conditions are also set to make sure that
the test is always performed in the same manner. The test is designed to determine the amount of
evaporation that will occur over the course of this one hour time period.
The final score is listed as a percentage of weight loss by the end of the test. Many petroleum oils will
score well above 15% weight loss, while most synthetics will easily score below 10%. In a general
sense, the lower the viscosity grade and/or the wider the multi-grade "gap", the more weight loss you
are likely to see on the NOACK.
For instance, an SAE 30 will evaporate more quickly than an SAE 60 motor oil. Also, a 0w30 will
evaporate more quickly than a 10w30. The difference may not be much, but there will almost certainly
be a difference.
Keep in mind that this does not necessarily indicate less engine protection. More evaporation simply
indicates how much oil consumption you will see over time, not how much engine wear will occur.
Regarding the four ball test, per my research on the issue, it is a test that was developed to determine how new oil formulations would work with older engines that had long since ceased production. The technology put into newer engines effectively render this test irrelevant. As for what the "Bible" says, one man's opinion. Where's the science to back up his statements? I mean "really", when was the last time you had a car (or even heard of a car) that had a cam lobe go flat or a lifter wear through because of an oil that had a low score on the four ball test? I've wrenched on cars for over three decades and I've seen exactly one cam/lifter failure (on one lobe only), and that was in a beat up old Ford that had cheap conventional oil dumped into it and then run until another quart was needed. The oil and the filter were never changed. If you listen to Amsoil, the four ball test is one of the most important tests in the world. If you cut through the noise (which is very difficult because of all of the web sites that quote the Amsoil bilge, word for word in most cases), you'll find that it is a completely irrelevant test for modern engines (also one man's opinion and also without any scientific backing).
Regarding the Noack evap test, I see zero relevance between how well an engine is protected and the Noack score of the oil in said engine. The fact is that the oil is certainly stable enough if one doesn't have to be constantly adding oil (assuming the engine isn't consuming it). Specific to Mobil 1, the worst car for (Mobil 1) oil consumption that I've ever had is my 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan. That engine has about 115,000 miles on it and is using a quart of oil about every 7,500 miles. My two BMWs didn't even consume a full quart in 15,000 miles. So, I guess the Noack is "good enough".
So, when are you switching to Mobil 1 0W-40? ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
I personally would have no qualms in running ANY of the brands in the correct applications and specifications in 0w40 and 5w40.
I currently use the Mobil One 5w40 (aka Delvac One 5w40)with 25,000 OCI's and do it for a number of reasons
1. I have run Mobil One (5w30) for a long time with 15,000 OCI's and for a few miles.(765,000 miles) So I have a little history with the products.
2. 5w40 for its applications and specification is a VERY robust oil and the oem calls for 5w40. I would use 0w40 if 5w40 were not available.
3. It is commonly available
4. It costs less than either Redline or Amsoil
5. I do not have to pay for shipping twice.
6. Beyond the very next oil change and one spare qt, I do not have to stock it
Well, it sure looks that way...
But as the real world would have it, sometimes reality doesnt match the statistical tests or even the marketing effort. As this same web site did a A/B side by side test in the same vehicle with /Mobil/Redline and Redline did not do nearly as well as Mobil One.
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
Regarding flashy marketing, geez, that's kinda disingenuous don't you think? Try doing a search on the internet for any Synthetic oil related information of substance and 90% or better of the results are related to Amsoil (directly or via one of their pyramided resellers). Hit any of those sites and all you will see is the same old Amsoil drivel, "Blah, blah, blah..." Claiming that any one of the fully synthetic oils is better than the rest is splitting a hair at best and likely wrong at the worst. For my part, I'll buy the oils that are certified to meet the standards called for by the folks that designed and built my engines. That by the way immediately excludes Amsoil.
Best Regards,
Shipo
network-marketing may be annoying but it is legal.
i'd probably consider AMSOIL for my VW TDIs if they offered an oil that was independently certified to VW 505.01 spec.
Said another way, Redline and Amsoil can say that their oils meet the standards, however, until they are independently certified, there is no way to really know if the oils do what their makers say they do. Is it really worth having to foot the bill for a new engine or a new catalytic converter or some other peripheral component because you were using an oil that "almost" met the standards required for your engine?
Best Regards,
Shipo
FWIW, I looked into becoming an Amsoil dealer a number of years back (pre-internet as we know it today) and the "Plan" looked to be very similar to Amway's plan (and I've have any number of family and friends who have A) tried to rope me in on that scheme, and then
Best Regards,
Shipo