Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
where do you have balls in an engine that create extreme pressures? I have shown you actual engine bearing parts that are worn but that was a sliding surface not a ball surface so please, show me where the metal balls are that would cause wear in an engine like in a 4 ball wear test.
as for schaeffers kicking amsoils Asx in this oil analysis is not what we were showing there. first, either all of the wear numbers were lower in shaeffers or near equal. The point here is 5-$6.00 a qt full synth vs a $3.00 a qt synth blend. the tbn's hadn't fallen off at all on either, the wear numbers are all in line and schaeffers visc at 13.5 and amsoils 13.2 showed to be holding a little better and handn't dropped as most would think especially against a full synth. I never said that amsoils antiwear isn't any good, fact is i have stated just the oposite, that it is even better than mobils new synlub super antiwear garbage oil they now sell.
As I had stated before, I do not claim this timken test as scientific but, use it as an example on how i check oils for myself for one part. I don't expect to write any papers for any scientific journals but incourage anyone looking for what the best is, do your own. There is not enough info on wear protection test with shearing the base oil and showing how well the antiwear additives hold and I really think that if you don't like my thoughts, issues on the wear and believe all the "hype" by amsoil, now mobil and who ever else, about how their oil holds up then I suggest go with it. I have no problem with you using mobil and in fact incourage it's use because it will last much longer than most oils, that is if your just extending your oil drains and more concerned with how long the base oil holds up. Of course toyota has already found out by extending their drains, just how much it costs.
It's your choice, and as I posted before, I'm not interested in selling to individuals as i work with coporate and industrial organizations where they meet min orders.
sorry for being so curt or short but quite frankly, I have done as much as I can to help show and educate about the basics of lubrication and it appears a lot are still hung on just base oil quality. I suspect you have some knowledge on how to tell what barrier additive that a company uses and how much and can show thier tests against the barrier lube which produces the wear protection, if so please educate me and some others as to where you'll find this on motor oils. Thank you.
Surprisingly, one of the most demanding environments for motor oil is low
mileage, stop-start urban driving, when full engine working temperatures
and lubricant additive chemistry remains unactivated.
This represents one of the extreme environments that need to be tested in
the course of product development. A three-year test involving a large
fleet of low mileage vehicles was developed and carried out at Castrol’s
Pangbourne research facility in Berkshire in the UK. This test is many more
times severe than real life but proves beyond doubt that the new lubricant
is well capable of handling the large amounts of fuel and water that
condense into the lubricant under these conditions. Although the VW
involvement in this trial is complete, Castrol is now continuing it with some
of these cars into their fifth year – with no oil change."
Castrol SLX Longlife
Nonetheless Castrol is headed in the right direction.
Bob doesn't try to sell his products to people on this board. In fact, he goes out of his way to avoid doing that.
He only recently gave lots of details about some various tests he's been running. Many, maybe most, of his posts are about general information and theories, and not focused specifically on his small-scale test results. I'm a little reluctant to call them unscientific, though.
In case you haven't noticed, not one of the regulars here is a loyal, longtime Sheaffer's oil user. So Bob has been unable to brainwash us with his 'marketing babble' and 'purposely misleading' tests.
Give me a break. The guy is trying to educate people, and you are busting his chops.
Thank you Bob.
Jack
I am not asking you to justify your use of the Timken Machine and I am just pointing out that in the real world, oils that perform extraordinarily well in your test do not look all that much different than other quality oils in respect to their wear numbers. I guess that is why they call it the One-Armed-Bandit. It is evident that only a certain amount of barrier is required, and that at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
Where are there balls in an engine? This is an over-simplistic view on what this test is all about. It does measure sliding friction and I am sorry that the shape of the balls does not appeal to you. I did not design the test, but I suspect it is a good one or we would not see companies like Chevron using it. Why do they not use it for motor oils? I suspect that it might be the same reason most other oil companies do not publish wear data on their motor oils. Is it maybe because they are under the cloak of the API? Does Schaeffer publish wear data on their motor oils? If they do I did not see it on the Tech Data sheet that I looked at. To say that the Four-Ball is a grease test is simply not true and you are making the implication that any company that uses it is misleading people with an invalid test. The Four-Ball wear test can and is used for lubricating fluids as well as lubricating greases, in accordance with ASTM standards, just as the Timken test is.
To be fair, I personally believe that Schaeffer would also do very well on the Four-Ball and that Amsoil would probably be afraid to publish a comparison against them, but again, in real world testing, there does not seem to be much (if any) difference. To say that, in your Cummins example, your Schaeffer came in with lower wear numbers is simply not true. Aluminum was lower by HALF with Amsoil and iron was only higher by roughly 8%. When you take the margin of error into account, this 8% is meaningless. Again, I am surprised that a definite pattern did not show. Your con-rod example does have alot of visual impact, but are you saying that if one used Schaeffer oil, they would not see this wear? O.K. Bob.
For those of you wondering what I am talking about with this Cummins post on Bob's board, he has (since yesterday) gone and stripped the Amsoil numbers from this post. This is not the first time I have seen you re-write the facts Bob.
The Schaeffer oil is definitely a good oil and yes, it is cheap in comparison to say Amsoil but, as I stated yesterday, taking just a snapshot is not valid. There are benefits to using a synthetic, and people will always use them no matter how good and inexpensive the petro lubes are.
SO WHY WOULD I HAVE CHANGE THIS? (DON'T BOTHER ANSWERING) AS I HAVE NO REASON TO. I DON'T DISAGREE THERE IS VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. THAT IS THE POINT I WAS POINTING OUT! GOD YOU'RE DENSE!
AS FOR THE 4BALL/TIMKEN TESTS, IF YOU WANT I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT YOU CAN'T SO YOU CAN GET OFF MY BACK END ABOUT THIS.
pco and hd diesel engine oils are tested in actual production engines, such as the sequence IVA which is used to measure camshaft lobe wear in overhead cam engines, the sequesnce VE test(astm d5302) which is used to measure an engines oil's performance in combating sludge and varnish formation and preventing valve train wear in modern ohc engines, the cummins m-11 high soot test to measure hd diesel engine oils ability to reduce wear in valve train components at high soot levels and the mack t-9 and the new mack t-10 tests which are use to measure the prevetion of ring and liner wear, etc. using controlled methods to measure their wear rates. You won't find the astm d41720(4712)(not for sure) nor the astm d-2670 tests on any motor oil tech sheet as any of the others concerning the seq's tests results, so..
BEST OF LUCK if you can find any tech data sheet to give YOU any of that information.
PERSONALLY I DON'T CARE TO LISTEN TO ANY MORE OF YOUR SLANDERING MY NAME BY STATING THAT I AM DOCTORING ANYTHING! I DON'T NEED TO NOR WOULD I. I HAVE A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF INTERGRITY AND DON'T NEED YOU TO ENLIGHTEN OTHERS INCORRECTLY!
And ..Bigorange30, there is a special chat room for your questions, it's called
"Who Makes the Best Filters and Why"
It would be certainly be appreciated if AMSOIL came up with some real tests, like "piston in a cylinder" test jig, simulating a real life condition and then publish the wear results.
And thanks bob for explaining why the amsoil was able to clear the color of old oil.
BEST OF LUCK if you can find any tech data sheet to give YOU any of that information."
Here is one Bob.
TYPICAL TECHNICAL PROPERTIES
AMSOIL Synthetic SAE 15W-40 Heavy-Duty Diesel and Marine Motor Oil (AME)
Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
15.5
Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D-445)
100.2
Viscosity Index (ASTM D-2270)
164
CCS Viscosity @ -20°C, cP (ASTM D 2602)
3600
Pour Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 97)
-44 (-47)
Flash Point °C (°F) (ASTM D 92)
234 (453)
Four Ball Wear Test (ASTM D-4172 B: 40 kg, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 1 hour, Scar in mm)
0.35
Noack Volatility, % weight loss (g/100g) (ASTM D-5800) 6.7
High Temperature/High Shear Viscosity cP, 150°C, 1.0 X 106 s.-1, (ASTM D 4683),
>4.1
Total Base Number
>12.0
Now Bob, regarding the numbers on the Amsoil post:
I read it three times this morning and yes, it was totally void of the Amsoil numbers, the post read only for the Schaeffer.
years, in many brands. But, if you were able to access the whole article (sorry I couldn't post the link) you would read that VW's specs' required on the new Lube were much more than just "how long will it survive in the crankcase". Meeting the many new stricter emissions required over the next 4 years was one big criteria. One of the others, was a PROVEN performance for increased fuel mileage. (If you think gas is expensive in the U.S. it's still a 'give away' compared to prices in Europe.)
VW has deep pockets' (and a prestige company that keeps getting bigger) but from the sounds of what they put these competing oils through, in tightly controlled fleet car marathon tests and many other nasty 'wear and endurance ' tortures, I don't think any other lube today will have come under so much 'real world' scrutiny. (I'm sure Bobsyroilguy, can't wait to get some of this new Lube in his Bendix) Mobile 1, and the rest probably had a shot at it, but bet your bottom dollar, THEY won't be saying much. If an Amsoil product had been good enough to make the grade, there would now be 2 Amsoil Guys behind every tree instead of one.
To the credit of Amsoil they are willing to back their confidence in the oil's ability to last 25K or one year. The "guarantee" against engine failure with this process is somewhat questionable as armtdm has pointed out. But its better than any other oils guarantee (including Mobil 1) I personally know someone who changed Amsoil at over 25K miles intervals in a Chev Celebrety and after 140K it was running strong.
Bror has indicated that RedLine has stopped a piston slap-which I have no reason to doubt. Certainly good information.
Bob-testing various oils by breaking down the oil film. Again-good objective information.
Still the argument as to which oil is the best persists. Correct me if I'm wrong but Mobil 1 appears to be the best in the absence of not being proven inferior by objective testing using recognized standards (API/ACEA).
I only wrote this post because I have read all the claims about Mobil 1 "watering down their product" and suggest another product is better. I think its only fair to call into question those claims. I think that lots of folks read this information and its reasonable that we try to put out as many facts as possible.
I'll address the "watering down" of Mobil 1 when I get my facts in order.
Al
http://www.salemboysauto.com/auto-maintenance/mb06.htm
I only wish he went into the filter he likes.
"Originally VW invited four lubricant companies to attempt this development, including Castrol’s strongest competitors."
Do you know who the other three companies were?
The first number represents the year, the second column represents the grade of oil, the third colume is the max average wear permitted in microinches. The final column is the actual wear of that oil. One problem is that they (Mobil) tested several versions of an oil and we never will know which is the final product-if any. I assume the ones with the bet results are close to the final product.
The year 2000 represents Delvac 1
IIIE
98 0W-30 30 11
98 5W-30 30 26
98 0W-40 30 21
2000 5W-40 30 7 Delvac 1
Double IIIE
95 5W-50 30 12
95 5W-50 30 28
95 5W-30 30 21.5
98 0W-30 30 10
98 0W-40 30 10
Quadruple IIIE
95 5W-30 30 29.8
VE
98 0W-30 130 103
98 5W-30 130 74
98 0W-40 130 13
98 5W-40 130 54
Double VE
95 15W-50 130 26
95 15W-50 130 51
95 5W -50 130 24.9
95 5W -50 130 20
95 5W -30 130 12.5
ACEA MB OM 602A
1998 0W-30 50 4
1998 0W-40 50 4
2000 5W-40 50 2.2
Sooooo... In general I would say that the TriSyn is significantly better than the pre- TriSyn based on the head-to-head double length IIIE test. If you do a lot of stop and go in Alaska you might be better off with the pre-TriSyn however.
The 5W-40 Delvac 1, appears to be best of the bunch, followed by the TriSyn 0W-40, followed by the 0W-30. You can form your own opinion. Now if we can find equivalent data for competing oils we can go from here.
Al
I still don't understand how the Timken test can show how an oil will protect in an engine under actual operating conditions. Mobil has demonstrated time and time again that it performs in the real world.
Bob...
in an earlier post you stated "it is even better than mobils new synlub super antiwear garbage oil they now sell."
What other proof other than the Timken test do you have that Mobil1 is "garbage oil"?? How can you be so sure that the new antiwear package in the Supersyn oils won't perform in the real world?
Mark
I really cant weigh in heavily on the 30 vs 40 wt. but I think the 40 wt would be O.K. for summertime and could give you a bit more protection. But again with synthetic oil I think the differences will not really affect the life of the vehicle. Unless you are planning to run your vehicle 1,000,000 miles like the guy on the other post. (Which is plain silly to me)
Later,
Al
I've been running synthetic since 50k miles (at 63k now). However, I'm planning to go back to a "petrol-priced, hydrocracked special" such as Chevron Supreme for cost reasons, as discussed previously here.
Synthetic motor oil is not all its cracked up to be. In short, it works best if it stays in the engine (roughly) no more than 1,000 miles or 1 month.
I first became interested in synthetic motor oil in the early 1970's. Mobil was advertising phenomenal performance with their "Mobil 1". They reported something like "insignificant engine wear at 100,000 miles at 30,000 mile oil change intervals". They made a lot of claims as to the superior lubrication qualities of the oil. The ones that caught my eye were "significantly improved high temperature performance" and "reduced viscosity change over the operating temperature range". I was eager to try out this new oil but was too cheap to put out the $5 a quart cost. Later, in 1981 I began using it regularly until 1995, when I quit using all synthetics. This was prompted by an exhaustive study of synthetic oil use in air cooled aircraft engines and, wear analysis of my own car engines. You may wonder why it took so long for me to "see the light", so to speak. I was assuming (falsely), that since I was using the best and most expensive motor oil, I must be doing the right thing. I suspect this is a common trap, car lovers (like myself) fall into.
Back to the basics. Did you know that motor oil performs three basic functions in your engine? If it fails in one of these areas, the end result is excessive wear.
Function 1. Lubrication (no surprises here).
Function 2. Cooling. Motor oil absorbs heat from hot engine components (exhaust valves) and ultimately dissipates it via the water jacket and oil pan.
Function 3. Suspends waste products. Piston engines produce a lot of filthy byproducts (primarily due to the fuel used) which find there way into the crank case. The byproducts fall into three basic catagories; water vapor, acids, and powdered metal. The motor oil must absorb these contaminates away from all engine surfaces until the oil can be cleansed (step 1), and until the oil can be changed (step 2).
In Step 1., the oil must suspend the metal powder until the oil filter can remove it. The oil must suspend the water vapor until it can be boiled away (20 minutes minimum engine running time). The oil must suspend the acids until they can become vaporized and burned by the engine (several hours of run time).
In Step 2. Some acids do not boil off and, along with heat, slowly break down the oil. An oil change is necessary to cleanse the system in this case.
To sum up, the more suspending (or absorbing) ability the oil has, the better. This is where synthetics really fall short (unless the motor oil companies have solved this problem recently).
My research and personal findings indicate that the synthetic oil wears out quickly in the engine. I was changing my oil approximately every 5,000 miles while making 30 minute trips, twice daily, 5 times a week. I was seeing oil failure problems; powdered metal plating to internal engine parts, sludge, and premature wear.
One easy check for this is to pull out your dip stick, if it is gray instead of chrome-like, you have oil suspending problems. Obviously, engine condition plays a large part in all this. An engine with a lot of blow-by will wear out any oil very quickly.
So, as a result of all this (it's about time), I would recommend any good quality conventional multi-weight over synthetics. Afterall, you probably will not be running your engine with the oil or coolant removed.
"My research and personal findings indicate that the synthetic oil wears out quickly in the engine" I would appreciate any information with respect to the research information.
Thanks,
Al
Please tell us what you specifically mean by your statement "My research and personal findings indicate that the synthetic oil wears out quickly in the engine."
How was it determined that powdered metal was plating to internal parts?
What was the color of the sludge?
Who's synthetic oil were you testing and with what filter? What petroleum oil are you now using?
I take it when you changed this vehicle over to petroleum oil, all of the above noted symptoms/problems disappeared with no other changes made to either the vehicle or with the way in which the vehicle was driven, is that correct?
I, for one, see some elements of truth in his statement that are of great interest to those of us that "bit" early in the synthetic oil development days. I first started using synthetic lube in engines in the early 1980's, and have inattentively tracked the developments forward from there, to find myself far less likely to use synthetics now than I was years ago. The blush is off the rose, so to speak. Perhaps it is good to tell the synthesizers they are wearing no clothes!
It amuses me how some of you are so high and mighty and convinced that synthetic oil is the Holy Grail, that you are unwilling to let a well-written, helpful dissenting post even sink in a little bit before dismissing it.
http://www.synlube.com/fleet.htm
The way I read your discussion, you are saying that convention oil is better than synthetic!? That is flat not true.
The Terrestic is not synthetic. Now Exon claims that ISO 32 (Synestic-Ester synthetic) will perform up to the standards of the ISO 68 conventional oil. See the figure on "Bearing Ring Test" in the following referenced brochure.
www.exxon.com/exxon_lubes/tigerbytes/documents/brochures/bro0026.htm
Now I realize that auto engine bearings and piston pins and maybe even cams probably run at least 160 degrees but I guess my point is that a synthetic 30 wt may be more than adequate for excellent wear. Just my rambling $.02
Al
On my picture of the 30k piston on http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
I show where the rod bearing has wear on the top bearing and not the bottom. The point I want to make here is, the (4)cams on this same 30k engine had no wear present on any of the 4 cams. hmmmm, wonder why no wear on cam but bearing has evidence of wear. So tell me how is the cam tests used in determining oil in "real life" engine wear runs compare with the bearing wear on the piston which was worn but yet no wear on my "real life" engine?
The metals are different in cams/lifters and rod bearings wouldn't you agree? also, in the lubrication of cam lobes, the oil is "splashed" onto the cam lobes and lifters where as the oil is injected directly into rod bearings and crank.
so interesting point is a splash lubricated cam that has less wear than oil the that is injected directly on the bearing a good measurement of real life results?.
another point is, if there was so much more stress on the cam lobes why wouldn't it have a injected lubricated system like found in the rod bearing?. You'd think that with the fact the rod bearing has oil directly pumped into it, they are trying to create a better hydrodynamic barrier than what exists on a cam so as to create better protection.
the test they use for wear tests but dont' prodominently show is not a good representation of real life engine wear IMHO.
as for this comment "To the credit of Amsoil they are willing to back their confidence in the oil's ability to last 25K or one year. The "guarantee" against engine failure with this process is somewhat questionable as armtdm has pointed out. But its better than any other oils guarantee (including Mobil 1)"
Quaker state offers a 250,000 mile and texaco has a 300,000 mile warr. both like amsoil state it must be an oil related failure, which i might add is next to impossible to prove. You'll never have an oil failure, but a lack of oil failure. You can/ will have excessive wear due to quality of oil but even that must be caught during the trending of oil analysis and proves nothing if done after the engine failure. for every oil failure there is a mechanical failure that could cause the same results, there fore you won't see many if any engines replaced due to this warr.
on the results.
From: FEN
Date: 19 Apr 2002
Time: 05:03:56
Comments
First, we understand that I'm not attempting to prove anything to anyone else, although my brother-in-law, who happened to be along became a believer. I had seen the claims written on the containers of some oils and I have followed the several message boards for over a year as part of an ongoing effort to educate myself further on the subject of motor oils. I'll have to say I have learned much more from you than any other poster on each of several similar boards with the only possible exception of Terry, whom we both hold in high regard. I was most highly intrigued with your stated results on the Timpken machine testing you reported on the message boards. You responded to my request to view some testing you are doing with your machine on oils and additives. It just so happened that my brother-in-law, from out of town, was with me on the day you left open to me for this purpose. As you heard him mention, he dealt with lubrication issues on manufacturing equipment for one of the major automobile makers, from which he is now retired. He was highly interested when I mentioned to him why I was going over to your place and he immediately wanted to accompany me. When we started to set up in your garage for the testing you informed us that not only were you going to conduct the test, but that he and I were going to personally do our own testing, for greater objectivity. First, you prepared the machine and we inspected and put into the machine a new unused bearing friction surface and you placed a quantity of Mobil 1(10w30) with SynerSyn oil into the oil pan and allowed the rotating bearing to spin, which coated with the oil. You then lightly placed pressure onto the stationary bearing surface and a strong friction noise immediately became obvious. We each did this same proceedure. You had me slowly increase and release pressure and the rubbing surfaces bacame noisier and very easily seized. We repeated this several times, using a new stationary surface each time. You then rotated to a new unused stationary surface and added some Schaeffers 10W-30 Blend into the Mobil 1 with SuperSyn, making a diluted Schaeffers with Mos2 mix. We repeated the proceedure. You had me slowly increase pressure. A friction noise initially resulted, but there is a quick difference. As the thermodynamics resulted in the Mos2 coatings onto the metal surfaces the friction noise disappeared and operation was smooth as the surfaces were continually pressed onto each other. It became almost impossible to get the surfaces to seize while using the diluted Schaeffers mix. We next cleaned out the oil pan and put in some Schaeffers 15W-40 Blend with Mos2. You rotated the stationary bearing to a new unused surface and you had me repeat the test. The difference this time is that I could NOT get the moving surfaces to seize. Once the coating took effect those rubbing surfaces just kept moving against each other quietly and did not seize. My brother-in-law did not get this same bearing surface to seize. I cannot say no one could ever get them to freeze up, but we didn't. You then cleaned out the oil pan, cleaned up the bearing surfaces and we repeated the test with the DRY Mos2 (moly) coated surfaces in place. We applied quite heavy pressure and held this torture test on until we finally sheared the anti-wear additives and got a freeze up. You then rotated to a new unused stationary surface and put some Amsoil Series 2000 20W-50 oil into the pan. You had me apply pressure slowly and at first there was the friction noise, but then the anti-wear additives came into play and the friction noise and vibration decreased. While the anti-wear effect was vastly superior to the Mobil 1, it fell far short of the Schaeffers Blends. The surfaces seized and the bearing surface was rendered useless as a smooth working piece. However, compared to the first oil tested the Amsoil is a very good oil. This testing was done with Havoline 10W-40. While it held up much better than the first oil it fared somewhat below the Amsoil and FAR below the Schaeffers Blends. We tested the Slick 50 additive. Immediate freeze up. No value at all in any anti-wear properties. Stationary surface destroyed. You had another item, Petro-Chem, that we tested. It has great anti-wear properties. All the above is no proof of anything to anyone else. I was the one doing the testing. My brother-in-law tested. While I had a good idea of what results to expect, he had none but came away with the same results you and I did. I deeply appreciate the opportunity for the experience I had.
Last changed: April 19, 2002
_________________________________________-
I know it might be a stretch of some peoples imagination, and as this is why i asked fen to detail his and his brothers thoughts on what he did, and what he felt the results ment to him as they saw them. This was in hope you might see there wasn't a bias from me as some would like to think. They got to work this machine and saw that there was no mojo magic in it but pure and simple basic lubrication and mechanics. I'll tell you right now, It will make no difference what wt of mobil you want to run, It will do exactly the same thing as will any wt of schaeffers will do the same. the only reason the 15w40 came into this is it was the first bottle i picked up. I can assure you, I'd put the schaeffers 5w30 against mobils 50wt and it would have resulted the same. remember, this isn't a hydrodynamic test but a barrier lube test, so it makes no difference as to wt but additives. Schaeffers uses the same barrier additives in all of their motor oil wts just the different base stock makes the different wt. So, if anyone is in this area and want's to stop by and do this for themselves, you're more than welcome and I look forward to meet with anyone including amsoil dealers, so that anyone can show me something i'm missing.
Another issue is the cost. I know on your board you mention it is much less expensive then synthetic with better results. Well, my quote on a case of the 15W40 came to $4.28/quart after shipping and service fee. The service fee is added because there is no comminsion on a one or two case sale. So, as an Amosil dealer for $20/year I purchase the stuff at $4.65/quart (includes tax). I am unique in that I have a warehouse in the city I can pick product up at . Now if I add cost of mileage to the warehouse, the $20 fee, yea, much more expensive. Somehing like $6.27/quart on a 40 quart a year usage (5 cars) Well, guess that $2/quart is still much less.
I guess my point is that Scaheffers needs to do something about the retail market and distribution if they want to increase sales and all this educaton on the product and oil is great but if one cannot get the product without a huge hassle it would seem many people are wasting their time. Bob, perhaps you need to have a long talk with the ole corporate people about distribution! No one is really interested in selling the product in small quantities as there is not profit in it.