# Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments



## TechMeister (Jan 7, 2008)

One of the reasons this new Oil & Lube forum exists is to help VW owners learn the *FACTS regarding the oil REQUIREMENTS for their VW engines, which is different from other engines as noted in your VW owners manual. To comply with your new car warranty you are REQUIRED to use VW 502.00 tested and approved engine oil in current VW gas engines for models sold in the U.S.* Many people do not read and understand the warranty requirements which are clearly stated in your owners manual and this leads to many arguments by the oil zealots who are promoting their beliefs and a particular brand of oil that they are in love with even though these oils are NOT tested and approved to VW oil specification VW 502.00 which is required for your engine.
Below is an example of a typical response by an Amsoil proponent which serves as a good means to correct a lot of misconceptions and false information. I have listed a link to the originally locked thread in the VR6 24V forum so anyone can read the entire text to see I am not bashing "Nuskool" who has posted a lot of incorrect information on the subject of VW oil requirements and Amsoil.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...39708

Below is the last post in the above thread before it was locked by Mr. Rictus. I will address the many incorrect conclusions and statements by "Nuskool" so that VW owners have the facts to make an informed decision when it comes to oil for their VW engine.

QUOTED post by Nuskool: (unedited)
Show me one engine damaged by any quality synthetic (assuming the correct viscosity was used) The cause has to be the oil. 
I've never seen one myself.
Manufacturer has to prove that the cause of the failure was the fact that you did something to cause such failure.
I.E. they can't legally deny a warranty claim on an A.C. unit because you have a catback exhaust.
Therefore you can't legally deny a warranty claim on an engine unless you can prove it was the oil that caused the failure.
Not sure why you are so against Amsoil.
Find me one piece of substantiated bad press on the company. I seriously doubt you'l find it/ I've searched for hours trying to find anything. Nothing more than opionions like yours which mean squat.
But at least you were able to tell me who makes the VW oil. Is that who makes the gear oil too?
And if Amsoil is so unscrupulous why is it that no other companies will post the results of their tests. Could it be that Amsoils comparison tests are accurate?
YOu think Amsoil doesn't put their oils through every bit as much testing as what VW does? Check out their facilities. Absolute stated of the art.
Money? Probably wouldn't be as profitable sed you say. Most of Amsoils profits come from large commercial accounts. A handful of VW owners won't make much difference to them. There are tons of people that swear by the products. In fact the vast majority if people I've met that use it say it's the best they have ever used. Most customers continue to return change after change.
You complained about a pi$$&^#g match. Just remember, you started it.
End quote.

*We'll start with the LAST line first in the above post.*








I did NOT starting a pi$$ing contest in the thread, I explained VW's oil REQUIREMENTS - which Nuskool doesn't like and I expressed my *OPINION* on Amsoil's unscrupulous business practices of deceiving naive consumers who believe Amsoil's ad copy which states: 
"*Formulated to meet VW 502 00 specs...*" is the same as saying *TESTED* *AND APPROVED TO VW 502.00 specs.* 
These are completely different statements. The Amsoil statement used in their ad copy *IMPLIES* that the Amsoil product has been *TESTED AND APPROVED* to meet VW 502.00 specs when *only VW or a VW approved Lab can TEST AND APPROVE any oil to VW's proprietary oil specification VW 502.00. The fact is Amsoil has never been tested and approved by VW to meet VW 502.00 oil specifications and as such DOES NOT MEET VW NEW CAR WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS* 
If you read page 46, section 3.2 of the 2008 VW GTI (and similar VW owner manuals), VW has stated multiple times in BOLT TYPE that the engine oil REQUIREMENT for new VW gas engines sold in the U.S. is "Volkswagen oil quality standard VW 502 00. In addition if you read page 5, section 1.2 of your VW warranty booklet it states the VW owners rights and *OBLIGATIONS* under the warranty. It states the following:
*"This warranty does not cover damage or malfunctions due to failure to follow recommended maintenance and use REQUIREMENTS as set forth in the Volkswagen Owner's Manual and the Maintenance Booklet".*
end quote.
*THESE ARE THE FACTS *-- So even for VW owners who suffer from reading comprehension issues, the warranty and engine oil requirements should be quite clear - if you actually READ the owners manual.

OK, moving on to more false beliefs posted in Nuskools comments is his belief that under the Magnuson-Moss act, VW has to PROVE engine damage is the result of using an un-approved oil. If you READ the VW new car warranty, you will see from Page 5, section 1.2 that VW does NOT need to prove the oil caused engine related failure. *All that VW has to do is take a sample of the oil and show it is not a tested and approved oil to VW 502.00 specs AS REQUIRED BY YOUR NEW CAR WARRANTY.* End of discussion on the Magnuson-Moss Act, which by the way also states that you can use any oil THAT MEETS THE MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS, which for VW gas engines sold in the U.S. is only TESTED AND APPROVED VW 502.00 oil. If the oil is not tested and approved by VW to 502.00 specs it does not meet your VW new car warranty REQUIREMENTS.
Nuskool has some how reached the conclusion that "I am against Amsoil", when in fact *I have NO OPINION ON THE QUALITY OF AMSOIL as I have no independent technical information from VW or anyone else that determines the ability of Amsoil to meet VW 502.00 specs.* In fact no one except VW is likely to have any technical bases to state if Amsoil or any other oil meets VW 502.00 specifications. *Since no Amsoil product is listed on the VW APPROVED VW 502.00 list - available to all VW owners from their VW dealer, then Amsoil has either not been tested by VW or it didn't pass the VW 502.00 requirements.*
*If you review EVERY single post that I have made in forums regarding engine oil requirements for VWs, you will not find a single comment by me where I state Amsoil is a bad oil.* I have stated the FACTS regarding oil requirements for VW gas engines. You do NOT see me on here promoting a specific BRAND of oil because I am not a fanboy. I try to present the *FACTS* and when appropriate, my opinion, regarding oil and hope that VW owners will *EDUCATE* themselves so that they can protect their engines and new car warranties and not be duped by deceptive advertising hype.
Nuskool has reached more incorrect conclusions in regards to the quality of Amsoil products based on PRESS reports, Amsoils' state-of-the-art test facilities, fanboy enthusiasm, etc. What Nuskool fails to comprehend is that *NONE OF THIS STUFF has anything to do with the ability of Amsoil's oil to meet VW's oil specifications, which are designed specifically for VW engines.* Amsoil is a multi-level marketing company trying to get un-informed VW owners to purchase their product under the guise that it meets VW 502.00 specs - which is untrue because *VW has never TESTED AND APPROVED any Amsoil product to VW 502.00 specs.* In fact I have REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT AMSOIL HAVE THEIR OIL TESTED BY VW SO THAT WE WOULD ALL KNOW IF IT DOES OR DOES NOT MEET VW 502.00 specs. Amsoil's official response is: ""We don't pay for certification of our oil". 
*Well then, IMO Amsoil should not use deceptive advertising to get naive VW owners to purchase an oil that WILL VOID THEIR WARRANTY because VW warranty REQUIREMENTS state that an oil APPROVED TO VW 502.00 specs MUST BE USED IN A NEW VW GAS ENGINE SOLD IN THE U.S.*
Nuskool doesn't appear to understand the extensive bench and engine tests VW conducts for each oil specification they produce. VW engines have specific lubrication requirements that Amsoil would not even know about unless they had access to VW AG's engine oil test data. So to conclude that Amsoil is testing their oils the same as VW does when it certifies an oil to a specific specification is naive. *Obviously if Amsoil had this type of test data on their product, they would have their oil tested and approved by VW so they would not need to use deceptive advertising. In addition as we have seen with Amsoil's selective test ad copy, Amsoil would be shouting from the mountain top that their oil meets or exceeds VW specs if in fact they had test data to prove this.*
In Nuskools last barrage of conclusions he believes that because Amsoil has a very vocal minority of oil zealots, that this some how confirms that Amsoil is a wonderful oil and thus MUST meet VW 502.00 specs and be suitable for your VW engine and presumably every other engine in the world. Unfortunately neither Nuskool, Amsoil or anyone else who has not conducted the VW test requirements for a specific oil, can determine if Amsoil is suitable for your VW gas engine sold in the U.S. Speculation and fanboyism does not equate to TESTED AND APPROVED BY VW - which is a REQUIREMENT of your VW new car warranty. The carefully worded e-mails from Amsoil and the carefully crafted ad copy do NOT in any way, shape or form make Amsoil a TESTED AND APPROVED OIL to VW 502.00 specs.
I think you can see from Nuskool's complete misunderstanding of the FACTS how easy it is for VW owners to be duped by deceptive advertising into using an oil that will void your warranty. *Don't be misled, READ YOUR OWNERS MANUAL and become an educated VW owner who protects their engine and warranty.*
In conclusion, I would like to make it extremely clear that I have no problem with Amsoil *PRODUCTS*, other than the fact that they do not meet VW oil requirements for new VW gas engines that REQUIRE VW 502.00 oils to maintain warranty coverage. *I do personally find Amsoil's advertising to be deceptive and as such, unscrupulous. In addition I feel that any reputable company would have their oils tested by VW if they want consumers to purchase their products for use in VW gas engines that REQUIRE VW 502.00 oils to maintain warranty.*
*So the executive FACTS Summary is as follows:*
1. VW REQUIRES the use of a VW TESTED AND APPROVED VW 502.00 oil in your new VW gas engine sold in the U.S.
2. Amsoil does NOT meet VW warranty REQUIREMENTS as it has never been TESTED AND APPROVED to VW 502.00 spec
3. No Amsoil product is on the VW APPROVED OIL LISTS
4. I am NOT providing any legal advise regarding engine oils or warranties. Each VW owner has the obligation to read, understand and follow the REQUIREMENTS of their new car warranty as stated in the VW owners manual.
5. I have no problem with Nuskool or other oil zealots other than the fact they do not understand the VW oil and warranty *REQUIREMENTS* and *they do not understand the difference between objective scientific test data and an unsubstantiated personal opinion.*
6. If Amsoil would have their product tested and approved by VW then we could eliminate all of the IMPLIED SUITABILITY CLAIMS and get on with life - assuming Amsoil can pass the VW 502.00 specs and that Amsoil agrees to maintain their oil formulation to VW 502.00 specs - as REQUIRED by the VW 502.00 test specifications standards. 
7. The VW Approved oil list is regularly updated as new oils are tested and approved by VW AG. A free copy of the latest approved oils is available from your local VW dealer for the asking.
8. An educated VW owner reads their owners manual to understand their rights and *obligations* regarding their new car warranty.
9. Neither I nor VW is promoting any particular brand of oil for your VW gas engine. You are free to chose any VW TESTED AND APPROVED VW 502.00 oil to maintain your VW new car warranty.
10. *LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I am not a representative of VW Ag or VWoA and have no official capacity or connection to these entities or any oil company. I am not responsible for anyone's use or application of the above text which is for informational purposes only. *


_Modified by TechMeister at 2:51 AM 5-28-2008_


----------



## mackamitsu (Apr 15, 2008)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (TechMeister)*

A colleague of mine was shocked to learn about the VW 502 00 standard. He just bought a Taureg, and its about 3 days old. We opened up his manual and looked. Its there alright, he phoned the dealership and asked how much more expensive the oil specific to the spec was. They told him not to worry, just get regular changes, so make sure your stealership knows, just a heads up.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm trying to reseach the legality of all this. Just because a car maker (or any manufacturer of anything for that matter) puts it in the warranty, it doesn't make it legal.
It might take a little time to get the info I'm looking for, so stay tuned.
In the mean time, if you use a quality synthetic oil that is maufactured to the right spec for the car, you will never need the warranty.
I've been discussing this issue a bit on BITOG and it's funny how noone seems to know anyone that has ever needed the warranty due to an oil failure unless it was just plain neglect, or the wrong oil altogether. The site has over 20k members btw.


----------



## Jetta4Life (Sep 5, 2001)

*Re: (nuskool)*

First I'd like to give 2 thumbs up for techmeister for being objective and giving people the opportunity and tools for people to educate themselves about something as important as car maintanance and for most people an important investment. 
Just a side note...something to think about. I'm not a lawyer by any means but I got to thinking about the subject about approved oils, the customers responsibility, VWOA, and oil manufactuers..... if a naive or inexperienced person buys say AMSOIL based on their clever advertising or someone who has a MKIV buys royal purple because they see that on every sticker there is a mkiv dash that it must be ok for their VW (which is also not on the list of approved oils) could in fact sue either company for misleading advertising if damage is done to a car and the dealer were to void the warranty on....any members out there that are lawyers who might know more about that? Just based on common sense it would seem to make a compelling arguement IMO. I think I'll call VW tomorrow and ask them at least about Royal Purple's use of a VW on their products when they are not 502.00 approved the last time I checked the approved list. 


_Modified by Jetta4Life at 9:34 PM 5-27-2008_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (TechMeister)*

Techmesiter, looks like you finally got your wish for an oil/religion forum. Great 1st post!
Now let me play devil's advocate here.
Wouldn't it be nice if VW published their VW 50x test standards for all to see rather than keep them proprietary? I find it hard to believe that VW engines are so different than other manufacturers. Its not like there are any particularly exotic materials or anything. The conclusions about warranty specifics are spot on, but I think a lot of the warnings in the VW owners manual are FUD (fear - uncertainty - doubt) things to convince you to take your car to the high-priced VW dealer instead of the local mechanic. Are there published statistics to prove that a VW dealer-maintained engine lasts longer than an independently-serviced engine? Maybe VW engine designers are just uber geniuses and everybody else knows nothing about these things.
Similar concept for coolant. If you don't buy the special purple-flavour, your radiator will turn to dust, right?. After all, the hoses, radiator, and engine block are made from the same unobtainium in Toyota's. But Toyota coolant is 1/4 the price. The shock! The horror! As long the system is throughly flushed and THEN switched to a different chemistry its OK. No mix and match allowed though.
I guess its all part of the mystique for a "premium" German brand. Audi USA, Mercedes, and BMW are even worse. You'd think they'd build these cars a little more robust so that they don't explode if you use the wrong oil or wrong coolant. Ooooh I voided my warranty by using Mobil 5W-30 instead of 5W-40/0W-40. I'm so scared. I also voided my warranty by installing a 300whp turbo kit









Oh, not that I trust Wikipedia, but this ought to be mandatory reading for this forum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
And some interesting "information" on AMSOil aka AMZOil aka AMMOIL aka Altrum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsoil



_Modified by phatvw at 10:39 AM 5-31-2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (Jetta4Life)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jetta4Life* »_ 
Just a side note...something to think about. I'm not a lawyer by any means but I got to thinking about the subject about approved oils, the customers responsibility, VWOA, and oil manufactuers..... if a naive or inexperienced person buys say AMSOIL based on their clever advertising or someone who has a MKIV buys royal purple because they see that on every sticker there is a mkiv dash that it must be ok for their VW (which is also not on the list of approved oils) could in fact sue either company for misleading advertising if damage is done to a car and the dealer were to void the warranty on.

_Modified by Jetta4Life at 9:34 PM 5-27-2008_

Where Amsoil is concerned you don't need to worry about warranty for 2 reasons.
1) Amsoil has it's own warranty. In a nutshell, if Amsoil causes any damage to your engine (or whatever you use it in) Amsoil will pay for the damages.
2) If VW denies your warranty because Amsoil is in the crankcase Amsoil will take VW to court. The odds are that even if VW feels they might win, they won't go to court because it's cheaper to replace an engine than it is to battle it in court. Lawsuits like this aren't about winning or losing. It's all about getting through it for the least amount of money. VW (and any other car maker) will settle out. Trust me it's happened.
I will hopefully be getting some definitive answers on whether or not VW would have the legal right to deny a warranty for this reason in the first place. I hope to be able to produce the sources of the info as well.
I will also be asking if Amsoil's 502.00 is "reverse" engineered. I seriusly doubt it is. VW would have to release the requirements of the oil they want in the engine in order for it to be produced. Otherwise that might be .... oh I don't know...*unscrupulous?*


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_
Where Amsoil is concerned you don't need to worry about warranty for 2 reasons.
1) Amsoil has it's own warranty. In a nutshell, if Amsoil causes any damage to your engine (or whatever you use it in) Amsoil will pay for the damages.
2) If VW denies your warranty because Amsoil is in the crankcase Amsoil will take VW to court. The odds are that even if VW feels they might win, they won't go to court because it's cheaper to replace an engine than it is to battle it in court. Lawsuits like this aren't about winning or losing. It's all about getting through it for the least amount of money. VW (and any other car maker) will settle out. Trust me it's happened.
I will hopefully be getting some definitive answers on whether or not VW would have the legal right to deny a warranty for this reason in the first place. I hope to be able to produce the sources of the info as well.
I will also be asking if Amsoil's 502.00 is "reverse" engineered. I seriusly doubt it is. VW would have to release the requirements of the oil they want in the engine in order for it to be produced. Otherwise that might be .... oh I don't know...*unscrupulous?*

I've seen your posts over on BITOG where you were fishing for all of the reasons why folks with cars that have very specific oil specifications should feel safe running a non-certified oil like Amsoil in their cars. You seem to be comfortable with Amsoil's warranty that you'll be safe and covered in the event of a problem; others are not so convinced, me included.
The fact is that I've read much of Amsoils marketing literature, and I find them to be even slipperier than their oil when it comes to good clean and non-ambiguous and relevant data about the value of their oils. Personally I don't trust a company that spews such bilge in their marketing, and as such, I don't believe that their warranty is worth the paper it's printed on.
Long story short, Amsoil has NOT been certified to meet the standards of VW, Audi, Seat, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche (among others). Period, full stop, the end.
Using Amsoil in any of the above cars puts the operator needlessly at risk when it comes to any potential warranty issues with the engine, and fortunately it is a risk that most folks are smart enough to avoid.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (shipo)*

See the other thread on "Amsoil up to spec"
Yes I'm comfortable with Amsoil. I have yet to see anything beyond peoples opinions (that's all you have btw) to contradict the company.
When someone can show me in writing a denied warranty or a legal reason why I am wrong I will accept that.
I'm fishing because I honestly don't know the real answer.
I consider any company that has an "approved" list of oils to be unscrupulous at least in that department. The vast majority of car makers don't do this.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_I consider any company that has an "approved" list of oils to be unscrupulous at least in that department. The vast majority of car makers don't do this.

Hmmm, let's see, besides VW and Audi we have:
BMW: Longlife-98, Longlife-01, Longlife-04
Caterpiller: ECF-2, ECF-3
Chrysler: MS-6395
Ford: WSS-M2C153-H, WSS-M2C929-A, WSS-M2C930-A
GM: 4718M, 6094M
Honda: HTO-06, RWC
Mercedes-Benz: 229.1, 229.3, 229.5
Opel: GM-LL-A-025, GM-LL-B-025
Porsche: Approval List 2002
So, all of these manufacturers have _very_ specific oil requirements that must be used for some or all of their engines to maintain the warranty. VW just goes the extra mile by publishing a list of the oils that are certified to meet their various standards, a service that I find very admirable.
So, where's the beef?


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (shipo)*



shipo
So said:


> very[/I] specific oil requirements that must be used for some or all of their engines to maintain the warranty. VW just goes the extra mile by publishing a list of the oils that are certified to meet their various standards, a service that I find very admirable.
> So, where's the beef?


The difference is that VW requires their own certification to comply with the warranty. (I'm searching the legality of this) The others just say that the oil must meet the specified requirements. Amsoil meets those requirements. (as do others) They just don't pay stupid bureaucratic bull**** testing facilities. They test the oil themselves, they openly share the results and therefore see no reason to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for yet another test.
I can point to you quotes from ford, Chrys and Chevy that state they will not void a warranty due to someone not using an oil on the "recommended" (not approved) list.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_
The difference is that VW requires their own certification to comply with the warranty. (I'm searching the legality of this) The others just say that the oil must meet the specified requirements. Amsoil meets those requirements. (as do others) They just don't pay stupid bureaucratic bull**** testing facilities. They test the oil themselves, they openly share the results and therefore see no reason to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for yet another test.
I can point to you quotes from ford, Chrys and Chevy that state they will not void a warranty due to someone not using an oil on the "recommended" (not approved) list.

Sorry my friend but there are many manufacturers that require oil that is certified to meet certain perscribed standards. Consider the following from the manual of my 530i:
*Specified engine oils*
The quality of the engine oil selected has critical significance for the operation and service life of an engine. Based on extensive testing, BMW has approved only certain engine oils.
Use only approved "BMW High Performance Synthetic Oil."
If you are unable to obtain "BMW High Performance Synthetic Oil," you can add small amounts of synthetic oil in between oil changes. Only use oils with the API SH specification or higher.
*Ask your BMW center for details concerning the specific "BMW High Performance Synthetic Oil" or "synthetic oils" which have been approved.*
FWIW, I absolutely guarantee that there are no AMSOIL oils on the BMW approved oil list.


_Modified by shipo at 10:52 AM 6-4-2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

So then why would a BMW dealer sign up to do Amsoil oil changes?
And yes, I know of one. If you would like I can find out which one. I think it's in CA.
Amsoil's oils meet all the specifications they list on their bottles. I don't that's the question here. The question is whether or not a warranty can be denied because someone use an oil that is to specification, just not on the list.
I'm not sure if you're trying to say that Amsoil is lying or that they aren't up to par, but I can assure you the don't just meet specifications. They far exceed them.
No one is putting an engine at risk using any oil that meets specification (I don't consider an approval stamp to be a specification).
I will admit the possibility that you may be putting the warranty at risk. I don't think so, but I am trying to find out. I will post my findings either way.
I have no problem admitting I may be wrong. But someone has to prove it.


_Modified by nuskool at 10:12 AM 6-4-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_So then why would a BMW dealer sign up to do Amsoil oil changes?

Ignorance.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_And yes, I know of one. If you would like I can find out which one. I think it's in CA.

Should I be impressed? I’m thinking not. Why? Geez, my first BMW dealer put bulk Quaker State conventional 5W-30 in my BMW that specifically required oil that was certified to meet the BMW LL-01 synthetic oil specification. That any given dealer is careless enough to put their client’s engines at risk is not even remotely a proof of anything.


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_Amsoil's oils meet all the specifications they list on their bottles.

Says who? Amsoil? Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, just because they say it (again and again and again) doesn't make it so.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_I don't that's the question here. The question is whether or not a warranty can be denied because someone use an oil that is to specification, just not on the list.

Unless the oil has been independently certified, then it isn't officially up to the VW specifications. If the oil isn’t up to spec, then warranty can be denied and then it’s up to the operator to challenge the denial (at their own expense). You claim that Amsoil will help out in cases like this. Not only do I not need that kind of a hassle (assuming they did help out), I don’t actually trust Amsoil to do diddly should my engine fail.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_I'm not sure if you're trying to say that Amsoil is lying or that they aren't up to par, but I can assure you the don't just meet specifications. They far exceed them.

Given Amsoil's deceptive marketing practices, it wouldn't even remotely surprise me if they were lying with regards to the specs they _claim_ to meet. As for you assuring me that all specs are both met and exceeded, uhhh, I have to ask, "Who the hell are you?" You don't write like an engineer, you don't write like a tri-biologist, and you don't write at all like an expert in the field would write. So, where is your scientific proof that any oil from Amsoil even remotely comes close to any VW oil spec?

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_No one is putting an engine at risk using any oil that meets specification (I don't consider an approval stamp to be a specification).

In your personal and non-professional opinion. Sorry, not even remotely good enough for me.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_I will admit the possibility that you may be putting the warranty at risk. I don't think so, but I am trying to find out. I will post my findings either way.

Call VWoA and ask.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_I have no problem admitting I may be wrong. But someone has to prove it.

No, in this kind of situation, the reverse is true, you must _prove_ that an operator isn't putting their warranty at risk. Failing that, any grade of non-certified Amsoi (or any oil from any other manufacturer that isn't certified for that matter) is just so much slippery liquid and should NEVER be put into an engine unless the operator wants to accept the risk for any future failures.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (shipo)*

And the usefulness of this thread has ended...


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (phatvw)*

Really? Why?
The various purveyors of oil that have had their oil certified to meet the VW oil specs have Proof Positive that their oils are acceptable for use in VW/Audi engines and will not jeopardize any warranties.
Contrary to what many would claim, the same cannot be said for Amsoil products, and that fact needs to pointed out. Yes, no?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (shipo)*

This "discussion" has not revealed any new information that what was already in Techmeister's original post.
If you notice, Techmeister has wisely kept his mouth shut and not fuel further pi$$ing matches. I guess I'm not quite as wise as him...


----------



## Rubberband (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: (phatvw)*

Claiming something is made in accordance with spec XXX is one thing but certified to spec XXX is a completely different ball of wax. Call it BS if you want but when a spec exists, the various companies cannot just claim it meets or beats it by testing it using their own methods and lab & expect the industry to just accept this for an approved equivalent. Further, if said company claims their product to be the same or superior and actually got their hands on the spec and reverse engineered the formula, they would still be expected to have an independent lab certified to test to the said spec and submit a proper tech data package to the oem or spec owner to approve or deny. I see companies try to go around these issues every day in my industry and it often leads to big time legal actions (aircraft engines). Hell, our specific division won’t even touch auto parts manufacturing due to the SAE/Auto requirements being so stringent and liabilities involved…..yes more stringent standards than aircraft! Engine breaks in a car and you stop moving (maybe cause an accident), an engine goes out on an aircraft and yur dead…..go figure.
I would venture to say that concerning engine oil testing; the OEM or spec owner/governing bodies would implement or involve major engine run tests which are very expensive (all specifics requirements defined in spec), that’s in addition to the obvious chemical/physical properties testing and other test criteria. Basically you have to pay to play when specifications are involved & can’t expect anything but problems with a company that makes statements, marketing hype etc hoping that people eat it up and buy it….you gotta think of what kind of company you are dealing with when they won’t even pony-up and do the process properly. IE: spend the cash for the testing for cert. It’s an integrity thing in my opinion & should make you wonder what would happen if you ever needed to address a warranty claim.
Just my .02 anyways….


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (Rubberband)*

You know, nothing I say here will make any difference to you. 
So how much resaearch heave you done on the integrity (or lack of as you seem to speak) of Amsoil. Your so smart? Fine then, find me one case beyond opinion where Amsoil not done as they claim they will or do.
Why do I trust them, simple I can't find a solid reason not too. 36 years old and the only negative publicity I can find is only on the marketing practices which is all apinion based anyway. Multi level marketing is whether you like it or not is perfectly legal and in my opinion only a different way of doing business, not unscrupulous at all. 
Who am I? Why does it matter. I'm an average joe looking for an answer to a legal question that to this point no one has been able to answer. Just because it's stated in a warranty doesn't make it legally binding.
Why do I think the oils are of the highest quality. Again this is simple. Do a little research on your own and you might figure it for yourself.
UOA's speak for themselves.
No one to date has done anything to prove any of their claims to be wrong. Don't you think that after the comparison tests that they do that show so many other companies to be falling short of the mark, that at least one of those companies would defend themselves? So far none have.
I have yet to see another comapny disclose so much technical info about their oil. Show me one that does.
Shipo, To this point you seem to be the only that really questions the quality of the products. Trust me, you are in the minority. But then you seem smart enought to know this. But then if you're that smart you would see the results people are getting with the products. Which as I said b4 speak for themselves.
And I don't completely agree that you have to pay to play. If Amsoil makes a statement and the product fails to produce the giiven result, they get sued. It's not worth it for them to make stuff up. They have built a significant reputation for making quality products. This is largely undisputed. They're not going to do anything to ruin the reputation.
But once again I don't know why I wasted my time. Nothing I say will make a difference.
I look at most everything in life with an unbiased eye. Perhaps you could do the same.


----------



## Rubberband (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*

nuskool, I was simply making a point/opinion about product substitution and how it affects the guys playing by the rules. This comes from years of actual experience working in an industry that sees this kind of thing happen daily. Oh and what I meant by integrity was not the actual chemical/composition/integrity of the product but about a given companies’ integrity. It hurts manufactures that invest big, big money and play the game fairly to have someone come by and push/sell their product by “saying” is the same without qualifying through the correct & identical procedures resulting in a favorable go ahead from the OEM. My point was not to bash, but rather to explain it from another point of view. The view of a manufacturer. That’s all it is bro-man. It is about proper product substantiation. If we (my company) want to make a product for a given OEM, we have to go through engine tests, process audits etc… I mean the whole 9 yards for it to be acceptable for use (critical apps which cars & aircraft are). We can’t just call up GE aircraft engines and sell them parts that have not been proven to their expectations…..we have to do it technically and by the rules set fourth of the design or spec owner. Do you not see what I am saying? When someone comes out with a product, good/bad or whatever, you still have to play by the rules for it to be approved by the OEM. If they don’t it is viewed as unauthorized product substitution.
I mean, would you accept it if you made came up with a design, (lets just say a new rubber compound for tires with DOT certification that will change history) then to get it moving, you spent all of your cash & resources in proving it does what you claim it to do, pay the piper with the substantiation process to get the DOT cert needed but then have some guy from maybe China or some other competitor come by and forge your design/or claim it is the same or make claims that it is better without even going through the same tests and methods as you just did….and then undersell you because his overhead is lower knowing he didn’t invest as you did? My point wasn’t that a specific brand is good or bad at all, it’s how it works with these OEM's....or not.
I use whatever I have had good experience with...brand x http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
again this is only my opinion. 


_Modified by Rubberband at 4:59 PM 6-8-2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (Rubberband)*

Rubberband, 
I had no problems with your comments. Shipo has said quite a few things that make him sound like a butt. I shouldn't let some stranger on the net get to me. I ususally don't.
I don't completely disagree with the certification process. I just don't understand why VW (and a few others) require their own test instead of relying on an industry standard. So they're making these oil companies pay for multiple tests which is bogus. These oil companies should be able to send the oil to a qualified lab, get it tested one time and be done with it.
BTW, Amsoil does have API certified oils. I have to look to see specifically which ones.
There's also the fact that oil testing is done on a pass or fail basis. This is just wrong. Because of this people don't have any convenient way of knowing how well an oil actually performs. (These are not my thoughts, I just happen to agree with them) It would be better if oils had some kind of grading system so either we would be able to make a more informed decision simply by reading the bottle, or maybe oil companies might actually raise their standards.
Just because an oil passes, doesn't make it a good oil.
I think ( I don't know) maybe the reason Amsoil and others aren't willing to pay VW isn't that they won't pass muster, it's that it's really just a bunch of crap that an automaker would require their own test and not trust industry standards. That and the fact that Amsoil has been making synthetic lubes longer than anyone else and has built a solid reputation for making very high quality lubricants. Therefore people trust them.
Kind of like Toyota and Honda. People buy them for one main reason - reliabilty, based on what? A long standing reputation. 
No company in it's right mind will jeopordize a solid reputation.
So, in short, I agree there should be testing, just not the way it's being done at VW.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_Shipo has said quite a few things that make him sound like a butt. I shouldn't let some stranger on the net get to me. I ususally don't.

I love it, being called a "butt" by a bilge water salesman. I'm thinking that it's a compliment. Thanks.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (shipo)*

What ever


----------



## jhnlennon (Jun 7, 2008)

*Re: (nuskool)*

i dont understand why every1 here is bashing amsoil products. they have some of the highest quality products out there. oil anylasis tests have proven that time and time again. not too mention the many comparison tests out there.


----------



## tjl (Mar 24, 2001)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_I don't completely disagree with the certification process. I just don't understand why VW (and a few others) require their own test instead of relying on an industry standard.

Because the API standards do not ensure that an oil is suitable for extended oil change intervals (10,000 or more miles) in general. The latest API standards can be met by inexpensive conventional oils used in engines specifying oil change intervals as short as 3,750 miles; if a car company wanted to require the use of an oil suitable for extended oil change intervals, it needs to specify a standard that ensures that an oil that passes it can hold up for extended oil change intervals in that car company's engines.


----------



## tjl (Mar 24, 2001)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_Where Amsoil is concerned you don't need to worry about warranty for 2 reasons.
1) Amsoil has it's own warranty. In a nutshell, if Amsoil causes any damage to your engine (or whatever you use it in) Amsoil will pay for the damages.
2) If VW denies your warranty because Amsoil is in the crankcase Amsoil will take VW to court.

While Amsoil and VW are throwing lawyers at each other, the owner of a car with a broken engine ends up waiting. Not a good situation for the owner, regardless of who is right or wrong.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (jhnlennon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhnlennon* »_i dont understand why every1 here is bashing amsoil products. they have some of the highest quality products out there. oil anylasis tests have proven that time and time again. not too mention the many comparison tests out there.

Pretty funny. I've read many-many UOAs over on BITOG, and I've yet to see any evidence that suggests that Amsoil is any better than any other high quality synthetic oil on the market. It's just more expensive. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (jhnlennon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhnlennon* »_i dont understand why every1 here is bashing amsoil products. they have some of the highest quality products out there. oil anylasis tests have proven that time and time again. not too mention the many comparison tests out there.

To be specific, It's not really everyone that is bashing Amsoil. Mostly just shipo. So he would be in the minority.
most everyone on bitog agrees that Amsoil is without quetion one of the best products out there.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_
To be specific, It's not really everyone that is bashing Amsoil. Mostly just shipo. So he would be in the minority.
most everyone on bitog agrees that Amsoil is without quetion one of the best products out there.


I have no problem cautioning folks against buying products from a company whose business practices are, IMHO, unethical, and their marketing scheme is more than a bit questionable. That said, I've never said that their oil was bad (although I have said that it is no better than any other premium synthetic oil on the market, and that fact is born out by the many UOAs posted on BITOG).
As for using any Amsoil product in a VW or Audi (or even a BMW or Mercedes-Benz for that matter), Amsoil has exactly zero oils that are certified to meet the individual manufacturers requirements, and as such, if an engine in one of these cars has an oil related failure, the warranty is likely to be voided. In that regard, I am not even remotely alone in recommending owners of these cars steer clear of Amsoil lubricants.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_
I have no problem cautioning folks against buying products from a company whose business practices are, IMHO, unethical, and their marketing scheme is more than a bit questionable. That said, I've never said that their oil was bad (although I have said that it is no better than any other premium synthetic oil on the market, and that fact is born out by the many UOAs posted on BITOG).

You called me a bilge water salesman. If that's not saying Amsoil is bad I don't know what is.
And as you state, "In your opinion". WHich everybody has one and yours is largely in the minority. If you actually took time to research the company you would find a solid 35 year reputation.
As for the warranty issue, I'm still trying to find a solid answer to that. I see the opinion go both ways. So for now I don't recommend it for people who are still under warranty.
That being said, the *ONLY* thing that keeps it from being certified is that they haven't paid VW, or others for a certification test.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (tjl)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tjl* »_
Because the API standards do not ensure that an oil is suitable for extended oil change intervals (10,000 or more miles) in general. The latest API standards can be met by inexpensive conventional oils used in engines specifying oil change intervals as short as 3,750 miles; if a car company wanted to require the use of an oil suitable for extended oil change intervals, it needs to specify a standard that ensures that an oil that passes it can hold up for extended oil change intervals in that car company's engines.

This is kind of my point about a grading system. API has very lose standards. Amsoil (and others) have much higher standards. So if there were some kind of grading system to show the minimum as well as how far above the minimum a given oil has scored then VW and others wouldn't need to certify the oils.
As for extended drain intervals, Amsoil was the originator of this concept.


----------



## tjl (Mar 24, 2001)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_As for extended drain intervals, Amsoil was the originator of this concept.

If they are confident in their oil's ability to lubricate the engines in question for manufacturer-specified oil change intervals, then why not have the oil approved and rated? The costs of certification are likely small compared to the market opportunities made available, as well as dispelling the "snake oil" image to some extent.
Note that extended oil change intervals are not the only thing that a car company may be concerned about when giving oil approvals and ratings (e.g. some VW diesel engines will have excessive wear in some places if oil not specifically designed for them is used).


_Modified by tjl at 4:06 PM 6-19-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_You called me a bilge water salesman. If that's not saying Amsoil is bad I don't know what is.

IIRC, you started the name calling and that was the response. That said, I wasn't referring to the oil, I was referring to the marketing bilge from Amsoil as well as the content of many of your posts.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_And as you state, "In your opinion". WHich everybody has one and yours is largely in the minority. If you actually took time to research the company you would find a solid 35 year reputation.

Ummm, yeah, whatever. Hasn't Amway, Kirby Vacuums, and Cutco Cutlery been around longer than that? Sorry, 35 years in existence doesn't impress me.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_As for the warranty issue, I'm still trying to find a solid answer to that. I see the opinion go both ways. So for now I don't recommend it for people who are still under warranty.

Regardless of what is legal, regardless of what Amsoil says, regardless of what is "right", vehicle manufacturers can, and do void new car warranties, and they do it fairly frequently.
Like it or not, the vehicle manufacturers have a lot more money for lawyers than Amsoil does, and a heck of a lot more than you and I do. For someone who needs their car for daily life, tying an engine repair up in court for months or years, even if they lose in the end, is just as good as voiding the warranty and making it stick.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_That being said, the *ONLY* thing that keeps it from being certified is that they haven't paid VW, or others for a certification test. 

Well, there you go again, claiming something that you have absolutely no factual data on. Amsoil says their Euro 5W-40 blend meets and exceeds the 502.00 oil spec, and apparently that's good enough for you. VW and Audi however, feel otherwise. I do too. 
In the end, until 502.00, 503.01, 505.00 and 505.01 levels of performance are proven by a third party, you (and Amsoil) cannot write what you just wrote and maintain any credibility.


----------



## rajvosa71000 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Re: (shipo)*

Im using Amsoil European blend and I like it....car runs so smooth.
We'll never really know wich oil is the best, even the on es recommended by VW....nobody knows what excactly theyt put in any oil


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (rajvosa71000)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rajvosa71000* »_Im using Amsoil European blend and I like it....car runs so smooth.
We'll never really know wich oil is the best, even the on es recommended by VW....nobody knows what excactly theyt put in any oil









Once again my point on why there should be a 3rd party grading system. Then you would know what was good and what isn't.
And shipo - just what credibility do you bring to the table?
my point about how long Amsoil has been in business wasn't just about length of time, but rather length of time with a solid unwavering good reputation for a top notch product. Otherwise I agree, length of time in business means nothing.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_And shipo - just what credibility do you bring to the table?

What credibility do I bring? Only what I've earned by making well thought out and well researched posts . On a forum like this, that's about the best one can do. After all, pretty much any fool can get on here and say that they're a Tri-biologist with a gazillion years of experience in the lubrication industry, and then pontificate on their personal beliefs.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_my point about how long Amsoil has been in business wasn't just about length of time, but rather length of time with a solid unwavering good reputation for a top notch product. Otherwise I agree, length of time in business means nothing.

A solid reputation? Well, I suppose that depends upon who you ask. In your mind apparently their reputation is solid, however, in the minds of many others, their reputation is tainted by the smoke and mirrors method of marketing they employ and the unsubstantiated claims they make about their products.
For my part, if they would can the deceptive advertising and then have their oils certified to meet the various standards out there, then I'd be more than happy to consider their products, errr, assuming they're good enough to be certified.


----------



## rajvosa71000 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Re: (shipo)*

Somebody tell amsoil to get their oil tested by VW, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't....it can't cost that much for a company that's been so long in business


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (rajvosa71000)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rajvosa71000* »_Somebody tell amsoil to get their oil tested by VW, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't....it can't cost that much for a company that's been so long in business









Won't happen. They'll say is because of the principle; but really its because of the $.
Glad to see this "debate" continuing


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (phatvw)*

If you want a debate about Amsoil, start another thread.
This one was origianlly about whether or not VW can deny a warranty based on the fact that a particular brand of oil is not on the approved list.
IMHO I think this comes down to deciphering the MM act and trying to figure out that way if VW's warranty, as stated, is or is not legally binding.
Opinions don't matter here. The law is what matters and I am still trying to get answers one way or the other. But I am a busy person and can't devote a lot of time to it, coupled with the fact that some phone calls aren't getting returned.
So- Let's get back on topic.


----------



## TechEd (Nov 11, 2000)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (TechMeister)*

Sitting down?
As an engineer, it’s amusing to witness the result of modern branding in these and other forums. Especially when the marketing concepts used to ingrain brand identities into innocent or otherwise uniformed minds are nothing more than perception-building needed for fostering brand loyalty and repeat purchases. In this case, oil manufacturers also take advantage of those on the “misery loves company” bandwagon who blindly desire to “protect an investment” through “piece of mind”. They are undoubtedly overjoyed to see these highly engaged consumers fight to the death to defend something, which in reality, they know little or nothing about. The adage: “a little bit of knowledge is dangerous” is familiar here. The cold and hard scope of engineering modern lubricants, engine designs, materials, casting and final machining processes has increased 10-fold, even as recently as the last 5 years, with major advancements realized in all areas. Our SAE library has swollen significantly with new papers on lubrication research/findings would be significant for consumers if they could only grasp the language. As a result, the excessive engagement levels and myth-perpetuation exhibited by some enthusiasts, are quite hilarious to witness.
Every time I see (what my colleagues and I call) “lubeco” ads on the T & V, with dramatic animation accompanied by carefully-crafted, manipulated context voice-overs, the absurdity of it all makes me puke. Even worse are references in websites and magazines etc. to oil “out performing others” in the antiquated ASTM (static) wear test. This test, by ASTM’s own definition, presents only a preliminary method of evaluation, at the front end of a total scope of evaluation that is huge. The ASTM test simply shears stationary round metal surfaces (ball bearings) with predetermined vertical force against a rotating metal surface with only a tiny contact area, in an open environment were the oil supply is essentially “splashed” onto the contact surface. As such, it fails to realistically simulate the full dynamic lubrication event that takes place in a working automobile engine under load! Bearing surfaces in auto engines are supplied oil under a constant range of pressure to a very tight tolerance zone between two perfectly mated circular bearing surfaces that have 1:1 contact area. Rotational loads are also distributed over multiple bearing journals (in the case of crankshafts and camshafts), and oil pressure is increased proportional to engine speed/load (typically 80 to 100 psi at over 3,000 rpm). If the ASTM test is relevant to anything, it’s to 4-stroke lawnmower engines with splash oiling! The chemistry in all engine oils is such that its wear performance is enhanced through close tolerance, large surface area pressurization, not small contact, gravity-fed “splashing”. Indeed, it is here where far too many zealots and gullible brand babies get their diapers pulled over their eyes, full of BS. Ad agency talent is measured by how the public can be deceived in ways that make them feel happy. This does not change the fact that, if a lubricant was not conceived to meet a particular performance (quality) specification, regardless of origin, it will not perform in accordance with that spec. It’s just sad that a brand zealot’s only defense is half-truth perceptions, often based on irrelevant test data.

A “what comes first, chicken or egg?” perspective seems to drive much of the confusion surrounding automotive lubricants. The reality is that first and foremost, lubecos produce their products in accordance with local and/or worldwide performance and quality standards. If they have any challenge in this regard, it’s that there are lots of standards built on extremely broad ranges of expected outcomes, and that consumers can’t begin to grasp the implications of this. Engine designers are aware of, and are forced to reflect on these standards. But unlike consumers, they fully understand that their systemic approach to lubrication design, from component-to-component tolerances as well as bearing loads and even cooling system layouts must respect (what often amounts to them to be) _lubricant performance limitations_, not standards. We constantly demand more from oil as we manage tight engine packaging and front end aero issues that cause operating temps and engine thermal loads to increase. But is it is here where there is good news. The top lubecos now work very closely with auto engine engineering teams in the interchange of engine design, materials, casting, final machining and engine cooling information. The top ones, like Mobil and Castrol even provide contract consultancy services where they rent cube space at the autoco’s R&D labs. It is here where, ever tightening emissions regs have forced engineers in both camps to collectively address the increase in engine temps that result from leaner mixtures under load, and be especially aware of where the lubeco’s public spec oil formulas may be inadequate in one or another spec. category. Close cooperation like this, which takes the technology/product into account in a systemic fashion, is the origin of various “manufacturer” oil specs. When OEM durability testing of engines with public spec oils reveals even but a borderline shortcoming in only one, ever so insignificant oil performance area, the engineers will work with the chemists in the next cube on rationalizing a small, specific enhancement in the public spec and create a manufacturer spec. Getting the SAE, API and the rest to update their public specs based on a specific OEMs findings/request is like pulling teeth. The specific chemistry supplied by the brand for the test is never considered at all, as that would raise eyebrows at the FTC. Achieving manufacturer oil specs are a significant feather in the cap of those that care to do so, as it is welcome enhancement of an already superior piece of development work. Despite longer change intervals, they happily run out and make their unique formulas meeting the new manufacturer specs. It’s good business. Those that don’t, well… there’s always misleading advertising. In this day and age, tight engineering-based relationships between the top players like this are to be admired due to the best possible outcomes being realized. In this, consumers would do well to …well, “consume” accordingly.

The fact is that it’s in the best interest of all lubricant manufacturers to produce oils that meet as many manufacturer spec requirements as possible. The good thing for us “car” enthusiasts is that quite a few actually do so, so we have a choice …after all, fair market competition is what drives advancements and improvements. The fact that many manufacturer spec oils *are* available is also a good thing for auto manufacturers because it keeps them off the FTC’s radar screen. In this, autocos avoid the tie-in sales provisions prohibited by the FTC in warranty texts (via the Magnusson-Moss Act). The crap would surely hit the fan if only one worldwide company would produce VW 502.00 oil exclusively for VWAG, for their exclusive supply to customers. Worldwide OEM burdens to control warranty costs is a fierce one indeed, especially in the USA where legitimate warranty issues are compounded by warranty fraud that is more frequent than anywhere else in the world. Major unit replacements like engines and transmissions do not come with small price tags, legitimately or otherwise, so every effort is made by OEMs to ensure qualitative operating requirements are met. Even though these requirements appear atypical at first, they also serve to prevent sudden engine failures that could draw the attention of the NHTSA. The world here is far more complex than most consumers could ever imagine.
As far as the Magnusson-Moss Act itself is concerned, let’s not forget that it serves both consumers and manufacturers, and does not exist solely as a virtual crutch and marketing hook for SEMA members or lubecos. A review of all the VW OM texts shows them to be prim, proper, consistent and M-M compliant. And not only with regards to oil. You can be sure that all OEMs make an effort to keep off the FTC radar by using M-M compliant texts, and I would expect no less from VW. What many fail to realize or understand (maybe through excessive brand passion?), is that FTC allows permissible warranty provisions to be used instead of prohibited sales provision tie-ins. This is where manufacturers are allowed to restrict warranty coverage when non-original replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance might not be appropriate for the performance of a system or system component product as originally engineered. Simply put, if a replacement component (or in this case, engine oil) does not meet the OE specifications set out by the manufacturer, and that non-OE spec causes or contributes to the subsequent failure of a related system or component, manufacturers are within their rights to refuse warranty repairs/replacements of that system or component. Makes sense, doesn’t it? VW and all other Domestic and Asian OM texts contain direct references along those lines, covering everything from ECMs to suspension mods. The principle here applies to all products where manufacturers commit themselves to supply warranty benefit. Indeed, the whole M-M messiness started back in the early 70s when some nutty schmo decides to make cheapie typewriter ribbons in his basement and sell them to unsuspecting office typing pools. Olivetti and IBM were blindsided by having to replace thousands of perfectly good typewriters under warranty, for reasons beyond their control. At the same time, the M-M act gives those small players that want to, and are able to _reproduce_ parts to OEM specs, to have a fair shot in the replacement parts business.
It’s time to step away from all this brand-generated perception BS, with stupid lubeco oil animation ads, M-M Act crutches etc., Try a pragmatic, all-encompassing, rational engineering perspective for a change. The whole picture is important, not just what one wants to hear. There’s nothing wrong with trusting the OEM, for they’ve spent billions of man hours sorting all this out. Those that think they have some hidden agendas or mysterious wizards behind the curtain calling the shots are sadly mistaken. The FTC and other world regulators see to it. It is instead, the little narrow-focus aftermarket players, with little in the way of regulation, that will do anything to grab their share through misinformation and brand-loyalty emotion. The whole picture contains no provision for the polarization and perceptions on which branding so dearly relies.


_Modified by TechEd at 9:15 PM 6-27-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (TechEd)*

Wonderful dissertation, thank you for spending the time to write it.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (TechEd)*

Well written and explains a lot of which I already know and understand.
That said, much of what is stated is still opinion and does not address whether or not a given oil company that claims to have manufactured the oil to the appropriate spec needs to pay a given manufacturer for testing in order to maintain the warranty.
The whole question here is whether or not VW or others can void a warranty because the wrong brand (not wrong spec) oil was used. If it meets the said requirements then the oil is not what caused the damage. 
Any oil company claiming that the oil is to the given spec will have to answer for that. I would imagine that they would be subject to fines and law suits if it isn't.
So can you say difinitively that, as the law states, VW or BMW or Mercede's or whoever can void a warranty because they didn't "APPROVE" an oil even though it meets all specifications?
You talk about them staying "off" the radar. Yet we all hear of warranties being voided for what we all know are bogus reasons. I think a lot of things fly "under" said radar.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_So can you say difinitively that, as the law states, VW or BMW or Mercede's or whoever can void a warranty because they didn't "APPROVE" an oil even though it meets all specifications?


You continue to miss the point. Amsoil does not make even a single oil that "meets all of the specifications", or at least not demonstrably so. Just because Amsoil _says_ that their European Car Formula is "formulated to surpass the most demanding European specifications" doesn't mean that it really does. Until the oil is properly tested, how do you (or anybody else for that matter) really know that they didn't miss in one or more critical areas?


----------



## TechEd (Nov 11, 2000)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (nuskool)*

I understand that most cases that have gone before the FTC on disputes regarding permissible warranty provisions are dismissed because plaintiffs and plaintiff experts (representing the non-original or aftermarket supplier) are unable to prove a product in question is identical to that established by the OE design brief, or otherwise meets the manufacturer's quality or performance specifications. When manufacturers exercise their rights to establish permissible warranty provisions that mention specific parts or systems (like ECMs, suspensions etc.), it's usually due to a history of subsequent system/component warranty claims that were significant in nature (read: costly enough) for them to seek future protection against specific, non-original spec parts being used (...the ECM and suspension provision statements were completely absent from my 87 GTI 16V OM). Like I said, the M-M Act serves both manufacturers and customers, and the OM language here is M-M-compliant.

In the early years, the FTC struggled with product definitions. Things like typewriter ribbons are now fully considered as "consumables", "renew-ables" or "wear and tear" items. These are specified in the product design brief as such. Def.: ...meant to, intended to be replaced due to the wear or deterioration of such entities as a result of the normal operation of system/part X". In automotive terms, wiper blades, brake pads are easily recognizable and accepted as consumables. Reputable aftermarket suppliers of these parts generally heed the OE specs for their standard replacement bits because they know litigation on a non-spec related failure is an expensive waste of time. All automotive lubricants and fluids are considered consumables as well, specifically as maintenance items, and their required specifications as set forth by OEMs is just as relevant as a that of a hard part. Any question of whether OEMs are non compliant here would first require changing the definition of automotive lubricants as consumables ...and I doubt that that's going to happen anytime soon.
As far as warranties being voided ....only the OEM, Importer or representative of such is authorized to void a warranty, in whole or in part (most frequently, in part). Dealers are not authorized to do so. The official process requires a one-on-one interview with the owner and handing over an official letter, which the recipient must acknowledge receiving. The status of the VIN is then flagged in the manufacturer's VDF. This is serious stuff, and manufacturers do not do these things lightly or on a whim, as many assume to be the case. Believe it or not, OEM factory reps are tasked with preventing this ....to instead work with the owner and dealer to apply a one-time goodwill benefit with the provision the offending part (that caused the claim dispute) be removed.
In most cases, the anecdotal evidence of warranties "being voided" as perpetuated in Internet forums are really nothing more than "misery loves company" finding a receptive audience that believes what it wants to believe. This is so typical, and so pathetic... a dealer refuses to perform warranty repairs on a vehicle due to mods (which is all he is allowed to do), then makes a motion to call the OEM rep for assistance or clarification (which takes time), and all of a sudden the issue is misinterpreted an relayed as a sob story of a "voided" warranty. People need to be smarter in this regard.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_
So can you say difinitively that, as the law states, VW or BMW or Mercede's or whoever can void a warranty because they didn't "APPROVE" an oil even though it meets all specifications?

This is a yes or no question, which to date only one person has answered with a single word. And while I consider him to be very knowledgeable in this area, I know that it was largely an opinion. I don't want to share what his answer was at this point.
Tech ed you are obviously very knowledgeable in this area, but your long dissertations still have yet to answer this very controversial question.
It is my understanding (and if I understand you correctly you have also stated as much) that the "consumable" (oil in this case) must be cause of the failure for warranty to be denied. If that is true, then they must test the oil and find it to be out of spec before they can deny a warranty claim.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_
You continue to miss the point. Amsoil does not make even a single oil that "meets all of the specifications", or at least not demonstrably so. Just because Amsoil _says_ that their European Car Formula is "formulated to surpass the most demanding European specifications" doesn't mean that it really does. Until the oil is properly tested, how do you (or anybody else for that matter) really know that they didn't miss in one or more critical areas?

I'm not missing the point at all. Assume for a brief moment that they have NOT missed a single thing (other than the approval stamp) No go from there. And I am referring to any brand that claime the VW specs, not just Amsoil. This thread is *NOT* about Amsoil, it is not about RP or any other specific brand. It is only about the legality of the warranty in regard to a product not on the list, but meets all specifications.
Remember it was techmeister and I that started this whole thing. I think I know the point.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (shipo)*

Why the hate for Amsoil?
Because they didn't pay the $100,000 to have their oil tested? They back up all of their oils with their own warranty. No other oil manufacture will do that.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

Why the hate?
Simple, Amsoil, more than any other company in recent memory publishes less than truthful claims about the efficacy of their products, and in the minds of many, me included, they cannot be trusted to honor their warranty.
As for the claim that they don't have their oil certified because it costs $100,000 (is it really that cheap?), talk about a smoke screen. My bet is that if their oil was truely as good as they say it is, then they'ed have it tested and certified and then reap the profits as a result. Given the size of the market for VW and Audi certified oils, I gotta believe that $100,000 would be a small price to pay for certification and approval.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (shipo)*

I have ran Amsoil in almost all of my vehicles, some I still do and others I run something else because the oil has or has not treated me better.
Amsoil makes a great product. A company is not in business as long as they are by making junk. $100,000+ is cheap to pay if you are a HUGE oil company like Chevron, Shell or Mobil 1, but not if you are a small company.
I have done 8 UOA's on my TDI and Amsoil has outperformed EVERY 505.01 oil. The only thing it has not outperformed is Elf's 507 Solaris. 
Amsoil might not be for everyone, but it has worked for me and the 14 or so people I have got to try it. My father's Duramax ran Amsoil's 15w40 AME for almost 19k miles and his UOA came back exceptional.
Again, it is not for everyone and no one oil is for everyone. It is important to find an oil that works for you, your vehicle and your driving habits.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

You asked, "Why the hate?"
I told you. That you like their products is fine, well, and good, however, many folks, myself included, simply refuse to buy products from companies that use hype and deceptive advertising tactics to sell their products.


----------



## 20v18t (Apr 9, 2002)

posted in wrong forum... sorry


_Modified by 20v18t at 3:45 PM 7/3/2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_You asked, "Why the hate?"
many folks, myself included, simply refuse to buy products from companies that use hype and deceptive advertising tactics to sell their products.


I guess that severly limits your choices. And I would question your use of the word "many". My experience with people that are familier is quite the opposite.


----------



## franz131 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (nuskool)*

I'm loving this discussion, there has been some excellent information posted.
I want to state from the outset that I am a product manager for an importer of a major oil brand. My aim is to fill some gaps in the previous posts.
1. European (A.C.E.A.) engine oil standards are significantly different than N.A. (API). This is changing on the diesel side but the gas engine specs will lag behind. ACEA A3 standard is ~20% thicker than API for the same 5w30 grade. ACEA A3 and A5 cannot be met with 100% mineral oil. All German manufacturers use the same oil for gas and diesel engines, there is no API spec for light duty diesel engines.
2. European manufacturers specifications are specifically geared to their technology. The engine tests are on their engines, API uses a mix of engines because it's meant to be a general standard. Manufacturers approvals are considered a specification as they cannot be met with a fully formulated oil meeting an industry standard only. 
3. Approvals for manufacturers specs typically costs Euro 250K, many companies rebrand to avoid the development costs.
4. EVERY U.S. based major oil company sells approved oils in Europe, most costing Euro 15 - 20/litre. There are over 200 companies on the global approved list for VW 502 00. We forget that VW has to ensure the correct oil is available in places we've never heard of.
5. Thousands of oil companies and formulator/blenders make high quality finished oils. Oil approvals are not about oil quality, it's about the correctness of following the rules and being certified. Those who do deserve the business, those who don't do not deserve the business. Simple.
This discussion is great, carry on.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_many folks, myself included, simply refuse to buy products from companies that use hype and deceptive advertising tactics to sell their products.


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_And I would question your use of the word "many". My experience with people that are familier is quite the opposite.

Well, count me in the realm of those less [sic] familier.
I hate that this forum has lowered itself to the crap being thrown around, but hype is hype, and proof is proof - I've seen too much hype and "sword fights", and too little objective facts/proof/ analyses in these pissant arguments.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 11:54 PM 7-3-2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (franz131)*


_Quote, originally posted by *franz131* »_I'm loving this discussion, there has been some excellent information posted.
I want to state from the outset that I am a product manager for an importer of a major oil brand. My aim is to fill some gaps in the previous posts.
1. European (A.C.E.A.) engine oil standards are significantly different than N.A. (API). This is changing on the diesel side but the gas engine specs will lag behind. ACEA A3 standard is ~20% thicker than API for the same 5w30 grade. ACEA A3 and A5 cannot be met with 100% mineral oil. All German manufacturers use the same oil for gas and diesel engines, there is no API spec for light duty diesel engines.
2. European manufacturers specifications are specifically geared to their technology. The engine tests are on their engines, API uses a mix of engines because it's meant to be a general standard. Manufacturers approvals are considered a specification as they cannot be met with a fully formulated oil meeting an industry standard only. 
3. Approvals for manufacturers specs typically costs Euro 250K, many companies rebrand to avoid the development costs.
4. EVERY U.S. based major oil company sells approved oils in Europe, most costing Euro 15 - 20/litre. There are over 200 companies on the global approved list for VW 502 00. We forget that VW has to ensure the correct oil is available in places we've never heard of.
5. Thousands of oil companies and formulator/blenders make high quality finished oils. Oil approvals are not about oil quality, it's about the correctness of following the rules and being certified. Those who do deserve the business, those who don't do not deserve the business. Simple.
This discussion is great, carry on.

Thanks for the info. It's nice to hear from someone on the "inside"
The last point (5) you made though I have disagree with somewhat. This point is an opinion, not a fact (at least the latter half of it)
The reason I disagree is that IMO it *should* be about oil quality *and* following the rules of correctness.
Being certified is great, except for the fact that with the way the system is set up the oil companies need to pay for certification to every manufacturer. Why can't it be set up like a CE certification? You set up the rules and the oil manufacturers are required to follow them. If they don't they pay the price. A certification should only have to be paid for one time. Shouldn't have to pay BMW, VW Mercede's, etc.
You say it isn't about oil quality. So how is the consumer supposed to know what they are getting beyond the cert.? And for those that do know and would prefer to use a higher quality oil that is made and tested to spec, but doesn't have the approval stamp, why should the warranty be void?
I believe part of the reason some oil companies don't pay for the cert. is because they know they make a better oil than most and don't want to be compared to lower quality oils. But that is only my opinion.


----------



## franz131 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_The last point (5) you made though I have disagree with somewhat. This point is an opinion, not a fact (at least the latter half of it)
The reason I disagree is that IMO it *should* be about oil quality *and* following the rules of correctness.
Being certified is great, except for the fact that with the way the system is set up the oil companies need to pay for certification to every manufacturer. Why can't it be set up like a CE certification? You set up the rules and the oil manufacturers are required to follow them. If they don't they pay the price. A certification should only have to be paid for one time. 
 
nuskool, what I think you're confusing is the difference between an industry standard and a manufacturer specification. API, Ilsac, ACEA, JASO are all industry standards, many of which can be claimed simply by buying an approved additive package and base oil. VW, as an example, STARTS with an ACEA A3 spec oil, then:
1. Requires a minimum HTHS (high temp, high shear) viscosity of 3.5 Mpa.S. A comparable API oil has an HTHS vis of 2.6-2.9, making it completely unsuitable for VW.
2. Gasket compatability tests
3. 2 x cam and tappet wear tests
4. Black sludge, piston deposits, ring sticking, wear and oil consumption tests
All tests are performed on VW motors and are optimized to their metallurgy and operating conditions.
Upon completion of the testing, VW will now recognize your oil as being warranty compliant anywhere in the world. Remember that VW's are sold in places like Uzbekistan and Vanuatu, there needs to be some consistency in the critical fluids.

_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_
You say it isn't about oil quality. So how is the consumer supposed to know what they are getting beyond the cert.? And for those that do know and would prefer to use a higher quality oil that is made and tested to spec, but doesn't have the approval stamp, why should the warranty be void?I believe part of the reason some oil companies don't pay for the cert. is because they know they make a better oil than most and don't want to be compared to lower quality oils. But that is only my opinion.

Making a good oil is easy, making it at a reasonable cost is hard. Many, many companies make very good oil, there's no disputing that. 
Any oil that is approved by VW, BMW, or M-B et al is a very high quality oil. Talking quality differences between oils meeting the highest road-going specifications is futile, they're ALL far better than the industry standard. 
VW has taken the guess-work out of the oil debate, they've tested and approved hundreds of oils and list them for all to see.
One only needs to look at the PD diesel VW introduced in 2004, VW also introduced a new oil spec (505 01) and strongly required it's use. I've seen motors, serviced at the dealer, using the earlier spec oil(505 00) because someone 'knew' more than VW. The valvetrain failures have been comprehensive and catastrophic. 
VW is free and open with their approval process, it's very involved and very expensive, but available to any company that wants to participate.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (franz131)*

OK, maybe I am a little confused here. Please clarify.
Shaeffer for example makes an oil that at least claims to be 502.00, 505.00 and 505.01 compliant. Are you saying that there are additional requirements beyond that?


----------



## franz131 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_OK, maybe I am a little confused here. Please clarify.
Shaeffer for example makes an oil that at least claims to be 502.00, 505.00 and 505.01 compliant. Are you saying that there are additional requirements beyond that?


No, those are the additional requirements.
That oil starts out as an ACEA A3/B4 (high performance, Turbo, D.I. diesel), then undergoes all the VW tests for 502 and 505 01. 
BMW LL-04 and M-B 229.51 can also be met with the same fluid. VW 505 01 and M-B 229.51 are the toughest specs, the rest fall within those limits. Due to the low sulphur and ash content, that oil will also meet API SM/CF but not ILSAC GF-4 FE requirements. 
I hope I'm answering your questions.


----------



## VTMkIII (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: (nuskool)*

I am a new member to this forum but have been reading it for some time.
After reading this thread, I could not help but register so I could add to this debate. I apologize if this ends up being a rant. 
As far as Amsoil is concerned, first off, they are by no means a "small" company. They may have a small footprint in the automotive lubrication industry compared to industry giants like ExxonMobil, Shell, etc.... however they are not a local company.
Secondly, if someone thinks it only cost 100,000 dollars to have VW certify "your" engine oil for use in their vehicles to meet warranty requirements, you are in outer space. It is probably more in the neighborhood of 7 figures. If it were that cheap, there would not be an oil manufactured that was not on the list. Hello Amsoil...If you can afford to manufacture engine oil you can afford to be certified by one of the largest car makers in the world (VAG).
Amsoil either knows their oil does not meet VW's requirements, Or...they have previously submitted it for testing and Volkswagen tested it and it did not meet requirements.
I have worked as a technician in the automotive and aviation fields for 20 years. I have worked at auto dealers (euro, asian, and domestic) as well as independant repair shops. Currently I work on commercial jets such as Boeing 757, 767, 777 with engines made by GE, Pratt & Whitney, & Rolls Royce. In all my life I think I could count on one hand the number of times I have met someone who used or had used Amsoil products in there car that did not come off sounding like a snake oil salesman.
I would also like to say that the above mentioned jet engine manufacturers only use Mobil Jet Oil, AeroShell, Total's Elf and Royco brands, or BP Turbo Oil. These companies do not take there choice in lubricants lightly. Note, that Amsoil is not on the list.
If Amsoil is as good as all the people (who have a vested interest I might add) say it is, more people would use it, it would be sold by traditional commercial means, as well as meet requirements of most auto manufacturers, as tested by the manufacturer.
I will use Mobil 1 as an example. Yes, I do use it. Why does Mobil 1 meet requirements for most companies? Because it is good enough, and because Mobil 1 formulated it that way, and had it tested to meet said requirements. They want to sell oil, not only on the shelf at the auto parts store, but at the local lube shop, and at the dealer. Not just out of the trunk of some Amsoil rep's car.
If Amsoil was so great, leading manufacturers would put it in their engines from the factory. The one that I hear of most often is Mobil 1. However, I'm NOT touting Mobil 1! I just know that only a few cars come from the factory with it, such as Mercedes AMG SLR McLaren models, Dodge SRT10 models, Acura RDX, Nissan GT-R, and Corvette just to name a few. All demand exceptional levels of high quality lubrication. They have requirements. They are met by a number of oil companies. Mobil 1 is the one they happen to choose. nuskool, do you know of any cars that come factory filled with Amsoil? BTW, I am indeed banging on Amsoil, because it is overpriced and no better than anything else. As someone else put it, they way it is sold is screwy. It reminds me of one of those "Supercharge your engine for just $25" ads you see in the back of auto magazines.
Mobil 1 is just ONE of MANY high quality engine oils, synthetic as well as conventional that meet VW's requirements. That means all those oils per VW's testing requirements do a better job of lubricating and protecting internal combustion engines than Amsoil, Period. If this were not the case, then we have a conspiracy by one of the largest car builders in the world wasting there money and time to pull the "wool" over the eyes of a few Amsoil fanatics.
Bottom line- Amsoil does not meet VAG warranty requirements. Why? It is not good enough. Why? Because VW says so. Disagree? VW does not care. They don't have to. They can put Napa Auto Parts 30W Motor Oil on the list if they want to.
Next subject Volkswagen and warranties-
If your engine goes "kaput". Take it to your local VW dealer. Let them look at it. In the rare case they tell you the failure of your engine was due to lubrication failure, they will first ask you to see your service records. If you maintained your car based on their recommendations and it was all done at the VW dealer, Presto! they will be more than happy to cover the cost of your engine, and MAYBE labor depending on other factors. If you missed or were late on one scheduled service, have a nice day. If you had it serviced at anywhere other than a Volkswagen or Audi dealer, they will probably end up telling you to pack sand.
Imagine hearing this. "Sir, we will not be able to warranty your engine unless you can show us what brand of oil filter you had installed on your engine when you had your oil changed 2 years ago when you were on vacation in Florida. We need to see if it meets VW requirements."
They do not want to fix your car for free. The dealer wants you to pay to have it fixed, because they make no money on warranty work. They even have a separate rate book for warranty items. They might charge you 11 hours of labor to replace your head gasket, but when it fails under warranty, VW only pays the dealer 6 hours. At a lower rate per hour. VW does not want to replace your engine. They want you to buy another VW.
Don't get me wrong, these are not all encompassing rules, they are extremes. There are lots of nice VW dealers with lots of nice people working at them, who care about their customers, brand loyalty, doing the right thing, holding on to future customers who havealready bought 4 Volkswagens from them, etc. They can, and will go outside the box when they want to, requirements met or otherwise.
Keep in mind with regards to engine oil, most repair shops including dealers, even an Audi dealer I worked at for more than a year, change the brand of bulk oil they buy often. Sometimes from month to month. They buy from who gives the best price, whether it's a Quaker State distributer or one that deals Castrol. When you get your oil changed at the dealer or any where else for that matter, unless you watch the technician fill your engine from sealed, commercially labeled containers. You don't KNOW what oil is going in your car. You just know what you've been TOLD. If you want to be sure, do it yourself. It is not difficult, especially on a VW.
A few bottom lines:
1. VW "recommends" the oils on THEIR list of oils that meet THEIR requirements. They have never said your VW will fail to operate using other oils. Amsoil included. They just won't warranty it. 
Let me quote VW's power train warranty, "This warranty does not cover damage or malfunctions which are due to failure to follow recommended maintenance requirements as set forth in the Volkswagen Owner's Manual and the Maintenance Booklet."
"Recommended requirements". Don't you just love lawyers....
The Kicker - "This warranty does not cover the replacement of any Powertrain components that wear as a result of normal use or deterioration."
Let's see... cams, followers, pistons, gears, rings, crank journals, bearings....hmmm.
2. Speaking of lawyers. about what was said in a previous post about suing VW for not honoring a warranty claim... You will not win. You don't have good enough lawyers. You don't have enough money. You will run out of money to pay your lawyer in court to defend yourself against VW. If you did you would not be driving a VW, and you would throw away your car and buy a new one before bothering yourself to repair it. VW does not care if your replacement engine costs $5 or $50,000. They have a reputaion to protect that is more valuable. They will not settle.
3. People do not drive/own Volkswagens because they are renown for their reliability. We drive them because we love them. In all but the most rare cases, your VW/Audi product will terminally fail for non-lubrication reasons long before your engine fails because your non-certified engine oil causes the engine to seize or wear out.
My Golf has 178,000 miles on it. I have changed the oil myself all but 4 or 5 times since new with Mobil 1 10W30 and a factory VW oil filter. But the few times I had to have it done by someone else, I'm sure there was a chance that an oil or filter was used that was not on the "list". I have never had a major engine repair. The 2.0 liter engine runs smooth and strong and I get 34 mpg in town and almost 40 on a long highway trip. However it has all kinds of other problems, 2 clutches, 3 timing belts, several water pumps, batteries an alternator or 2, starter, fuel relays out the ying yang, slews of other electrical problems, finicky central locking system, and probably everything else every Golf owner has ever faced.
If I wanted a car that was reliable. I would be driving a Honda or a Toyota. I drive my VW because it looks great, drive great, it rides good, and it is practical for ME, and I love it
4. If you go longer than 3000 miles on an oil change interval in ANY car, with ANY oil, your are committing a serious mistake.
5. You will do your VW far more good to use a genuine VW oil filter that fits your car with 79 cent per qt. generic single viscosity motor oil, than the best oil money can buy with any other filter. It is the best, there is no subsitute. Period.
By the way Techmeister - great post, everything is well said.
nuskool - quit wasting your time and money on Amsoil, it does not meet VW requirements and it is not that good. If you are so worried about your engine protection, and whether or not it meets VW's requirements, buy a better oil, preferably one on the "list". That way if your engine fails, you will have leg to stand on. 
I apologize for steering a bit off the subject of Amsoil meeting or not meeting requirements set forth by VW. I'm just venting I guess...


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (VTMkIII)*

Great post.







I have only one issue:

_Quote, originally posted by *VTMkIII* »_4. If you go longer than 3000 miles on an oil change interval in ANY car, with ANY oil, your are committing a serious mistake.

I have to disagree. I've never seen any evidence either scientific or empirical, that suggests that 3,000 mile OCIs with any synthetic oil (be it Group III, IV or V) will extend engine life even a mile over longer distance oil changes.
FWIW, I've been using Mobil 1 and running 10,000+ mile OCIs on pretty much all of my cars since the early 1980s (I say "pretty much" because I've run 15,000 mile OCIs on my BMWs), and have never seen any indication that more frequent oil changes would have helped them. Case in point, one of our older cars (that we've owned since new) developed a coolant leak into the oil, and thinking it was a leaking head gasket, I pulled the heads last summer at 143,625 miles. I immediately discovered several things:
1) No engine sludge anywhere.
2) Neither head gasket was leaking (turns out it was a coolant passage "O" ring in the timing cover)
3) All six cylinders were still showing *ALL* of their factory honing marks
FWIW, I also have occasional UOAs run on my cars, and so far at least, every one has come back recommending even _longer_ OCIs.
Do I recommend 10,000+ mile OCIs for every car? Heck no, errr, at least not without the benefit of UOAs supporting that interval. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## rajvosa71000 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Re: (shipo)*

Nice write up's http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Anyway, I don't mean to steer away your discussion but I'd like to ask for a advise....Since Im using amsoil in my car Im also running amsoil in my tranny with quaiffe diff







so I ordered Elf NF 5w40 for engine but don't know what's good out there for my tranny?
It's a O2M tranny from a 24V VR6.


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

*Re: (shipo)*

I think it's awesome that people get SO excited by oil!!!!??!







That being said, why is it so hard for people to use an oil that is "certified" for their engine if they are worried about a warranty. Is Amsoil some sort of magical lube!?!!








Personally I don't buy anything that needs an extended warranty because if you "need" a warranty it's probably because the thing is crap! I do see where manufacturing defects may happen so a warranty can be nice for the short term but the whole 10 year 100,000 mile thing is silly!
I am a zealot about changing my oil in all my engines (lawn mowers et al.) the Cabriolet got Castrol 20W50 for it's 435,000 kms (270,000 miles) of life (body was dead after 20 years but the engine was a top!







) The '00 VR (170,000 miles) got Castrol 10W40 then I switched to Mobil 1 0W40 afew years ago, which I also use in the VR race car and lawn mower! Motorcycle uses Mobil 1 15W50 4T (which is hard as hell to find most of the time!!!







)
Anyway, have fun lubing whatever you choose!


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (VTMkIII)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VTMkIII* »_I am a new member to this forum but have been reading it for some time.
After reading this thread, I could not help but register so I could add to this debate. I apologize if this ends up being a rant. 
As far as Amsoil is concerned, first off, they are by no means a "small" company. They may have a small footprint in the automotive lubrication industry compared to industry giants like ExxonMobil, Shell, etc.... however they are not a local company.
Secondly, if someone thinks it only cost 100,000 dollars to have VW certify "your" engine oil for use in their vehicles to meet warranty requirements, you are in outer space. It is probably more in the neighborhood of 7 figures. If it were that cheap, there would not be an oil manufactured that was not on the list. Hello Amsoil...If you can afford to manufacture engine oil you can afford to be certified by one of the largest car makers in the world (VAG).
Amsoil either knows their oil does not meet VW's requirements, Or...they have previously submitted it for testing and Volkswagen tested it and it did not meet requirements.
I have worked as a technician in the automotive and aviation fields for 20 years. I have worked at auto dealers (euro, asian, and domestic) as well as independant repair shops. Currently I work on commercial jets such as Boeing 757, 767, 777 with engines made by GE, Pratt & Whitney, & Rolls Royce. In all my life I think I could count on one hand the number of times I have met someone who used or had used Amsoil products in there car that did not come off sounding like a snake oil salesman.
I would also like to say that the above mentioned jet engine manufacturers only use Mobil Jet Oil, AeroShell, Total's Elf and Royco brands, or BP Turbo Oil. These companies do not take there choice in lubricants lightly. Note, that Amsoil is not on the list.
If Amsoil is as good as all the people (who have a vested interest I might add) say it is, more people would use it, it would be sold by traditional commercial means, as well as meet requirements of most auto manufacturers, as tested by the manufacturer.
I will use Mobil 1 as an example. Yes, I do use it. Why does Mobil 1 meet requirements for most companies? Because it is good enough, and because Mobil 1 formulated it that way, and had it tested to meet said requirements. They want to sell oil, not only on the shelf at the auto parts store, but at the local lube shop, and at the dealer. Not just out of the trunk of some Amsoil rep's car.
If Amsoil was so great, leading manufacturers would put it in their engines from the factory. The one that I hear of most often is Mobil 1. However, I'm NOT touting Mobil 1! I just know that only a few cars come from the factory with it, such as Mercedes AMG SLR McLaren models, Dodge SRT10 models, Acura RDX, Nissan GT-R, and Corvette just to name a few. All demand exceptional levels of high quality lubrication. They have requirements. They are met by a number of oil companies. Mobil 1 is the one they happen to choose. nuskool, do you know of any cars that come factory filled with Amsoil? BTW, I am indeed banging on Amsoil, because it is overpriced and no better than anything else. As someone else put it, they way it is sold is screwy. It reminds me of one of those "Supercharge your engine for just $25" ads you see in the back of auto magazines.
Mobil 1 is just ONE of MANY high quality engine oils, synthetic as well as conventional that meet VW's requirements. That means all those oils per VW's testing requirements do a better job of lubricating and protecting internal combustion engines than Amsoil, Period. If this were not the case, then we have a conspiracy by one of the largest car builders in the world wasting there money and time to pull the "wool" over the eyes of a few Amsoil fanatics.
Bottom line- Amsoil does not meet VAG warranty requirements. Why? It is not good enough. Why? Because VW says so. Disagree? VW does not care. They don't have to. They can put Napa Auto Parts 30W Motor Oil on the list if they want to.
Next subject Volkswagen and warranties-
If your engine goes "kaput". Take it to your local VW dealer. Let them look at it. In the rare case they tell you the failure of your engine was due to lubrication failure, they will first ask you to see your service records. If you maintained your car based on their recommendations and it was all done at the VW dealer, Presto! they will be more than happy to cover the cost of your engine, and MAYBE labor depending on other factors. If you missed or were late on one scheduled service, have a nice day. If you had it serviced at anywhere other than a Volkswagen or Audi dealer, they will probably end up telling you to pack sand.
Imagine hearing this. "Sir, we will not be able to warranty your engine unless you can show us what brand of oil filter you had installed on your engine when you had your oil changed 2 years ago when you were on vacation in Florida. We need to see if it meets VW requirements."
They do not want to fix your car for free. The dealer wants you to pay to have it fixed, because they make no money on warranty work. They even have a separate rate book for warranty items. They might charge you 11 hours of labor to replace your head gasket, but when it fails under warranty, VW only pays the dealer 6 hours. At a lower rate per hour. VW does not want to replace your engine. They want you to buy another VW.
Don't get me wrong, these are not all encompassing rules, they are extremes. There are lots of nice VW dealers with lots of nice people working at them, who care about their customers, brand loyalty, doing the right thing, holding on to future customers who havealready bought 4 Volkswagens from them, etc. They can, and will go outside the box when they want to, requirements met or otherwise.
Keep in mind with regards to engine oil, most repair shops including dealers, even an Audi dealer I worked at for more than a year, change the brand of bulk oil they buy often. Sometimes from month to month. They buy from who gives the best price, whether it's a Quaker State distributer or one that deals Castrol. When you get your oil changed at the dealer or any where else for that matter, unless you watch the technician fill your engine from sealed, commercially labeled containers. You don't KNOW what oil is going in your car. You just know what you've been TOLD. If you want to be sure, do it yourself. It is not difficult, especially on a VW.
A few bottom lines:
1. VW "recommends" the oils on THEIR list of oils that meet THEIR requirements. They have never said your VW will fail to operate using other oils. Amsoil included. They just won't warranty it. 
Let me quote VW's power train warranty, "This warranty does not cover damage or malfunctions which are due to failure to follow recommended maintenance requirements as set forth in the Volkswagen Owner's Manual and the Maintenance Booklet."
"Recommended requirements". Don't you just love lawyers....
The Kicker - "This warranty does not cover the replacement of any Powertrain components that wear as a result of normal use or deterioration."
Let's see... cams, followers, pistons, gears, rings, crank journals, bearings....hmmm.
2. Speaking of lawyers. about what was said in a previous post about suing VW for not honoring a warranty claim... You will not win. You don't have good enough lawyers. You don't have enough money. You will run out of money to pay your lawyer in court to defend yourself against VW. If you did you would not be driving a VW, and you would throw away your car and buy a new one before bothering yourself to repair it. VW does not care if your replacement engine costs $5 or $50,000. They have a reputaion to protect that is more valuable. They will not settle.
3. People do not drive/own Volkswagens because they are renown for their reliability. We drive them because we love them. In all but the most rare cases, your VW/Audi product will terminally fail for non-lubrication reasons long before your engine fails because your non-certified engine oil causes the engine to seize or wear out.
My Golf has 178,000 miles on it. I have changed the oil myself all but 4 or 5 times since new with Mobil 1 10W30 and a factory VW oil filter. But the few times I had to have it done by someone else, I'm sure there was a chance that an oil or filter was used that was not on the "list". I have never had a major engine repair. The 2.0 liter engine runs smooth and strong and I get 34 mpg in town and almost 40 on a long highway trip. However it has all kinds of other problems, 2 clutches, 3 timing belts, several water pumps, batteries an alternator or 2, starter, fuel relays out the ying yang, slews of other electrical problems, finicky central locking system, and probably everything else every Golf owner has ever faced.
If I wanted a car that was reliable. I would be driving a Honda or a Toyota. I drive my VW because it looks great, drive great, it rides good, and it is practical for ME, and I love it
4. If you go longer than 3000 miles on an oil change interval in ANY car, with ANY oil, your are committing a serious mistake.
5. You will do your VW far more good to use a genuine VW oil filter that fits your car with 79 cent per qt. generic single viscosity motor oil, than the best oil money can buy with any other filter. It is the best, there is no subsitute. Period.
By the way Techmeister - great post, everything is well said.
nuskool - quit wasting your time and money on Amsoil, it does not meet VW requirements and it is not that good. If you are so worried about your engine protection, and whether or not it meets VW's requirements, buy a better oil, preferably one on the "list". That way if your engine fails, you will have leg to stand on. 
I apologize for steering a bit off the subject of Amsoil meeting or not meeting requirements set forth by VW. I'm just venting I guess...

You're so far off base in several areas in regard to Amsoil and a couple other things that it's not worth my time at the moment to try and debate it.
Your post shows me a few things about you. You are obviously uninformed about Amsoil, their marketing practices and quality. You're uninformed about the market they pursue. You're uninformed about the people that use it. 
So before you go making comments, get informed.
And for the record I don't think that Amsoil is "snake" oil by any means. I just think it is a top quality oil.
You went way off topic for most of the post. 
This thread is not about Amsoil in particular. I've pointed that out once or twice.
You want to bash Amsoil? Start another thread.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*

You've been drinking WAAAAY too much Kool-Aid again.


----------



## rajvosa71000 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Re: (shipo)*

I send Amsoil an e-mail asking them how come their oil is not on VW's approved list...this is their reply:
_Our European Formula oil is formulated to meet the VW specifications and is recommended for your car. We do not submit our product to original equipment manufacturers for their approval as we are not trying to sell them on using our product as an original equipment fill. 
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your question(s). As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance._


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (rajvosa71000)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rajvosa71000* »_I send Amsoil an e-mail asking them how come their oil is not on VW's approved list...this is their reply:
_Our European Formula oil is formulated to meet the VW specifications and is recommended for your car. We do not submit our product to original equipment manufacturers for their approval as we are not trying to sell them on using our product as an original equipment fill. 
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your question(s). As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance._


ROTFLMAO! That's the lamest excuse yet.








Let's see, the current "Approval" list includes one or more oils from the following companies:
*Addinol, Adnoc, Agip, AnYe, Aral, Armorine, Avia, Beijing Tongyi Petroleun, BP, Bucher, Carat, Carl Bechem, Cartechnic, Castrol, Cepsa, Chevron, Cyclon, De Oliebron, Denicol, Dongying Xinyi, Duckhams, Elf, Engen Petroleum, Enoc, Esso, Eurol, FL Selenia, Fuchs, Galp energia, Ginouves, Gulf, Hunold, Igol, INA, Iranol, Kendall Motor Oil, Kuttenkeuler, Kuwait Petroleum, Liqui Moly, Longpan Petrochemical, Lotos, Lukoil, Meguin, Mobil, MOL, Motul, MRD, Neste Oil, Nocc, Northland, Oel-Brack, Oest, Ölwerke Julius Schindler, OMV, Orlen Oil, Panolin, Paramo, Pennzoil, Pentosin, Petro China, Petrol Ofisi, Petronas, Poweroil High-Tech-Schmierstoffe, Prista Oil, Profi-Tech, Quaker State, Quantum, Rafinerija Modrica, Ravensberger Schmierstoffvertrieb, Redoil Italia, Repsol, Rothen Oil, Rowe, SCT, Seventy-Six Lubricants, Shanghai Tempo, Shell, SIG, Sinopec, Slovnaft, S-Oil Corporation, Sonol, SRS Schmierstoff Vertrieb, Startol, Statoil, Sun Oil, SWD, TACTI Corporation, Tamoil, Texaco, TNK Lubricant LLC, Total, Unil Opal, United Oil, Valvoline, VAPS, Vial Oil, Weco, Westfalen AG, Wolf, Würth, Yacco, YPF, Zeller+Gmelin*
To hear Amsoil tell it, every one of those 104 companies is vying to be used _"as an original equipment fill"_ -- Yeah, right. I'm thinking that's too funny, and at the same time too typical of the misleading and self-serving drivel that comes out of Amsoil. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (rajvosa71000)*

By the way, thanks for the laugh!


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_You've been drinking WAAAAY too much Kool-Aid again.









_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_You've been drinking WAAAAY too much Kool-Aid again.









MMMM Good!
Seriously speaking though, he made several comments that point to the obvious fact that he doesn't know much about the company at all.
That's regardless of any opinions one way or the other.
For one, the reason no one uses Amsoil in Jets is pretty simple. They don't make anything for that market. So, duh


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_For one, the reason no one uses Amsoil in Jets is pretty simple. They don't make anything for that market. So, duh









Okay, I'll give you that one.


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_

For one, the reason no one uses Amsoil in Jets is pretty simple. They don't make anything for that market. So, duh









However, the founder is a Jet Squadron Commander....
Amsoil is sort of like the Saab commercial.... "Born from Jets".
ironically, the PAO supplier is none other than Exxon-Mobil Corp.


----------



## franz131 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (GT17V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GT17V* »_
ironically, the PAO supplier is none other than Exxon-Mobil Corp.

What's really ironic is that oil companies buy from each other all the time, especially regular SM stuff. The sticking point has been group III interchangeability, and they're working on removing that hurdle as well


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (franz131)*

OK, I knew that Mobil was one of their suppliers, but it's not common knowledge, how did you know? My upline is one of the top dealers in the company, so I get a lot of inside scoop. That's the only reason I know.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (franz131)*

My experiences with Amsiol have been NOTHING but positive.
I curently have 89K miles on my car. It is a 2005 Golf TDI PD. As you all know it has a VAG505.01 oil requirement.
My oil has gone as follows:
0-5000 factory fill
5k-10k Castrol 505.01 (can't remember which one)
10k-20k: Motul
20k-30k: Elf
30k-40k: Elf
40k-50k: Amsoil
50k-60k: Amsoil
60k-70k: Amsoil
After 70k I had a problem with my EGR hanging open. I also switched to Elf 507 and that is what I currently run.
I have done a UOA on almost every oil change, Amsoil has outperformed ALL 505.01 oils I have used.
The problem with the PD is the cam lobes. 
I have physically inspected my cam and everything from the naked eye is fine. My UOA's for the most part have looked good. I had some high Iron and AL, UOA's but since I got control of my hung open EGR, it has not been a problem.
While it is true Amsoil is not on VAG's approved list, I would not hesitate to be using their oil. Soon it probably won't matter, for most VAG cars are coming out with the 507 requirement. 
The reason Amsoil does not get "certified" is because of the pure cost of the test. There is a long thread on TDI CLUB about this, and I believe the test is >$100,000. A small oil company cannot justify these costs. Yes they are VERY small when compared to Shell, Mobil, etc. 
UOA's do not lie. The oil worked fine for me, it might or might not work for you. There is no one oil or one brand that will work for everyone, we all have different driving habits/styles. 

If you buy into the certification it must be fine, these certification are kept high for a reason. 
1. They ARE expensive to conduct
2. It essentially guarantees that companies will have to pay VAG. BMW, MB, etc if they want to be on the approved list. It is simple politics at this point.

There is a pretty big list of people at Bob The Oil Guy that have PD's and are using non-approved oils and many are doing fine. Some are using Rotella, some are using Mobil-1 (not 507), Schaffers, Red Line, etc.


----------



## mjgvw16v (Feb 27, 2004)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

Just my opinion, but I have to chime in. VW standards are what they are. If you want to keep your warranty you must follow them. The reason VW AG hates america is because we don't maintain our cars to the standards they are supposed to be kept and we have the highest amount of warranty claims in the world. The 1.8T oil sludge thing? Not happening anywhere else but here. Hmm, maybe those Germans who designed the cars we are all driving know what they are talking about. I actually have a friend who has a car lot here and one in Bulgaria, and several times he has expressed to me that these cars problems in the states don't exist in Europe.......................
I am a former employee of VW and my mind is open to either side, but I can tell you that other than the MKIV Jetta/Beetle window reg issue and the brake lamp switch issue, almost every other issue I had seen as a service manager I could not fault VW for. Most of the time it was failure of the vehicle owner, borderline neglect, to maintain their vehicle properly...............
I have seen plenty of not-sludged 1.8t's and plenty the other way. The sludged up ones have always been not maintained properly.


----------



## gehr (Jan 28, 2004)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

One of the worst things you can do is switch oil brands frequently, different detergents and additives can interact badly!








Or maybe it's a myth......but I'm sticking to it.











_Modified by gehr at 1:55 AM 7-22-2008_


----------



## Rubberband (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mile High Assassin* »_
The reason Amsoil does not get "certified" is because of the pure cost of the test. There is a long thread on TDI CLUB about this, and I believe the test is >$100,000. A small oil company cannot justify these costs. Yes they are VERY small when compared to Shell, Mobil, etc. 
UOA's do not lie. The oil worked fine for me, it might or might not work for you. There is no one oil or one brand that will work for everyone, we all have different driving habits/styles. 

If you buy into the certification it must be fine, these certification are kept high for a reason. 
1. They ARE expensive to conduct
2. It essentially guarantees that companies will have to pay VAG. BMW, MB, etc if they want to be on the approved list. It is simple politics at this point.



Mile,
you would have to wonder how they can afford _not_ to test and get on-board. If they can prove thier products can can contend, then why not? I also agree about the politics but hey, they can dictate because they own the company. Its just that basic. If people want to go around this, they should start an automobile company so they can dictate who's products are worthy or not.


----------



## franz131 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (gehr)*

It's funny that we never hear from anyone who smoked their motor, then got kicked to the curb from VWOA. It's a well known fact that there have been a large number of PD cam failures rejected by VW.
Where' the losers at!!!


----------



## antwon8976 (May 27, 2007)

*Re: (franz131)*

Mobil 1 10w 30 is what i use and on my next oil change im going the recommended just because all this talk is freaking me out haha. All i know is that my dads corolla was up to 160,000 miles and never any problems with the oil im using haha. My car is past warranty anyway...damn VW.


----------



## FowVay (Aug 25, 2000)

*Re:*

Amsoil has tightened up their web page in recent history but not too long ago they would claim VW 502.00, ACEA A3/B4, etc when their products blatantly did NOT meet the minimum HT/HS viscosity requirements. If the oil standard dictates a minimum dynamic viscosity of 3.5 centipoise to meet the standard then how can a oil company say that their oil meets the standard with a HT/HS of 3.2cP?
The internet helped enough astute people catch these types of misrepresentations that Amsoil finally sat up and took notice.
If they have tested their oils enough to recommend them for specific applications then hopefully they know whether they pass the specific standards or not. If they passed then why on earth not license them and be legit? It really isn't very expensive in the grand scheme of international business. 
So I can honestly say that I have seen Amsoil falsely state their product met standards that they did not meet.


----------



## superninjafytr (Jul 2, 2008)

So this AMSOIL euro blend 5-w40 is no good? It has the VW 505 numbers on it. 
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (superninjafytr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *superninjafytr* »_So this AMSOIL euro blend 5-w40 is no good? It has the VW 505 numbers on it. 
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx

Did you accidentally forget to read this thread to its entirely? This has already been discussed in this thread.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (superninjafytr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *superninjafytr* »_So this AMSOIL euro blend 5-w40 is no good? It has the VW 505 numbers on it. 
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx

You need to read the fine print on the Amsoil web site. It does NOT say "Certified" or "Approved" to meet 502.00 and/or 505.0x, it says that it is "formulated to surpass" those specs. What that means is that you have to take Amsoil's word for it that the oil is good enough, however, many (myself included) feel that Amsoil has a reputation of distorting and being very over optimistic with the truth, and that little they say can be believed.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (superninjafytr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *superninjafytr* »_So this AMSOIL euro blend 5-w40 is no good? It has the VW 505 numbers on it. 
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx

What motor do you have?
I have used that oil for 40k miles, my brother has ran it for 50k in his PD TDI.
I have friend that have used it in their 1.8t, and 2.0t without any issue.
The oil is fine.
For the doubters, find me a UOA that shows a poor performance with this oil.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

It's been a while since I've looked, however, I've seen several that didn't show nearly as well as Casrol Syntec 0W-30 and Mobil 1 0W-40. I'll look back in the archives at BITOG and see if I can some up with them.
FWIW, forty and fifty thousand mile tests on one car each is hardly proof that this Amsoil is good or safe for your engines.


----------



## beenthere (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

According to Blackstone and Titan labs, a UOA basically tells you if the oil is still usable or if it is out of grade or deteriorated. A UOA doesn't tell you how well the oil lubricates the internal parts in the engine. 
Other tests are required like the ACEA A3/B3 sequence, VW oil quality tests and similar to determine the lubrication properties of an oil. If the oil isn't formulated properly for the application it won't deliver the required lubrication properties, even if it is still usable for service.


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (beenthere)*


_Quote, originally posted by *beenthere* »_According to Blackstone and Titan labs, a UOA basically tells you if the oil is still usable or if it is out of grade or deteriorated. A UOA doesn't tell you how well the oil lubricates the internal parts in the engine. 
Other tests are required like the ACEA A3/B3 sequence, VW oil quality tests and similar to determine the lubrication properties of an oil. If the oil isn't formulated properly for the application it won't deliver the required lubrication properties, even if it is still usable for service.

you're also forgetting a big key point, UOA's will also tell you in ppm, the amount of various metals and other contaminents in suspension in the oil-- this is key where it gives indication of the condition of the engine and with enough data points, trend analysis.
It is more than just if the oil is still good or not.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_It's been a while since I've looked, however, I've seen several that didn't show nearly as well as Casrol Syntec 0W-30 and Mobil 1 0W-40. I'll look back in the archives at BITOG and see if I can some up with them.
FWIW, forty and fifty thousand mile tests on one car each is hardly proof that this Amsoil is good or safe for your engines.

I have UOA's from my motor from the first oil change all the way up to almost 90k. There are maybe two that I missed.
You see trends.
UOA tells you the shape your motor is in. It is good as you can do without tearing it down and even then it shows stuff you might not find with a teardown.
When you see that Amsoil is showing less PPM wear on the wear metals than other oils that is proof enough for me.


----------



## beenthere (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (GT17V)*

No I didn't forget that UOA tells PPM. That is a reference point but it still doesn't tell you the true lubrication properties of the oil. 
You can take a hundred of the same engines and they will all have different PPMs with the same oil and use. So yes PPMs are a snap-shot in time but they simply don't tell you much about what the oil is doing as far as lubrication is concerned. Both Blackstone and Titan warn against trying to read too much into UOA for this very reason. 
UOA is a tool and when used properly it can be of value. The real purpose of a UOA is to determine if the oil is still suitable for service and to spot trends from normal operation. UOA is not intended to be a substitute for the much more comprehensive oil industry test sequences. 
UOA simply does not tell you much about how well an oil is lubricating. Low PPMs are nice but normal internal engine wear is relatively slow so you are only going to see a big increase in PPMs if there is a mechanical issue within the engine. This is not the same as measuring engine wear and other lubrication properties in controlled lab tests. The industry oil certification test sequences tell you the true vs. implied lubrication properties of an oil including direct measurement for wear on specific critical parts of the engine.
UOA can be a useful tool to determine the service life of an oil, but it should not be used alone to gauge the lubrication properties of an oil because it simply can't provide the required information nor is it intended to do so.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (beenthere)*


_Quote, originally posted by *beenthere* »_No I didn't forget that UOA tells PPM. That is a reference point but it still doesn't tell you the true lubrication properties of the oil. 
You can take a hundred of the same engines and they will all have different PPMs with the same oil and use. So yes PPMs are a snap-shot in time but they simply don't tell you much about what the oil is doing as far as lubrication is concerned. Both Blackstone and Titan warn against trying to read too much into UOA for this very reason. 
UOA is a tool and when used properly it can be of value. The real purpose of a UOA is to determine if the oil is still suitable for service and to spot trends from normal operation. UOA is not intended to be a substitute for the much more comprehensive oil industry test sequences. 
UOA simply does not tell you much about how well an oil is lubricating. Low PPMs are nice but normal internal engine wear is relatively slow so you are only going to see a big increase in PPMs if there is a mechanical issue within the engine. This is not the same as measuring engine wear and other lubrication properties in controlled lab tests. The industry oil certification test sequences tell you the true vs. implied lubrication properties of an oil including direct measurement for wear on specific critical parts of the engine.
UOA can be a useful tool to determine the service life of an oil, but it should not be used alone to gauge the lubrication properties of an oil because it simply can't provide the required information nor is it intended to do so.

It does tell you how well the oil is lubricating and how well it is protecting the motor. If there is an issue with the lubrication or protection, you will see more wear metals. While it might not always be the oil that is at fault, it gives you an idea. I had an issue where my iron went up, it was not the oil but a faulty EGR valve. Once corrected and after doing a flush my iron number came down.
If you run an oil that is incorrect in your motor and is incapable of protecting it properly you will see it on a UOA. 
While a UOA might not be controlled in a lab, it does tell me that my motor is healthy and that what I am doing for preventive maintenance and oil selection is working for me. In all honesty that is all I care about.
Yes, a motor wears slow, which is why doing multiple UOA's at set intervals will show you a trend.


----------



## jakub28 (Jul 27, 2008)

My oil cap has a Castrol Synthetic logo on it, I guess Volkswagen is sending me a subtle message.


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (jakub28)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jakub28* »_My oil cap has a Castrol Synthetic logo on it, I guess Volkswagen is sending me a subtle message.










While that will work for you, Castrol is not the best oil available for your car.


----------



## jakub28 (Jul 27, 2008)

It's the factory VAG oil cap, not one I put on.


----------



## thetwodubheads (Dec 6, 2004)

*Re: (jakub28)*

Wow.... I just waisted 2 hours of my life reading to try to get an end to this debate... It seems from what I have read here, and only here, that people who are (or at least claim to be) in the industry have answered the question... Yes VW can deny a warranty claim due to not following the manual's recommendation of VW approved oil. Done. Whether this is acceptable to you or not, it seems to be the answer. Whether your favorite brand of oil meets or exceeds the qualities set forth is irrelevant. It (in my common sense opinion) is not VW's responsibility to have to test an oil after the fact to see if it qualifies for certification. If Amsoil didn't pay VW to test the oil in their stringent tests, than that's too bad for them, they will have to replace some motors under their umbrella warranty claim if problems arise. It may be cheaper to buy a couple hundred motors than get certified and that is how their accountants are playing the game. It may be fine and dandy, and no harm will come from using it, and you may be fine accepting their claims. I am not. I will use oil that has been tested, that is my personal opinion, and you have no authority over it. As far as wanting to use "better" oil..... come on, seriously? You want to pay more for something that does the job no better than prescribed? Well than, why don't you go call up NASA for some of that really cool gold foil to bake your potato in? Extreme analogy? Yes, but accurate? You bet. Let go of Amsoil's corporate nutsack and just face it that we all have our opinions, and unless you have secret mind powers, you aren't going to change them by just re-asking, and modifying your same questions.


----------



## jakub28 (Jul 27, 2008)

The oil cap says Guten Tag too, not in so few words though..
: ) 










_Modified by jakub28 at 5:43 PM 8-8-2008_


----------



## Geeked (Nov 20, 2006)

*Re: (thetwodubheads)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thetwodubheads* »_Wow.... I just waisted 2 hours of my life reading to try to get an end to this debate...








Same here, I want my d4mn two hours back!


----------



## jakub28 (Jul 27, 2008)

I lost 15 minutes taking the photo, do I get a refund too?


----------



## JimH (Dec 22, 1999)

*Re: (jakub28)*

Did you use a approved/certified camera? 
I also read this whole dialog and it was very interesting. Here's a question I have. Does anyone know of a person whose VW warranty claim was denied because he used Amsoil? 
Personally, I would think that VW would be quicker to void a warranty when they saw sludge in an engine. After seeing that, then they would IMO look to see if maintenance was done in accordance with their requirements. If it was, then I don't know where they would look after that.
Me, I've used Mobil 1 for years, even as far back as when it stated on the can (not bottle, can) that they guaranteed that their oil would go 25,000 miles between changes. When they were making that claim that is pretty much what I did. I'd change it after one year or 25,000 miles, whichever came first. I'd change the filter halfway between. I sold that Rabbit with 110,000 on it and it ran like a top. Since they stopped doing that I've gone back to more frequent changes. 
I had been using the Mobil-1 Syntec 0W40 formulation in this Passat for some time, but for the last two changes I've used Amsoil as around here Syntec 0W40 is not always available at the local auto parts stores. Must be popular? Since I already knew of one store/repair shop that stocked the Amsoil Euro formula and another who would gladly order it for me I switched over. However I do not see any difference using it so I'll be switching back. Mobil-1 is less expensive and there's also the point made here that it is approved by VW. BTW, the guy who ordered it for me stated he Amsoil in his vehicles. He also carries Royal Purple and other Amsoil products, just not the Euro formula.


----------



## mjgvw16v (Feb 27, 2004)

*Re: (JimH)*

Ok, here is the one fact that should put a stop to this. Amsoil is not an approved oil by VAG. I am not saying it is bad oil, it is just not approved by VAG.
Does anyone really want to take a chance at a warranty claim denial just so they can run amsoil?
Personally, when I worked for VW, I denied several warranty claims for improper maintenance. Including a couple of engine claims where non-approved oils were used for an extended period of time.
It is ultimately the consumer's decision on what to do here. I don't think anyone in here is claiming that Amsoil is bad oil, just that if you want to maintain your vehicle to VW standards, you shouldn't be using it.


----------



## mjgvw16v (Feb 27, 2004)

*Re: (JimH)*

Ok, here is the one fact that should put a stop to this. Amsoil is not an approved oil by VAG. I am not saying it is bad oil, it is just not approved by VAG.
Does anyone really want to take a chance at a warranty claim denial just so they can run amsoil?
Personally, when I worked for VW, I denied several warranty claims for improper maintenance. Including a couple of engine claims where non-approved oils were used for an extended period of time.
It is ultimately the consumer's decision on what to do here. I don't think anyone in here is claiming that Amsoil is bad oil, just that if you want to maintain your vehicle to VW standards, you shouldn't be using it.


----------



## Tom Long (Sep 21, 2007)

*Re: (mjgvw16v)*

I will be using only Amsoil in my VRT here real soon, once I have surpass the initial breakin period for the motor (1000 miles) and clutch (500 miles), and nothing else. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Approved or not approved, if anybody want some, PM me and let me know.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (pOrKcHoP bOy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pOrKcHoP bOy* »_I will be using only Amsoil in my VRT .... 


As an Amsoil dealer I'd expect nothing else


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (mjgvw16v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mjgvw16v* »_Ok, here is the one fact that should put a stop to this. Amsoil is not an approved oil by VAG. I am not saying it is bad oil, it is just not approved by VAG.
Does anyone really want to take a chance at a warranty claim denial just so they can run amsoil?
Personally, when I worked for VW, I denied several warranty claims for improper maintenance. Including a couple of engine claims where non-approved oils were used for an extended period of time.
It is ultimately the consumer's decision on what to do here. I don't think anyone in here is claiming that Amsoil is bad oil, just that if you want to maintain your vehicle to VW standards, you shouldn't be using it.

I was going to stay out of this thread because we are going in circles, but....
VAG or ANY other vehicle manufacture has to PROVE The oil caused the failure. They cannot look at a piece of paper and say it does not meet our spec and deny warranty.
Amsoil has it in writing that if you use their oil if you have an engine problem and the dealer or service center is blaming the oil, Amsoil wants a UOA done and a letter stating the claim and they will cover your motor for you if they agreee. If they do not agree they will cover the legal fees to make sure the dealer covers the claim. 
Yes it is a pain, but using an oil that is not "approved" by a manufacture will NOT void the warranty.


----------



## rajvosa71000 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

Seriously, how's the dea;er gonna know what oil you used? unless you tell them.
My car ran perfectly with Amsoil Eropean Formula


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mile High Assassin* »_
I was going to stay out of this thread because we are going in circles, but....
VAG or ANY other vehicle manufacture has to PROVE The oil caused the failure. They cannot look at a piece of paper and say it does not meet our spec and deny warranty.
Amsoil has it in writing that if you use their oil if you have an engine problem and the dealer or service center is blaming the oil, Amsoil wants a UOA done and a letter stating the claim and they will cover your motor for you if they agreee. If they do not agree they will cover the legal fees to make sure the dealer covers the claim. 
Yes it is a pain, but using an oil that is not "approved" by a manufacture will NOT void the warranty. 

That's the whole point, the dealership base and VW proper can deny a warranty claim simply because a non-approved oil was used, and then leave it up to you to prove otherwise. Meanwhile, unless you spring for a new engine, your car sits, and sits, and sits, while the slow grind of the legal system irons it all out.
As for Amsoil backing you up, sorry, I don't believe that for a minute. Any company that spouts the kind of marketing bilge they do isn't at all likely to be trusted to back up their "warranty". http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (rajvosa71000)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rajvosa71000* »_Seriously, how's the dea;er gonna know what oil you used? unless you tell them.
My car ran perfectly with Amsoil Eropean Formula

How's a dealer going to know? Simple, they're going to ask you for your receipts for all of your oil changes. Unless you're going to fraudulently show them forged receipts, they're going to know that you used Amsoil.


----------



## rajvosa71000 (Jun 9, 2004)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_
How's a dealer going to know? Simple, they're going to ask you for your receipts for all of your oil changes. Unless you're going to fraudulently show them forged receipts, they're going to know that you used Amsoil.


What if you do your own oil change?


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (rajvosa71000)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rajvosa71000* »_
What if you do your own oil change?

Technically, you do need to be able to prove that you changd your oil, so a receipt/invoice would be sufficent.

Just like the burden of proof on the dealer to show that the oil caused the failure the burden of proof is on the owner to show that proper maintenance has been done.


----------



## TechEd (Nov 11, 2000)

A pragmatic review of some facts might be helpful to those who do not suffer from excessive brand worship, and are bewildered by all this. Comments follow.
Facts:
All new vehicle warranties in the USA are "Limited Warranties" as defined by the FTC. The intent of a Limited Warranty is to protect both the consumer *AND* manufacturer. A Limited Warranty requires and allows manufacturers to do several things: First, it requires them to state and define in plain language what is covered, what is not and for how long. In order to protect the consumer, coverage of manufacturing defects and workmanship over a specified time are encouraged and emphasized. To protect the manufacturer, warranty texts that restrict or condition the warranty with regards to items not covered, or circumstances that for technical reasons make warranty coverage for defects and workmanship impossible to achieve, the text must be written in accordance with a specific FTC rule. The legal interpretations of this rule is that, even though a product may be brand new, manufacturers are not obligated to warrant the entire product. Should any conditional coverage for individual components or systems be specified in a warranty (typically for maintenance and wear/tear items), the FTC forbids any requirement of the consumer to use an exclusive component part or service (read: Brand) that is only available via the manufacturer. It does, however, allow manufacturers to state that warranty coverage is denied when a component not meeting their design specifications causes subsequent damage to a related system component.
Automotive system lubricants and coolants are deemed by the industry and the FTC to be components of their related systems because the operation of the system is compromised without them. They are further classified as maintenance items by the manufacturer, and recognized as such by the FTC. As a warranty is a contract, the consumer is obligated to maintain the vehicle as specified in the manufacturer warranty texts, and the manufacturer is responsible for clear language on coverage restrictions and provisions.
As emissions regulations became tighter and engines were forced to run leaner (and hotter as a result), existing engine oil formulas of the time were inadequate. Faced with reluctance from the various certification entities worldwide (API, ACEA etc.) to improve oil performance specs, most European and some US Domestic OEM manufacturers began collaborating with leading oil companies on how to collectively deal with high-heat appropriate new engine designs and manufacturing. That made sense because it was a global, not local issue. For fuels and lubricants this new business process was evolutionary, but was no different from manufacturers working with their suppliers on hard part specifications (like actuators, switches, trim bits etc.). The outcome of this are the various OEM oil specifications, and more importantly, their use as required for warranty purposes. This is also no different than the warranty coverage of hard parts in the car under the more familiar provisions of a Limited Warranty. The rationale behind this strategy was to control auto manufacturer's warranty loads for legitimate, and especially fraudulent warranty claims, which is globally in the $$billions.
As the FTC prohibits any manufacturer brand exclusive part or service be required for warranty coverage, and manufacturers worldwide had $$millions invested in their own oil specification R&D along with millions of the new engines in service around the world, they encouraged as many global lubricant suppliers as possible to produce and offer manufacturer certified oils for maintenance purposes. In doing so, both the consumer and manufacturer are protected as per the FTC definition of a Limited Warranty, and the vast majority of worldwide lubecos cooperated ...even to the extent of now forming independent lubrication engineering firms that staff rented space in all European OEM R&D labs.
Comments:
The facts and outcomes above are, quite simply, good business. It's win, win, win for all concerned and has resulted in huge advancements in engine lubricants, metallurgy, machining, finishing and system control software. The emissions control "gun to the head" was significant and would have been nearly impossible to deal with had everyone remained in their corporate shells with closed-minded, greedy agendas. Arguably, the increased marketing credibility and brand image of like-minded lubricant manufacturers that invest in producing as many auto manufacturer certified lubricants as they are able is a huge deal. If sheer global numbers mean anything in terms of the above argument, it is only but a handful of small volume "specialty brand" lubecos in the US that choose not to blend to OEM specs, or if they do blend them to have them officially certified. Indeed, that is the real crux of the problem here.
The 5% percent of us who have actually read our entire Owner's Manual, understood and cared about it's contents, have already seen how automobile manufacturer warranty texts apply the FTC rules defined above. However, it seems that the meaning of texts like "....damages or malfunctions *that result from* the use or incorrect installation of non-specified components" are easily misunderstood by highly engaged enthusiasts, especially in the presence of the typical aftermarket marketing spin jobs. Unfortunately, while most enthusiasts are aware of the manufacturer's obligations in the contract, and tend to gravitate to popular opinion and misinformation in this regard, they are mostly unaware or indifferent of their own obligations and accountability.
While the warranty part of the topic is held high, it is of little relevance nowadays. A number of years ago, aftermarket groups saw that manufacturers were (rightfully) denying warranty coverage when their performance-oriented replacement parts caused a related system or part to fail. Some mounted high visibility campaigns offering legal assistance to enthusiasts that felt victimized. The result was that the vast majority of cases that went to litigation were dismissed. The defense successfully proved that the aftermarket component did not meet the original OEM specification, and proved that the intent (on the part of the owner) of installing such a part was to willfully alter the original operating parameters of the vehicle. Many non-automotive cases also went on the books, not so much for performance gains, but for non-original specifications. Since then, due to the precedent set industry-wide, it's rare that any cases are fully and successfully litigated on behalf of the plaintiff.
It easy to say that the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove the cause of failure. The reality is that, it is simply the specified (text) evidence or admission of a delta between the OE spec and the aftermarket specification that seals the deal on behalf of the defense. Complex tests exist (especially for the origin of a lubricant and the presence of altered ECM software), but are rarely sought due to the expense and time involved. Just as it is critical for the defendant to disclose all, any behaviour on the part of the plaintiff who conveniently "forgets" what kind of oil is in his engine, or challenges the defense by saying "I know what it is, but it's up to you to test it and prove what kind..." will always backfire. The court demands equal and reasonable disclosure from both parties. 
There is no doubt that small US specialty brands produce excellent lubricants that exceed Euro/US Domestic OEM oil spec. However, for many here the lack of official certification has a huge impact on how they are perceived. There is no room for closed-minded, greedy agendas anymore. For many this is troublesome, especially when claims are made that an OEM oil specification is met, but no effort is made towards certification. This is only bolstered by their cluttered, bombastic, poorly-conceived websites filled with an excessive amount of reactive language. They point you towards the MM Act in defense, and allow you to "interpret" it on your own. By itself, that would work, but why then is it necessary for them to offer any legal assistance? It's likely they know full well about successful litigation being unlikely, so all this really ends up being is the worst possible form of knee-jerk advertising that apparently appeals to more and more people nowadays.
Life is all about choices. Making the right brand choices will be different for everyone as it's is all about managing ones perceptions, engagement level, trust and respect for that brand relative to the facts. For many, the answer is simply to lower their engagement level when it comes to brand worship (which oddly, is what the FTC wanted to avoid all along). As long as the oil specs are met and it's changed when the factory says, the brand is irrelevant.


_Modified by TechEd at 2:51 PM 8-30-2008_


----------



## thetwodubheads (Dec 6, 2004)

*Re: (TechEd)*

Why the hell wasn't that in the first page????? 
oh, BTW.... IB4amsoilnutswingersclaimingtheengineisstillcoveredbyamsoil


----------



## Mile High Assassin (Aug 28, 2002)

*Re: (thetwodubheads)*


_Quote »_
The legislative history for this provision, though scanty, mentions specific types of tying arrangements that would be prohibited: "Under this prohibition, for example, no automobile manufacturer may condition his warranty of an automobile on the use of a named *motor oil *or on the use of its own automobile parts *unless he shows that any other motor oil or automobile parts which are available will not function properly and will not give equivalent performance characteristics in the automobile*."(6) The Commission provided additional guidance in its 1977 Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 16 C.F.R. Part 700.(7) Section 700.10(b)

Right there, pulled from the FTC site... the manufacture has to SHOW that it will not function properly.

Just naming an oil and saying this is what you have to use or just creating an oil spec, does not mean they can deny coverage. THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT!!!

More clarification:

_Quote »_
For the same reason, as noted in the legislative history, the tie-in provision would prohibit conditioning warranty service on the consumer's use of a certain brand of motor oil 



_Modified by Mile High Assassin at 6:19 PM 8-31-2008_


_Modified by Mile High Assassin at 6:25 PM 8-31-2008_


----------



## thetwodubheads (Dec 6, 2004)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*

Now I read that as the manufacturer just needing to prove the oil doesn't give equivalent performance characteristics.... So let's say what we read earlier about "Amsoil" not having the proper HT/HS viscosity was correct..... All VW would have to do is show the numbers... We require XYZ values for this property, the oil only meets XYY. So if even one term of VW's spec isn't met, there you go, no warranty coverage. Then you are left with trying to get Amsoil to cover the new engine, who will then say, well it has to be proven our messed it up to cover it.


----------



## TechEd (Nov 11, 2000)

*Re: (Mile High Assassin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mile High Assassin* »_ ....Right there, pulled from the FTC site... the manufacture has to SHOW that it will not function properly.


Sorry, but this overestimates the efficacy of our legal system. How easily we forget that the process is complex and expensive, and that we’re better off not playing closet-lawyer.

Each step in the litigation process is defined so that the best interests of both parties are considered. It begins by reading an existing or otherwise agreeing on an “interpretation” of the entire ruling relative to the dispute. The “discovery” process is where facts are gathered and shared, followed by a review of precedent (outcomes of past cases with similar circumstances). This is followed by “arguments” based on equal preparation. The court then decides by stating “an opinion”, largely because laws are always ripe for new interpretations. 
The respondent above appears to be biased towards the owner’s side of the issue, so his “interpretation’ and oversimplification of a small piece of the ruling is flawed. Regardless, the original intent to protect both parties via the ruling, and many years of varied interpretations along with precedent in warranty disputes is the key. Courts are painfully aware that manufacturers are just as likely to be victimized by the public as vice versa. This is especially relevant when $$billions in warranty fraud affects the bottom line of small companies like subsidiary importers.
Literally thousands of product warranty dispute litigation outcomes are on the books since 1977, and the current precedent for similar matters (where a replaceable fluid exists as a functional component) is that time consuming tests and testimony of many sundry expert witnesses are time wasters. The off-brand oil spec would be revealed in the discovery process, and precedent serves as the basis for an argument where a delta between the off-branded component spec and the factory spec (text) exists and is relevant. Furthermore, the implication that any spec different than the factory spec results in "better" performance, by way of higher element concentrations or formula enhancements is easily challenged by the fact that “too much of a good thing” can actually be detrimental to an engine. Precedent exists here as well, as the fundamental differences in current emissions auto gas/diesel, motorcycle, marine, small engine, aircraft and other specialty engine lubricant chemistry serves as proof of concept. Industry-wide warranty dispute precedents have been set in everything from typewriter ribbon ink formulas in the late 70s through to the ink formulas for the first computer printer cartridges the 90’s …with many dismissed or settled on the basis of proven specification difference relative to the proprietary OE technology. *That’s typically all the proof a court needs to hear.* Good legal arguments are expensive. How deep are your pockets?
Although many pooh-pooh the whole concept of oil certification and its apparent illegality for warranty purposes, certification is actually a significant legal ace for OEMs. It shows the court that, manufacturers who established and pursued open certification, that have certification contracts with a wide range of independent suppliers (or freely share component specs with those interested), have a proactive interest in guaranteeing the systemic reliability and performance of their product. This supports their warranty obligations in a manner compliant with the approved restrictions on conditioning warranty texts. Why is this so effective? The OEM can rightfully hold any supplier legally responsible if a certified spec is not delivered. A manufacturer would be stupid to accept handshake promises from any supplier, and they certainly should no be held legally accountable for the performance of non-certified lubricants (or hard parts for that matter), whether they are openly-stated to meet the certified spec or not. The principle here is no different than contracts all OEMs have with their original build suppliers (of hard parts) and dealer wholesale parts suppliers. Also, the fact that many local and global lubecos have certification agreements with OEMs selling cars in the US makes them compliant with the “no exclusive brand or service” text restriction.

Quite frankly, the excessive engagement level of enthusiasts in polarized, free-for-all forums like this and others is largely to blame. Through confusion, and posturing by some who obviously have an agenda, it only serves to perpetuate the worst of "us and them" mentality and and defense of each other’s status as apparent winners or losers. This goes hand in hand with the worst, pandering forms automotive lubricant advertising on TV that I've ever seen in three decades as an engineer. If the off-branded stuff really is as good as claimed, then lubricant-specific failures under normal operating conditions are unlikely. As such, all the warranty legality arguments above are irrelevant (as I already stated, and has been a waste of everyone's time). Should however, an off-branded lubricant be used and not be maintained by the owner as per the factory requirements (oil level & change frequency), and a failure occurs, said owner seeking to pursue the issue needs to have deep pockets. The discovery and argument process defined above will table all facts, from the oil spec and evidence of owner negligence …and these nuggets can only benefit the factory case if argued correctly.
Ultimately, again, the question everyone should ask themselves is who they trust the most: Do you trust the OEM & Lubeco consultant partnerships that collectively spend $$billions in R&D to ensure their specific technologies operate reliably together? Or do you trust the small, US-centric, off-branded lubecos who have never set foot in an OEM R&D lab, that hold up racing performance on mostly custom-built motors as their legacy, and that have cluttered, borderline offensive and intelligence-insulting language in their websites?
The last time I checked there were no lineups outside dealers, waiting for engine replacements due to owners following the Owner’s Manual. Nor, as an engineer and SAE insider, have I seen any thorough, empirical evidence of off-brand, “race-bred” oils “outperforming” factory certified oils. Winners? Losers? Right? Wrong? They are all one and the same. 
It’s time to click down the engagement level on this and move on to more important things that require confusion and posturing.


_Modified by TechEd at 6:09 PM 9-2-2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

So, Tech,
What I gather from what you have taken a vast amount of time to write, (which is funny when one considers your statement about this all being a waste of time) is that you don't really know if VW can legally void a warrranty based on the fact that someone used a properly spec'd, but not approved oil. (I know, I know, it's not properly spec'd if it's not approved. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is).
Many here assume that I am biased in this matter because I'm an Amsoil dealer.
They couldn't be more wrong. I'm a registered republican, but I don't vote straight ticket.
There are shades of gray here. And as a dealer, it is not a waste of time for me to know whether or not Amsoil, or Scheaffer or Rp or Redline will void the warranty.
The last thing I want to do is sell a product to someone knowing that it could potentially void the warranty.
The way I understand the things I have read (from a legal standpoint) VW (or anyone else) cannot void a warranty unless said oil (or aftermarket part) has been proven to be the cause of the failure.
I have not seen or heard of one single warrnty claim that was denied from using the "wrong" oil.
I have heard of warranty claims being denied for other illeagal reasons. But then the people involved just took the dealers word for it and walked away and never pursued it either. That's what the dealers and manufacturers hope for. (not all, but many)


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (TechMeister)*

Great post. Little late on it but would like to comment. I have been telling people for years that Amsoil, redline and others are really not approved for VW.AUDI and IMO I would not use them nor would I ever believe in their hilarious claims with graphs and numbers, pictures and so forth.
I have Used Pentosin High Performance 5W-40 in my VW engines for many many years. Never a single engine problem. But I also don't beat the crap out of my car either.
I also tend to use Pentosin due to the fact that it is European and the US regulations on oil are not clear. Especially when it comes to 100%, Full Synthetic terms.
I have never seen fantastical advertising/marketing from the big oil companies (pentosin, have seen an ad in the US at all, NO).
Sure the big US companies compete and say ours is better than than theirs buts that normal competition. But Amsoil's claims are just annoying, how many more pages of crap do we need to hear about. Too much talk = not a great product. Scraping to get dumb heads to fall for it and become a believer. 
Amsol, redline and Royal Purple are not very good. There is no real hard evidence except by the own company that it is a great oil. 
Race guys use redline, OK. Does not prove anything. 
Anyways, oil arguments can go on and on as people just believe in oils like amsoil due to being brainwashed by clever ad text.
Good luck with that. I have been running Pentosin an approved VW oil in my cars for many years with 0 engine failures or even problems. 
I also use OEM transmission fluid and Pentosin CHF in the steering box.
I would trust Castrol GTX anyday over AMSOIL's top Synthetic oil plus I would save some $$.
I know use Pentosin in My Alfa Romeo as with it's Vw/Audi, BMW and Merc. approvals it has gone through some rigorous testing and approved by some of the top manuf. Sometimes I use AGIP as well which is VW/AUDI approved.



_Modified by AZV6 at 1:19 PM 9-12-2008_


----------



## mjgvw16v (Feb 27, 2004)

*Re: Dispelling FALSE conclusions and opinions on VW engine oil requirments (AZV6)*

Amen! Someone with reason! Pentosin is approved...That is what this forum is supposed to be about. Discussion of approved and non-approved oils.
VW/Audi approved oils. They are designed for a reason. The tighter tolerances and higher oil temps in european automotive engines require an oil that has different shear properties and breakdown than what we accept here in the states.
Oils here in the states are all regulated too far by the feds with the interest of lower emissions and not engine longevity. The tree huggers here would rather have to never replace a catalytic converter, but have costly engine repairs. Do some research on API: SM service rating, you know, the american standards. Guess what? This new garbage that the feds have mandated is ruining engines. Why? Because the lobbyists want to madate a federal emissions warranty on converters of 150k miles.
Here is what I see. Elf/total....Biggest name in Formula 1 racing. Formula 1 engines are so high tech that they require oil way beyond what your Ford truck does. Elf is to Europe what Mobil 1 is here in the states. Hmm, no Amsoil in F1.... Hmmm... Funny..
Anyone wanna buy some snake oil? Amsoil=Amsway? Maybe?
I will say this.... I have been in the auto industry for my entire life. I learned from an oil rep a long time ago that American oil companies are interested in profit. A rep from a large oil company(and I mean large), told me this much. Mobil spends more money on r&d than all the other oil companies in the USA combined. Oh, and he didn't work for Mobil.
Moral of my story is simple. The engineers who design the engines, know what they need. Us dumb Americans need not get in a propaganda battle for the sake of capitalism. American oil companies are engaged in politics, simple as that. The shear value of the dollar keeps them just making a so-so product that may be alright.
You know, the whole 1.8t oil sludge issue is limited to the US market? Yup.... Hmm... Funny. We all think that we are smarter than the people that engineered our cars. Wal-mart oil might be alright in your Cavalier, but not in our highly-precise driving machines.
Get a grip people. Don't put some snake oil in your car because it made some dude's pinto run longer. A pinto does not have the same needs as a TT or any VW/Audi engine for that matter. While some engines are designed to work with some oils, some are not.
I am a Redline, Royal Purple, Mobil 1, Eneos, Elf/total, Pentosin and Lubro Moly dealer. I wouldn't dream of selling you oil that doesn't meet your needs. I sell to people in all walks of the auto business. I am not going to tell a small block chevy guy that Elf meets his engines needs. I am not going to tell a Kia driver that he should spend the $$ on Royal Purple. I would like to sell oil that meets the factory accepted requirements of their engine. No snake oil.
Nuff said!


----------



## jakub28 (Jul 27, 2008)

*Re: (mjgvw16v)*

You changed oil after 25,000? I would prefer running head first into a a door than drive my car knowing that the oil is 25k old.








[additional append after first post]
I am not saying Mobil is bad, it's what I used to change the oil on my dad's golf III but 25k is a lot of kilometers for things to particulate in the oil. Oil filters are not ideal, they won't remove everything.


_Modified by jakub28 at 2:40 AM 9-13-2008_


----------



## GT17V (Aug 7, 2001)

*Re: (nuskool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nuskool* »_
The way I understand the things I have read (from a legal standpoint) VW (or anyone else) cannot void a warranty unless said oil (or aftermarket part) has been proven to be the cause of the failure.
I have not seen or heard of one single warrnty claim that was denied from using the "wrong" oil.


Here's an interesting thing... remember the longitudinal 1.8T sludge fiasco?
VW/Audi was so loose in the oil requirements, that it allowed both 5w40 and 5w30 as suitable grades of oil.
5w40 is only available in "synthetic" only (Group III and Group IV)
5w30 is available in both synthetic and crude conventional oil.
Many dealerships, both VW & Audi pushed & used 5w30 conventional to its customers during both the paid maintenance & customer paid maintenance.
Because of this, VW & Audi basically made the burden of proof of not what type of oil used (because it would have bitten back at them), but instead primarily documentation of oil changes performed.
Since then, this is why VW502.00 is the requirement and for said engines, using a larger oil filter.
Of course, there are superior oils that don't meet VW502.00, such as SHell Rotella T-synthetic 5w40 (Group III) and Mobil 1 Truck & SUV 5w40 (Group IV) and of course, others available.
But since I do like some of the Amsoil oils, the next oil change, I'm kissing VW specs goodbye and taking the warranty into my hands and saying hello to Amsoil DEO 5w40.


----------



## jakub28 (Jul 27, 2008)

*Re: (JimH)*

Yes.

_Quote, originally posted by *JimH* »_Did you use a approved/certified camera?



_Modified by jakub28 at 6:26 PM 9-14-2008_


----------



## mjgvw16v (Feb 27, 2004)

*Re: (jakub28)*

FWIW
Ultimately, you are all at the mercy of your dealer. The service manager of the dealership makes the final call as far as if your claim is warranty or not. As a former service manager, I can tell you that a dealer can make or break your day. A dealership can refuse to work on your car as well as deny a warranty issue. VW gives their dealers empowerment for warranty claims and also a dealer is subject to VW's rules. In other words, if a dealer feels that they are going to repair you car and expect to get reimbursed by VW, they are going to use their discretion to make sure that they do get paid. Dealers are a business to make $$ and if they are not going to make money, they can refuse to do the work, and legally they are allowed. It's a political process and you can interperet it the way you like. I'm not saying that dealers want to get out of doing warranty work, believe me, they don't, but if it is a risk to their pockets, they can easily say no. Then it is up to you to try another dealer. I have denied warranty claims personally and VW stood behind me. I have also had situations where VW reversed my decision. It happens and with the current status of the economy and everything else, I would listen to what is necessary to maintain my vehicle according to the manufacturers standards.


----------



## Fast VW (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: (mjgvw16v)*

I have been watching this post for quite some time now with a certain level of amusement so I guess I will finally throw in my $.02.
When I graduated high school in 1990 I bought a brand new Jetta at the local dealer. I ran this car all through college and the first 3 years after. In the 8 years that I had it I put a little over 200,000 miles on it. After I bought my next VW in 1998 I gave this car to my brother who drove it for another 5 years. When he was done with it, it had just under 300,000 miles on it. He gave it to my dad to use a "beater" car. My dad just got rid of it, May of 2008, because the body was rusted so bad that he couldn't get it "inspected" even where he worked. He drove it to the salvage yard and retired it with just over 360,000 miles on it. This car NEVER saw a VW approved oil and generally saw whatever 10w-40 motor oil was on sale. The car had plenty of brakes, exhausts, batteries, water pumps, etc. replaced but never any engine problems. I guess I should have used a VW spec oil.








If I purchased a new VW that was still under warranty I would use whatever oil VW recommended just in case. Why should I fight with the dealer, the service manager, or VW? I have much better things to spend my time on. I also realize that the new VWs are more "technically advanced" and are pushing more HP for their size than my 1990 was so that would be another reason for my choice.
If your itching for a confrontation, then put whatever oil you want into your warrantied VW and hope for an engine failure that is oil related. Then have at it.


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (Fast VW)*

I never ran my 1983 GTi, 1989 16V GTi nor my 1992 16V GTi of what I knew was approved oil. Actually back in those days I do not think there was much about this topic. I never knew anything about it really.
I ran Mobil 1 in all of them and they went for ever.
But I think we are talking more about approved oils for 1998--> vehicles which require something totally different.
Now You say you did not use approved oil. I am not sure it matters with an old 1990 8V engine.
I am sure there was an approved oil back in those days. I am sure there was an oil that you could buy from the dealer for your vehicle but not sure if there was approval codes on them like 501 500. But the motors where a bit less technological.
*If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, your car requires 502.00 oil
If you car was made after 2004, your car requires 505.01 oil 
Bare in mind for example Pentosin High 5w-40 which I only use is approved for both 502/505*
Therefore the approved oils we are talking about run under the 501 500/505 500 approved oils which I believe your 1990 was not under and infact i have no idea if there was one during that time period.
I ran in VW clubs all day a long back in those days and I never heard anything about approved oils, so I think that there was no issue running whatever in your car then, plus you also should note back then ZDDP levels where much higher in oils as well. 
If you changed your oil according to VW then I see no problem with running whatever you want in a 1990 engine. With the amount of detergents/additive packages in oil as long as you change the oil on schedule you could probably run that motor into the ground. 
If anyone has the approved oils for that time, great. Not sure it matters anymore though.
If anyone has an old bentley Manual it may say it in there. But I bet it just shows what grade to use that's it.
jason
_Modified by AZV6 at 7:30 AM 9-21-2008_


_Modified by AZV6 at 7:32 AM 9-21-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (AZV6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AZV6* »_If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, your car requires 502.00 oil
If you car was made after 2004, your car requires 505.01 oil

Hmmm, well, while I certainly hold 505.01 oil in high regard, I do not believe that all cars built since 2004 require it. Certainly the PD TDI Jettas do as well as a few high strung gasoline engine, however, it is my understanding that the vast majority of VWs and Audis sold in the U.S. still only require 502.00.
Yes, no?


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (shipo)*

I am not sure I totally understand what you are asking?? I just gave you the years and oil requirements???
What do you mean still using 502? If your engine requires it you still need to use it unless a technical bulletin is issues saying you must now use 505 500 approved VW oils in <2004
Nothing wrong with using 505 500, does not mean it's better thn 502 500 and like I said some are approved for both. Pentosin being 1.
*TDI diesel engines in the US, use:
1996-2003: 5W-40 or 5W-30 synthetic with any of VW 505.00, ACEA B3 or B4, or API CF-4, CG-4, CH-4, or CI-4
2004-2005: VW 505.01 rated oil only*
Note: VW 505.01 rated oils also meet VW 505.00 (though typically not VW 502.00). Most(?) VW 502.00 rated oils also meet VW 505.00 but not VW 505.01.
Although some like PENTOSIN, LUBRO-MOLY are approved for both.
You would need to check on that yourself as I am not sure on CAN versions.
http://www.vw.com/myvw/yourcar/servicecenter/en/us/
but here is a list of approved oils by VW for sale in USA/CANADA for use with vehicles sold in those countries:
502.00 Oil's Specifically Sold in the US/Canada
(note: this is a list of CONFORMED oils for retail sale in North America. Are there other oils on the main list that are for sale here? Probably. This is a list of the most common and easily obtainable 502.00 oils.)
Manufacture: Audi/VW
Description: part number ZVW 352 540 S
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Castrol
Description: Castrol Syntec
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Chevron
Description: Chevron Supreme Synthetic
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Elf
Description: Elf Excellium LDX
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Kendall Motor Oil
Description: Kendall GT-1 Full Synthetic Motor Oil
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Mobil
Description: Mobil 1
Viscosity: SAE 0W-40
Manufacture: Motul
Description: Motul 8100 E-tech
Viscosity: SAE 0W-40
Manufacture: Quaker State/Pennzoil
Description: Quaker State European Formula Ultra
Viscosity: SAE 5W-30
Description: Quaker State Full Synthetic European Formula
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Quaker State Full synthetic European Formula Ultra
Viscosity: SAE 5W-30
Manufacture: Seventy-Six Lubricants
Description: 76 Pure Synthetic Motor Oil
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Texaco
Description: Havoline Ultra
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Total
Description: Total Quartz 9000
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Valvoline
Description: Valvoline SynPower
Viscosity: SAE 5W-30
Description: Valvoline SynPower motor oil
Viscosity: SAE 0W-40
-----------------------------------------------
VW/Audi Approved Engine Oils
Oil Quality Standard VW 505.01
(note: not all oils listed are available for sale in the US)
ALL 505.01 Approved Oils are SAE 5W-40 Viscosity
Manufacture: Audi/VW
Description: part number G 052 167 A2
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: AD Parts
Description: AD SDI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Addinol
Description: Addinol Light MV 0546 PD
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Agip
Description: Agip 7004
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: AMAG
Description: Gamaparts Super LL TDI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Aral
Description: Aral Tronic 431
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Avia
Description: AVIA TDi 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Avia Turbo CFE PD
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: BP
Description: BP Visco Special V
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Bucher AG
Description: Motorex Profile V–XL
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Carat
Description: Carat ad–Diesel PD–Oil
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Castrol
Description: Adamol Multitop PDI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Castrol 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Castrol GTD 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Castrol TXT 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Cepsa Star TDI synt
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Chevron
Description: Havoline 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Delek
Description: Delek IDI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Denicol
Description: Denicol Pro Syn 4
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Elf
Description: Elf Excellium DID
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Engen Petroleum Ltd.
Description: Engen Formula 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Esso
Description: Esso 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Eurol
Description: Eurol Turbo DI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Fina
Description: Fina Delta 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: FL Selenia
Description: Aktual Top Synth
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Fuchs
Description: Fuchs TITAN Supersyn Plus
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Labo Syntha High Tech Synthese
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Galp energia
Description: Galp Formula 505
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Galp Formula TD 505
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Gedol
Description: Champ
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Ginouves
Description: York 742
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Gulf
Description: Gulf GDI Extra
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Igol
Description: Igol Process 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Ina
Description: INA 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: IP
Description: IP Sintiax 505
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Kuwait Petroleum
Description: Q8 Motoroil 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Liqui Moly
Description: Liqui Moly Diesel High Tech
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Mapetrol
Description: Mapetrol 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Meguin
Description: megol Motorenoel Super Leichtlauf Technology
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Minerva–Oil
Description: TSH 5W–40 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Mitan
Description: Alpine PD Pumpe Düse
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Mobil
Description: Mobil Synt S Special V
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: Mobil Syst S Special V
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Mogul
Description: Mogul Forte Racing S
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: MOL
Description: MOL Dynamic Synt
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Motul
Description: Motul Specific 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: MRD
Description: Motor Gold Supertec PD
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Oel–Brack
Description: Midland Axxept
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Oest
Description: Oest Leichtlauföl 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: OMV
Description: OMV syn com diesel
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Panolin
Description: Panolin Daytona
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Pentosin
Description: Pentosynth 5W–40 TS*
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Poweroil High–Tech–Schmierstof
Description: HD SL CF PD Pumpe/Düse Synth.
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Quaker State
Description: Quaker State Diesel Plus
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Rafinerija Modrica
Description: Optima 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Ravensberger Schmierstoffvertri
Description: Ravenol VPD
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Rothen Oil
Description: Rothen Extrasint
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Shell
Description: Shell Helix Diesel Plus VA
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Sinopec
Description: Blue Spirit
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Slovnaft
Description: Madit 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: SRS Schmierstoff Vertrieb
Description: Wintershall Leichtlauf–Motorenöl PD
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Startol
Description: RASANTA SPECIALSYNT
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Statoil
Description: Statoil SuperWay 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Sunoco
Description: Sunoco Ultra semi synthetic
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: SWD
Description: Concep–Tech Synth.
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Description: swd Primus Synth.
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Texaco
Description: Texaco Havoline 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Total
Description: Total Quartz 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Unil Opal
Description: Opaljet 505.01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Valvoline
Description: Valvoline DuraBlend Diesel motor oil
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: VAPS
Description: VAPSOIL 505 01
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Westfalen AG
Description: Westfalen Megatron
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Wolf
Description: Wolf Masterlube Synflow PI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Würth
Description: Triathlon Special PD
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: Yacco
Description: Yacco VX 505
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40
Manufacture: YPF
Description: YPF Elaion Full Performance TDI
Viscosity: SAE 5W-40

_Modified by AZV6 at 7:41 AM 9-21-2008_


_Modified by AZV6 at 7:45 AM 9-21-2008_


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (mjgvw16v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mjgvw16v* »_FWIW
Ultimately, you are all at the mercy of your dealer. The service manager of the dealership makes the final call as far as if your claim is warranty or not. As a former service manager, I can tell you that a dealer can make or break your day. 
Then it is up to you to try another dealer. I have denied warranty claims personally and VW stood behind me. I have also had situations where VW reversed my decision.

Do you realize you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph? First you say the service manager makes the final call, then you say VW has reversed your decision.
Sounds to me like the service manager does NOT make the final call. Which would make sense unless service managers have a law degree.


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (nuskool)*

Dude, oil thread.


----------



## TechEd (Nov 11, 2000)

*Re: (nuskool)*

I don't see any contradiction here. mjgvw16v has very accurately, albeit simply, described the customer <> dealer, and dealer <> factory warranty process.
All a customer ever sees in this process is the dealer's decision to either perform warranty repairs on the vehicle or not. When dealers encounter modified, improperly serviced or maintained vehicles as specified by the OEM warranty texts, they are in no way obligated to perform warranty repairs to related systems. That's *all* that dealers can do: *Refuse to repair under warranty, or perform the repair and charge the customer* ...usually in order to keep the customer mobile. Dealers cannot void the new vehicle warranty, either completely or partially. Only an OEM representative can do so, in writing.
For typical, relatively inexpensive warranty repair refusals, the impact on the customer is actually quite small because systemic logic usually prevails (a CAI, which obviously is different from the OEM spec and design intent will only affect the system of which it is a part, not the rear wheel bearing). The reason most stories on this become "horror stories" is because of the single most frequent reason things go wrong in anything nowadays, and that is the lack of clear, concise communication and perceptions of being victimized. However, in cases involving expensive major units like engines and transmissions, dealers must follow very strict factory warranty policies and procedures. Most all of the import brands I've contracted with must defer to a team of factory engineers dispatched to the dealer. The engineers speak to the customer, research the vehicle history, evaluate if similar issue trends are being tracked, *and perform root cause analysis on site*. Quick component dismantling, metallurgy analysis, UOAs and big cell phone bills over the ocean are a walk in the park for these guys. I've seen them at work and it's very impressive. Because of the potential expense involved with factory-defined major units, decisions are indeed the responsibility of the factory ...and rightfully so for reasons beyond the scope of the retailer.
On a regular day however, the reason dealers can and should refuse to perform questionable warranty repairs is simple. The factory monitors the warranty claim activities of all their authorized dealers. They do this for two reasons: 1. To monitor national quality issue trends and 2. Monitor individual dealers warranty activities as they compare to their peer group. Some are even ranked, and the best ones are allowed self-approval status within limited policies and procedures. As such, and regardless if ranked or not, comparison data to both local and nationwide claim trends is obvious. Some, but not all warranty parts are put on mandatory submission return to the factory for inspection. Through this, the factory can easily determine if, for the same volume of warranty traffic over a given period of time, that dealer x claims a significantly higher volume of warranty parts/labour than dealer Y down the street. They'll be very interested in sending a factory tech rep out to dealer X investigate (any technical reasons), or perform an official 12 month period warranty audit. You can be sure that warranty audits for "mod-friendly" dealers can be very painful indeed.
If you were a Service Manager, how would YOU explain to your Dealer Principal having to repay over $100,000 in reversed warranty claims after an audit. You think the IRA is tough?!!? The common sense solution for most is to simply refuse to perform warranty repairs under questionable circumstances. Unfortunately, whether warranty repairs were done or not, the customer has long since left the facility and has no clue (or could care less) about warranty audit repayment cheques from the dealer to the factory afterwards. Indeed, most owners have never actually read, or cared to read their new vehicle limited warranty texts that quite clearly define in MM-compliant language, "What is covered" and "What is not covered" ...and instead, choose to join the rest of the shortsighted peasants with torches and pitchforks, storming up the hill to Frankenstein's castle.
The scope of both customer and dealer stupidity in the above process is huge. Returned parts where a cheese sandwich is stuffed into the radio CD slot, cigarette burns in the upholstery, ECMs and relays full of water, turn signal switch levers twisted to the point of breakage and dogs/cats scratching out rear defogger lines and many more absurdities have all ended up in warranty parts test centers. The staff can only shake their heads in disbelief as they reject the claim on the spot. The dealer is left footing the parts/labour bill, and the customer is long since gone. For all the obvious warranty fraud cases that are caught by the factory rep during visits or by the test center, many, many more slip through and are paid ... so for dealers, it's kinda like "warranty gambling" ...hoping they won't get caught. It's obvious that mjgvw16v was quite clear in paraphrasing this as he experienced it.
The fraudulent warranty burden on all manufacturers is so great that most apply a warranty tariff to retailer's new vehicle invoice price, based on the market. It's well known in my circles that historically the US auto market leads the way in warranty fraud, in small part due to abusing the flat labour rate dealer/technician pay system and mostly due to dealers wanting to "appear helpful" ...all the while rolling the dice on warranty audits. And that's really too bad because it is the stupidity of some that make many, many others suffer.
So, what's the moral to this story? Simple: During the coverage period, read and understand your new vehicle limited warranty texts, and follow the factory maintenance schedule using the factory approved *oils* and replacement parts as specified in those texts. If you knowingly or unknowingly strayed from this and something goes wrong, then be prepared to apply the same accountability you demand of the factory, to yourself.


_Modified by TechEd at 7:42 PM 9-21-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (AZV6)*

I'm not sure what is the cause of your confusion.








You stated that all cars built since 2004 require oil that meets the 505.01 oil spec. I responded that I believe you are incorrect in that statement; I then went on by posting that it is my understanding that the vast majority of gasoline VW and Audi engines produced since 2004 are only required to be lubricated with oil that meets the 502.00 standard.
Simple as that.


----------



## nuskool (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: (TechEd)*

Tech,
How is that not a contradiction? First he says that the Service manager has the final call on warranty claims, then a little later in the paragraph he says VW has reversed some of his decisions.
Even you said that the dealer cannot void warranty. So his statement about the Service manager have the final call is flat out wrong by his and your own admission.


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (shipo)*

your question:
"Hmmm, well, while I certainly hold 505.01 oil in high regard, I do not believe that all cars built since 2004 require it. Certainly the PD TDI Jettas do as well as a few high strung gasoline engine, however, it is my understanding that the vast majority of VWs and Audis sold in the U.S. still only require 502.00.
Yes, no?"
My answer:
I am not sure I totally understand what you are asking?? I just gave you the years and oil requirements???
What do you mean still using 502? If your engine requires it you still need to use it unless a technical bulletin is issues saying you must now use 505 500 approved VW oils in <2004
Nothing wrong with using 505 500, does not mean it's better thn 502 500 and like I said some are approved for both. Pentosin being 1.
*TDI diesel engines in the US, use:
1996-2003: 5W-40 or 5W-30 synthetic with any of VW 505.00, ACEA B3 or B4, or API CF-4, CG-4, CH-4, or CI-4
2004-2005: VW 505.01 rated oil only
Note: VW 505.01 rated oils also meet VW 505.00 (though typically not VW 502.00). Most(?) VW 502.00 rated oils also meet VW 505.00 but not VW 505.01.*
Although some like PENTOSIN, LUBRO-MOLY are approved for both.
You would need to check on that yourself as I am not sure on CAN versions.
Whats the problem? 505. 01 and 505.00 are different as 502.00


_Modified by AZV6 at 2:45 PM 9-22-2008_


----------



## TechEd (Nov 11, 2000)

*Re: (nuskool)*

I guess a discussion on semantics was inevitable. Oversimplified interpretations, anyone? I'm sorry you missed my point about the customer-facing part of the process.
What exactly is meant by "final call" in the various context stated, i.e.: refusing to repair under warranty or voiding a warranty, appears to be the issue. *In the eyes of the customer,* the Service Manager makes the decision *on whether to repair a car under warranty or not*. This is regardless if it's a typical low-buck item or major unit as defined by the OEM warranty policies and procedures manual (where the SVM's decision to repair a major unit under warranty must follow rules). But a final call of the dealer "refusing to repair"is all-too often interpreted incorrectly by customers as meaning the warranty is void (ref. horror stories in my post).
As mjgvw16v knows all too well that he was not authourised to void a warranty, the context of of his statements pertain solely to performing warranty repairs and having claims rejected. The customer is long out of the picture at this point, but still apparently suffers from misinterpreting "refusal to repair" with "the warranty is void".
In the eyes of the customer with a car that was modified or improperly self-serviced, the Service Manager indeed has the final call on *whether he chooses to repair the car under warranty or not.* The three resulting scenarios are very simple: The customer either has a fraudulent warranty repair performed on his car, the customer caves in and pays for the repair out of pocket, or he takes it to another dealer to see if they will play warranty roulette with his case. With the current penchant for modding cars under warranty, the last of the three options above happens more often than not, with vortexers advising each other on mod-friendly dealers.
Sadly, with the customer long gone, and a fraudulent claim submitted to the factory (read: the SVM's "final call" was to play warranty roulette), the point here is that the customer never knows or even cares whether or not the submitted claim goes through undetected, or is caught and subsequently denied by the factory, leaving the dealer to swallow the parts & labour costs. Why on earth would the customer care about who has the "final call" in the overall context of the entire process from start to finish???










_Modified by TechEd at 4:10 PM 9-22-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (AZV6)*

You keep confusing the issue.
I'm discussing GASOLINE engines, and as far as I know, and quite contrary to your previous statement, VW REQUIRES a minimum of 502.00 for the vast majority of U.S. sold gasoline engines (said another way, they DO NOT require the use of 505.01).
True, there are a few gasoline engines that are required to run on 505.01, but those are the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_You keep confusing the issue.
I'm discussing GASOLINE engines, and as far as I know, and quite contrary to your previous statement, VW REQUIRES a minimum of 502.00 for the vast majority of U.S. sold gasoline engines (said another way, they DO NOT require the use of 505.01).
True, there are a few gasoline engines that are required to run on 505.01, but those are the exception rather than the rule.


Ok. I am not confusing anything. Gasoline engines require what they require depending on year stated above. 
The idea that you need to lets say "upgrade" to 505 if you require 502 is correct. It is not required. 
All I was stating was years and requirements thats it.


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (AZV6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AZV6* »_
Ok. I am not confusing anything. Gasoline engines require what they require depending on year stated above. 
The idea that you need to lets say "upgrade" to 505 if you require 502 is correct. It is not required. 
All I was stating was years and requirements thats it.


And that's where we disagree. Unless you have some information from VW and Audi that I've yet to see, all information as published by them indicate that most 2005 and later gasoline engines are required to use 502.00.
So, if you know of a publication that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.


----------



## franz131 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (shipo)*

502 00 and 504 00 are gasoline specs
505 01 and 507 00 are diesel specs
505 00 has been replaced by 505 01, we should stop talking about it, it's impolite.
VW has harmonized the requirements for these specs to allow 1 fluid to meet 502/505 01 or 504/507.

2004 RS-6 and Passat W8 called for 505 01 but once 502 00 and 505 01 were harmonized in 2006, there is no further need to require a diesel spec for a gas motor.
Now play nice.


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (shipo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_
And that's where we disagree. Unless you have some information from VW and Audi that I've yet to see, all information as published by them indicate that most 2005 and later gasoline engines are required to use 502.00.
So, if you know of a publication that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.

I honestly dont really care. I guess the information I published has not been invalidated by any information you have provided. All I have heard is you do not agree with me! So what? Provide some information then.
You can say you disagree all day long but without any substantial evidence I could care less. 
My question is what vehicle do you own that you actually need an oil requirement for???
Maybe that will clear the confusion>????









Just like stated above in the several replies.
If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, your car requires 502.00 oil
If you car was made after 2004, your car requires 505.01 oil
Bare in mind for example Pentosin High 5w-40 which I only use is approved for both 502/505
TDI diesel engines in the US, use:
1996-2003: 5W-40 or 5W-30 synthetic with any of VW 505.00, ACEA B3 or B4, or API CF-4, CG-4, CH-4, or CI-4
2004-2005: VW 505.01 rated oil only
Note: VW 505.01 rated oils also meet VW 505.00 (though typically not VW 502.00). Most(?) VW 502.00 rated oils also meet VW 505.00 but not VW 505.01.









_Modified by AZV6 at 8:10 PM 9-22-2008_

_Modified by AZV6 at 8:12 PM 9-22-2008_

_Modified by AZV6 at 9:36 AM 9-23-2008_


_Modified by AZV6 at 9:38 AM 9-23-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (AZV6)*

What the heck it the matter with you? You keep posting bilge about diesel engines, and I absolutely agree that the oil of choice for those engines is 505.01.
At issue here is the bulk of the gasoline engines sold here in the States, and in virtually every case, VW and Audi _REQUIRES_ the use of at least 502.00. Is 505.01 oil acceptable as well? Certainly, but that isn't the point.
Now, if you happen to have a TSB or other recent document published by VW or Audi that states that all 2005 and later gasoline engines are _REQUIRED_ to use 505.01 oil, then I'll gladly concede the point.


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (shipo)*









If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, 2006-present (gasoline), your car requires 502.00 oil, 2006 -present TDI PD 504/507
up to 2005 you could use both 502.00 and 505.01. GAS/Diesel
Bare in mind for example Pentosin High 5w-40 which I only use is approved for both 502/505

If 502 is your requirement 505.01 can be used as well IMO. Again such oils like pentosin are rated for BOTH








504.00 supersedes all previous Gasoline engine oil specifications.
507.00 supersedes all previous Diesel engine oil specifications

http://pics.tdiclub.com/data/5...4.pdf
*I guess my question is why do I have to do all the work here.
Why not try to find the evidence yourself??
Your really not throwing much into this mix except asking me to prove it. You prove it. Do some work yourself.*
***I HAVE A CURRENT PRINT (JUST FOUND IT) OUT FROM VW WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS
GASOLINE ENGINES: USE API SERVICE SJ, EITHER VW 502.00, VW 500.00, VW 501.01, ACEA A3, tdi pd ONLY USE 505.01, W8 ONLY USE 502.00 OR 505.01 o
THIS IS THE STANDARD UP TO DATE*

*Here it is for you* 












_Modified by AZV6 at 12:09 PM 9-23-2008_


----------



## shipo (Jan 3, 2006)

*Re: (AZV6)*

Okay, this all started because you made the following blanket statement:

_Quote, originally posted by *AZV6* »_If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, your car requires 502.00 oil
If you car was made after 2004, your car requires 505.01 oil

I questioned that statement by posting:

_Quote, originally posted by *shipo* »_Hmmm, well, while I certainly hold 505.01 oil in high regard, I do not believe that all cars built since 2004 require it. Certainly the PD TDI Jettas do as well as a few high strung gasoline engine, however, it is my understanding that the vast majority of VWs and Audis sold in the U.S. still only require 502.00.
Yes, no?

After several more exchanges, you again stated:

_Quote, originally posted by *AZV6* »_Just like stated above in the several replies.
If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, your car requires 502.00 oil
If you car was made after 2004, your car requires 505.01 oil

Then, _FINALLY_, after repeatedly and incorrectly stating that all 2005 and later VWs require 505.01 (apparently regardless of whether they are gasoline or diesel fired), you changed your story to the following:

_Quote, originally posted by *AZV6* »_If your car was made between 1998 and 2004, 2006-present (gasoline), your car requires 502.00 oil, 2006 -present TDI PD 504/507
up to 2005 you could use both 502.00 and 505.01. GAS/Diesel

Anyway, I think that now that we're all in agreement, we can put this debate to bed.











_Modified by shipo at 10:36 PM 9-23-2008_


----------



## AZV6 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (shipo)*

Actually some of that info was a sticky on the oil and lubrication section. My mistake to post someone else's bad research.
I dug a little deeper (found a slew of factory worksheets up to 2007) and found what VW did which is always a tough thing. They change things left and right. Transmission oil the same. 
Oh well I made a slight mistake but not really that bad. 
Should have still offered up something for all the hassle.
And as I point out I think 505.01 can be used in gasoline engines IMO. Even if it shows only for diesel. 
But I still have to say that they could have changed it since 2007, so I will need to get current 2008 requirements to be fully done with this one. lol



_Modified by AZV6 at 9:19 PM 9-23-2008_


----------

