Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Engine/Tuning
Official GT 5.0/Boss 302 UOA thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stang99x" data-source="post: 14990806" data-attributes="member: 169847"><p>Not wanting to create controversy here, but I'm curious about one thing. Why would anyone support a company that 1) falsely states they were a "first" or invented a product that they simply relabeled that had been created already and 2) why would you pay $35 to analyze oil when you can get 10 quarts of quality synthetic for less than $50 off the shelf. It seems very counter intuitive to pay to analyze something old when you all but paid the same amount that you could have paid to replace it. And for the record, I don't recognize the whole "wasting resources" argument. I drive my 5.0 like I stole, which is why I bought it in the first place. I dont' mind changing my oil at reasonable intervals (read 5000), as it gives me feel of how my engine is performing and aging when I can look at it that often.</p><p></p><p>Also, I recall years and years ago when the amsoil sales reps would come around and get sent packing as no one would touch the stuff. Then it appeared in the motorcycle and ATV world, and seemed to make a return to automotive via a backdoor from the motorcycle world. Again, not slamming or trying to instigate, but there are very few out there that advocate the stuff all these years later even with their far out claims of first ever and crazy mileages. (I did read a bit on them, it seems they have revised their warranty on Toyota's old 3.0 engine and won't honor their mileage claims on it as it was in their words "poorly designed.") So my point in all this is, why do you believe in it and push it given all the false claims they make.....the first in synthetic, etc. Their first syn was nothing more than a relabeled military spec oil. Curious of your thoughts</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stang99x, post: 14990806, member: 169847"] Not wanting to create controversy here, but I'm curious about one thing. Why would anyone support a company that 1) falsely states they were a "first" or invented a product that they simply relabeled that had been created already and 2) why would you pay $35 to analyze oil when you can get 10 quarts of quality synthetic for less than $50 off the shelf. It seems very counter intuitive to pay to analyze something old when you all but paid the same amount that you could have paid to replace it. And for the record, I don't recognize the whole "wasting resources" argument. I drive my 5.0 like I stole, which is why I bought it in the first place. I dont' mind changing my oil at reasonable intervals (read 5000), as it gives me feel of how my engine is performing and aging when I can look at it that often. Also, I recall years and years ago when the amsoil sales reps would come around and get sent packing as no one would touch the stuff. Then it appeared in the motorcycle and ATV world, and seemed to make a return to automotive via a backdoor from the motorcycle world. Again, not slamming or trying to instigate, but there are very few out there that advocate the stuff all these years later even with their far out claims of first ever and crazy mileages. (I did read a bit on them, it seems they have revised their warranty on Toyota's old 3.0 engine and won't honor their mileage claims on it as it was in their words "poorly designed.") So my point in all this is, why do you believe in it and push it given all the false claims they make.....the first in synthetic, etc. Their first syn was nothing more than a relabeled military spec oil. Curious of your thoughts [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Engine/Tuning
Official GT 5.0/Boss 302 UOA thread
Top