alright. DC posted a $6 billion loss last year. when it was just Chrysler,
they were posting gains, however, they STILL used Mobil 1. also, under
chrysler, there is only one car with factory-equiped synthetic oil (Dodge
Viper). at the limited quantities produced, it wouldn't make sense for
chrysler to equip an $80,000 car with a "cheaper oil" if it wasn't up to the
task of protecting the vehicle. what would cost more, the cost of replacing
hundreds of ultra-expensive engines because of oil failure, or an extra
$.55/quart for "AMSOIL"??? do a cost-benefit analysis. all the major
corporations have, and it is more COST EFFECTIVE to use Mobil 1 to protect
their street cars and racers than it is to use AMSOIL. if Mobil 1 is good
for Ferrari, Lambo, Dodge, Chevy, etc., then it's good enough for my Dakota.
and more to the point, always take information with a grain of salt; when it
come's to AMSOIL, i take it with a lot!
Gabe Couriel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net]On Behalf Of droo
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 5:37 PM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: Re: DML: RE: Amsoil -Info
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:23:53 -0400, Rick Barnes <barnesrv@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> TOTAL BS...you cannot make me believe they will prefer the (so-called),
> superiority of Amsoil over Mobil One, (that's fiction), for 50 cents. If
> you want to believe that they will save 50 cents on the price of a
> Corvette
> or Viper, you gotta be smoking something and whatever it is, pass the
> bong
> please! No way Amsoils spends more than Mobil One on development either.
>
>
Are you serious? DC posted a $6 billion loss last year. They cut every
little thing out of the dakota to save money. Every cent counts when it
comes to cost cutting.
-- -Droo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:59 EST