View Single Post
Old 05-09-2015, 09:11 AM   #74
Scooby Guru
Member#: 767
Join Date: Jan 2000
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: N.J.
04 FXT
20 OB Onyx XT


Originally Posted by migaleddi View Post
Just the heading and top of the page so you know where it's coming from...

Top of the reverse side... Notice 5 (neglect and abuse are a bit subjective) but look at number 8 especially... "Customary maintenance recommended by the manufacturer". "Refer to the..... Owners manual for manufacturer's recommendations and instructions."

And lastly, a reiteration of above, placing responsibility to maintain the vehicle as recommended in the owner's manual on the owner in order to be covered.

5w-40 conventional doesn't exist as far as I (and you) know. They give you three other replenishment options from which to choose. So the impossibility of finding 5w-40 conventional for replenishment does not negate the rest of the recommendations/requirements.

But that's not really material to my point. My point (as I've proven with the above) is that you must maintain your car in accordance with the maintenance recommendations made in the manual like API SM 5w-30 RC/ILSAC GF-4 or GF-5 grade motor oil or you risk claim denial. It's that simple.

Ok, so that's Added Security. Does everyone have added security? Why can't they just specifically say they recommend that you run Resource Conserving oil instead of just throwing pictures in there?

And what does it mean to look for the Donut OR the Starburst? I can run a Starburst oil that doesn't have the Donut? That doesn't exist.

And what does it mean to put the donut under oil grades? Those are not even oil grades. Oh and don't forget to include the page in the owner's manual that states that thicker viscosity is REQUIRED in hot temperatures. Of course, neither of those are defined. Speaking of definitions, please define synthetic oil. Is there an API or SAE definition?

I do see where you are coming from though. Just throwing out more points to ponder. I guess I can't get an old lawsuit from 1999 between SDC and SoA out of my head, so I'm picking nits. It's a classic example of a poor agreement between two companies. The judge in that suit picked nits as well.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
bluesubie is offline   Reply With Quote