ST Gui
240Robert
PTS would be more accurate.
Rotella T6
- Thread starter ASPC
- Start date
ST Gui
240Robert
That's an assumption not factual evidence. But Larry Fine's question goes to the heart of the matter as I see it.
A statement of meeting requirements is not the same as being certified that it meets relevant requirements.
In all of these do devolve to personal opinion stated as fact. Will the cycle be unbroken? Methinks not. These opinions are based on what the author sees as logical. An interpretation of claims. Interpretation isn't helping.
As has been mentioned before a company might not choose to pay for the privilege of paying for the ability to display they are certified to meet requirements. Or they might not meet requirements and lie. All supposition/postulation without substantiation.
So we all get fat on popcorn. (Light on the real butter please)
How well an engine looks after X miles doesn't speak to the actual question. Speculations and assumptions are made in IF-THEN fashion. Correlation is not causation. So the only way to answer the Meets ≠ Certified question is to analyze oils out of the can to actual see if they meet the requirments.
Generally the Man on the Street would assume this must happen to get anything certified by an official body. But it's been stated here that oil manufacturers do their own testing and submit it to the certification body with a fee. Bob's your uncle and Slick-O's your oil. I haven't seen any substantiation that this is the process by which an oil receives certified blessings.
There may have been actual Official documentation presented regarding the process but the noise floor is high so I could have easily missed it while catching up on my nap time. When everyday is a Saturday I can enjoy a nap after a bowl of popcorn. Light Kerrygold butter and few sprinkles of sea salt as it's pretty tasty. Hold the avocado and cheddar cheese please.