Diesel Place banner

ConocoPhillips introduces diesel engine oil with exclusive 'Liquid Titanium'

15K views 40 replies 14 participants last post by  Sgt Badger 
#1 ·

ConocoPhillips Co. has introduced Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium, which it said is a premium-tier API CJ-4 diesel engine oil formulated with an exclusive additive that provides enhanced engine wear protection, reduced bearing corrosion, and has increased oxidation stability. Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium is an enhancement to ConocoPhillips’ existing API CJ-4 synthetic blend diesel engine oil made from an advanced, low SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorous and sulfur) technology, and is approved under the latest heavy-duty engine oil specifications from major engine builders, according to the manufacturer.
“Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium is engineered from advanced high-performance additives and a blend of synthetic and high-quality Group II base stocks. It is the first and only multi-grade, heavy-duty engine oil of its kind, which raises the bar for novel diesel engine oil technology,” says Reginald Dias, Director, Commercial Products, ConocoPhillips Co. “Liquid Titanium is a powerful additive that strongly bonds to metal surfaces at the molecular level, adding an extra layer of protection to further reduce wear on critical parts and help extend engine life. It also increases the oxidation stability of the oil, helping to prolong oil life during service. These product enhancements provide added value to fleet owners and operators by helping to improve engine performance, reduce maintenance, extend drain intervals, and protect the investment.”
As part of its superior engine-protection features, Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium shows reduced wear of critical parts in the severe Cummins ISB test. It also shows reduced wear, less deposits and increased oil-oxidation stability in other industry standard engine tests and bench tests, ConocoPhillips reports.
Guardol ECT with Liquid Titanium replaces Guardol ECT product in ConocoPhillips’ existing API CJ-4 heavy-duty engine oil line, and is now available.
To locate a marketer in your area or receive additional information about this new offering, visit http://www.conocophillipslubricants.com/.
 
See less See more
1
#2 · (Edited)
I would be curious to know how much it costs. If its close to others that are full synthetic my question would be why would you want a synthetic blend when you can have the full synthetic for the same money? Blend scares me because they will never tell you what the mix is. It could be 90/10 just enough to call it synthetic "blend" which kind of defeats the purpose of synthetic. Its more of a marketing ploy being able to put synthetic on the label in my opinion.

Also if your an oil geek like me wouldn't you want synthetics made from group IV base stocks (PAO) which are one of the best that can be used in the formualtion of a full synthetic. Mobil 1 and Amsoil are the only two that I know of that use the PAO base stocks.

I am not bagging on it I would like to learn more about it so I can bag on it later once I am informed enought to bag on it........LOL

Really though I try not to bag on anything but I do find myself bagging on Fram filters and RP gear oils both are pretty bad in their respective catagories.
 
#3 · (Edited)
What about Schaeffers? They use POA base stocks.
 
#6 · (Edited)
This oil may be a nice compliment my titanium golf balls:)

Both Shaeffers products are PAO blends - even the full syn 9000 that isn't CJ-4 licensed.

Not CJ-4 licensed??? I am looking at a Gallon of Schaeffers 9000 5w-40 right now and it says exceeds CJ-4 requirements??? I would think they would have to be licensed to put it on their container as such. Here is a link for the Schaeffers 9000 5w-40: http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/9000.pdf Honestly even Bob the oil guy rates Schaeffers products top notch...not saying they are better than Amsoil or mobil 1 but they are certainly as good, and just maybe they are better, but with oils this good how much better can you get. They for certain are cheaper...I can get a gallon of the syn 9000 for around $17 shipped to my door(with a $300 purchase there is no shipping, atleast that is what I paid a few months ago) which is far cheaper then Amsoil or Mobil 1....geez that is probably half the price of Amsoil. Don't get me wrong I use some Amsoil products too...that is what is in my differentials and power steering system. When you compare BOTH PRICE and QUALITY of synthetics in regards to motor oils, I think Schaeffers is the hands down winner when it comes to 5w-40 oil. The price is considerably less for a comparable product.
 
#7 · (Edited)
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0032

Their 7000 is quality stuff, and they are willing to let an independent 3rd party validate the minimum performance level for the spec they claim (only costs ~$1000 to do so). Not so for 9000, hmmm... Just blindly believe me, I want to sell you something... Many seem to have had good luck with it though.

Alternate link - or go to www.eolcs.api.org and type in schaeffer
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayCompanyInfo.asp?CompanyID=227109

Lawsuits cost lots of money and give free advertising
 
#8 · (Edited)
Your link doesn't seem to work...if they didn't meet the standard how can they claim to on their packaging and spec sheet without being subject to a lawsuit? Any web page can be altered, out dated, or even incorrect. Like I said nothing comes up when I use your link but I trust their label and spec sheet that it is compliant, otherwise they could easily be sued. Why would they leave themselves open for litigation. The simple answer is that they wouldn't....your claim makes no sense to me. Schaeffers has a top notch reputation. In all honesty it makes no difference to me because the LBZ and LLY don't require the new API service...only the LMM does and I don't own an LMM. Some have even suggested it is better to use the previous API standard because the TBN is generally higher than the new standard, however the TBN may not deplete as fast with the new API standard. I am not sure if any testing has been done in regards to this.
 
#9 ·
Your link doesn't seem to work...if they didn't meet the standard how can they claim to on their packaging and spec sheet without being subject to a lawsuit? Any web page can be altered, out dated, or even incorrect. Like I said nothing comes up when I use your link but I trust their label and spec sheet that it is compliant, otherwise they could easily be sued. Why would they leave themselves open for litigation. The simple answer is that they wouldn't....your claim makes no sense to me. Schaeffers has a top notch reputation. To me it makes no difference because the LBZ and LLY don't require the new API service...only the LMM does. Some have even suggested it is better to use the previous API standard because the TBN is generally higher than the new standard, however the TBN may not deplete as fast with the new API standard. I am not sure if any testing has been done in regards to this.
Schaeffers is good stuff and I'm not trying to attack it, I'm just pointing out a major logical flaw in your assumption. IF it were CJ-4 CERTIFIED they would say so. There is no liability in claiming that it "meets" CJ-4 spec - there WOULD be liability if they claimed it WAS CJ-4 certified without the cert. So that means that claiming it "meets" CJ-4 and not listing a valid CJ-4 cert means that it is NOT certified CJ-4.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Show me exactly where where it is stated that it is not API certified? So far I haven't seen anything to confirm this or not. That is what I asked. Just because someone states that it isn't doesn't make it so. Whether it is or isn't doesn't change the fact that it is a top notch lubricant which is undisputed by those who know lubricants. I was simply questioning someones statement that is wasn't. I am no lawyer but I am pretty certain that your splitting hairs legally. If you claim your product meets or exceeds a specific standard and it doesn't you certainly would be liable. So even if they haven't paid for the certification they would still be liable if there product did not comply with the API service they claimed it did. I am sure that their product meets/exceeds the API services listed on the spec sheet whether certified or not....again if it didn't they would open themselves up to litigation.
 
#11 ·
Regarding the conoco philips oil, I'll bet the TBN still sucks because it's CJ4, and whether it's group II, or PAO, the basestock won't be able to hang onto the magic additive anyway..combustion temps have a way of introducing reality to the world of lubricants.
 
#12 · (Edited)
Of course they would open themselves up to litigation IF a company wanted to give them free publicity and pay lots of money for a lawsuit (even if they won).

Don't listen to me, listen to the API, the one who issues their license after validating that all the minimum performance hurdles are met. Is the API 'donut' on the back of the 9000 jug like all other API licensed products have (like 7000)?

eolcs.api.org, then search for schaeffer - see for yourself

Now lets talk about titanium golf clubs, golf balls, jackets, and oh yea, now oil:) Has somebody run a VOA on this new oil to check TBN out of the bottle yet?
 
#13 ·
Do you really expect people to believe that schaeffers 7000(semi synthetic) is a better product than Schaeffers 9000(full synthetic)? They are based on the same platform...one is just a full synthetic. Schaeffers has an extraordinary reputation and I hardly think they would risk losing that by allowing a subpar product out that could damage someones vehicle and open them up to litigation, especially since it is a step up from the 7000 series that you have no issue's with. Bobtheoilguy.com and many others place these two products at the top of the performance list as far as lubricants go and I value that. Sorry for hijacking the thread....
 
#14 ·
My experience with "Schaeffers" was about 0 years ago, used on N14's, the oil was tested and changed regularly, Cummins was having a lot of injector problems at that time, and the customer had 5 trucks at the time, running 20 hrs a day, 5 days a week. Within two months the engines were showing signs of a soft gel sticking to everything. It was used for about 6 months, On evaluation of fuel savings and costs of oil and testing, he went back to using dyno oil and regular oil changes. It took two changes and the engines were clean internally again.
 
#15 ·
This Guardol oil is no better/worse than most any other products from major manufactures on the market.

Don't get consumed by the marketing ploys, hype, terms and such. This stuff will perform about as well as Hypuron, Motorcraft and some other HDEO semi-synthetic blends. There are so many choices out there in the lubricant world that marketing entities HAVE to make (nearly) outrageous claims, just to get noticed. This stuff isn't significantly different from the other competitors in it's targeted market.

As for PAO, it's a great base stock, but it's not "everying" all in one package. As anything in life, there are compromises. It costs more, it cannot carry as many addtives, and at times, it cannot perform any better than the "lesser" group III products, depending upon operating conditions. In fact, I'm not aware of any lubricant in the HDEO field that is purely PAO; they all have some small amount of group II+ or III to help carry the additive package. The percent of PAO versus lower group stock content changes based upon targeted performance and marketing price point.

Results are what speak best to a lubricant's ability to perform. Knowing the inputs of any situation is good, but knowing the results is what counts.

And Amsoil and Mobil are NOT the only PAO HDEO oils out there. Castrol, among others, competes there too.

And finally, you guys need to do some research on ILSAC and API standards. There are specific criteria to meet to apply for, and subsequently use with permission, the API and ILSAC approvals.
API = American Petroleum Institute
ILSAC = International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee
There are legal means of getting around the approvals, such as the infamous "exceeds stanadards set by ..." or other similar claims.

Amsoil, for one, cannot claim to be certified by API/ILSAC standards, because they don't pay for the testing and subsequent approvals. That's a markets choice on their part. In no way does that make their products inferior, it just means they can't legally claim to be approved. They CAN claim that their products perform as well as, or better than, or blah blah blah.

While it makes for interesting debate, the reality is that all of today's lubricants, when using proper grade and such for any application, will work just fine. The only thing you might get from more expensive lubricants is a longer service life, although that is not an absolute assurance.
 
#16 ·
Is it possible to meet or exceed the spec without taking the tests that make up the spec itself - I think not. It is possible to meet the requirements of being pregnant without being pregnant, nope - it's black and white.

It does cost money to develop your product (or you just buy an additive package and mix it with base oil). Once you have the test data proving that all spec requirments are met, it only costs ~$1000 to get your product API licensed - both the companies mentioned here that have non-licensed products also have licensed products. They both know exactly what it takes to obtain the license - and the ~$1000 per product cost (which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things - especially to have an independent 3rd party validate a performance claim and establish some credibility to a claim).

Quoted from the API document online detailing licensing fees:

FEES
The EOLCS minimum royalty fee for licensure is $1,050
U.S. for API members and $1,250 U.S. for non-members.
Additionally, an annual fee of $0.0015 per gallon of
licensed motor oil after the first million gallons of
production of licensed oil will be assessed. (Please note
that the fees are subject to change.)
 
#17 ·
True, but misleading. That's over $1000 PER PRODUCT! If you have 25 products, then you have to pay the $1050 per product, and that means also in every single viscosity as well! Think of Mobil, for example: Mobil 1 in 0w-30, 5w-20, 5w-30, 10w-30, etc etc. The costs add up quickly! Then there's Mobil Drive Clean (their dino oil). And their semi-syn products, and their EP products, and their Delvac products. The costs add up very significantly!


I agree that you can't claim to be licensed when you don't apply for the approval, but that doesn't mean you either are, or are not, better, or even as good. Amsoil does this all the time. I believe they have excellent products. But can they claim to be "approved"? Does that make them inferior? Nope.

Using the pregnant analogy, you don't have to get tested to be proven pregnant. After 9 months, the proof becomes self-evident. IE - the results become your proof, even if no tests were performed. You may not be able to market yourself as pregnant, but at some point, the results outweigh the license!

Amsoil may not pay for the licensing, but they have people like us and many others that pay for UOAs, and the results are what show it's a good oil, regardless if it's "approved" by ILSAC or API.

Further, the fear of lost TBN is over-rated in today's CJ-4 oils IF you're using ULSD fuel. Due to the significantly reduced sulphur and it's aromatics, the corrosive element generated is much less, so less TBN is needed to combat the sulphuric acid. While it does start lower than CI-4 oils, it also drops at a much slower rate, due to the fuel's reduced sulphur level.
 
#18 ·
If a $1000 is enough to scare away a supplier from getting licensed, I'd be really leary of their products - seen Amsoil's relatively new multi-million dollar facility?

Nice try to stretch the true/false analogy into something else. Results in our vehicles are a far cry from substituting for independently validated specs.

I agree that most have a misunderstanding of TBN and are unnecessarily afraid of CJ-4. I'm still curious what this ConocoPhillips product looks like out of the bottle on a VOA.
 
#19 · (Edited)
If a $1000 is enough to scare away a supplier from getting licensed, I'd be really leary of their products - seen Amsoil's relatively new multi-million dollar facility?

Nice try to stretch the true/false analogy into something else. Results in our vehicles are a far cry from substituting for independently validated specs.

I agree that most have a misunderstanding of TBN and are unnecessarily afraid of CJ-4. I'm still curious what this ConocoPhillips product looks like out of the bottle on a VOA.

Aren't you the same guy that was advising people to put Dex VI in their transfer cases? It's all becoming clear....lol. If people were having vehicle failures due to using oil that claimed to meet the proper specs for their vehicles but in fact didn't, I am sure we would have heard about it. Their would be law suits. No reputable manufacturer like Amsoil or Schaeffers would risk it. The notion that they would is ridiculous.
 
#21 ·
I am just curious not as a defender of Amsoil but for my information. Can you tell me what exact oil Amsoil "Claims" to be API certified but isn't? Because I want to confront them with this false advertising if you can show me proof of it. I certainly don't want to be trying to sell something that they are making false claims on.
 
#22 ·
More to it than $1,000 licensing

Here is a quote from the AMSOIL website regarding licensing costs in general.

"What are the costs of API licensing?
The cost for running a test program for a single fuel efficient passenger car motor oil formulation ranges from $230,000 to $350,000, depending on whether the formula passes the tests the first time through. A formula may require multiple test runs or formula modifications to achieve a passing average (testing costs for heavy-duty diesel oils are currently averaging between $750,000 to $1,000,000). Once that testing is complete and the formula has passed all of the minimum requirements, it can be licensed for $1,250 per year for non-members and $1,050 per year for members. There is also a royalty fee per gallon sold for all gallons over one million. The length of time between new specifications is now approximately two to three years, which does not allow a great deal of time to recover testing costs."


The link to this statement is here ===> https://www.amsoil.com/dealer/blueprints/Product_Warranties_Blueprint_11-07.pdf

The API allows non-synthetic producers to change additive suppliers to get a price break if the new supplier can prove their product is essentially the same as the old supplier supplied, but the API won't allow the same flexibility for synthetic manufacturers. If a synthetic manufacturer wants to use a different additive supplier (even though it meets the same criteria as a non-synthetic supplier noted above) the synthetic manufacturer has to resubmit their product for API licensing at another minimum $230,000. That restriction also allows additive suppliers to raise their prices at will because they know the synthetic manufacturers can't drop them and go to a different supplier.

That's the reason you're seeing so many manufacturers with labels that simply state their products meet or exceed API specifications and it will remain that way until the API gives synthethic manufacturers a level playing field with non-synthetic manufacturers.

I hope this helps clarify the licensing costs.

Lynn
 
#24 ·
The API allows non-synthetic producers to change additive suppliers to get a price break if the new supplier can prove their product is essentially the same as the old supplier supplied, but the API won't allow the same flexibility for synthetic manufacturers. If a synthetic manufacturer wants to use a different additive supplier (even though it meets the same criteria as a non-synthetic supplier noted above) the synthetic manufacturer has to resubmit their product for API licensing at another minimum $230,000. That restriction also allows additive suppliers to raise their prices at will because they know the synthetic manufacturers can't drop them and go to a different supplier.Lynn
So the API now has different standards for synthetic oils - hmmm, news to me. Please provide your API source reference. Has the API also posted an offiicial definition as to what a synthetic is? This appears to be quite the stretch to me.

The purpose of having an independently validated spec is so consumers don't have to rely on the salesman to tell the truth or not. If a lube marketer pays for and does all the "testing" they say they do (to validate that they "meet or exceed" the specs), what do they have to hide? You can't meet or exceed the tests, without taking the tests (whatever they cost). Claiming a spec communicates to a consumer that you have been independently validated to have the performance associated defined by that spec - that's why approval and licensing letters are issued.

There are only 3 options for tests that make up specs:
1) you pay to take them and fail (at least 1 of the tests)
2) you don't take them
3) you pay to take them and pass every test (then your only hurdle left to an independent, 3rd party validation is the ~$1000 API license fee)

As for what Amsoil products have actually been independently validated and licensed by the API: the 4 XL series oils and the PCO 15W-40 blend - that's it. See for yourself:
eolcs.api.org then search for the company name

Is it possible to formulate a quality product without being licensed, yes. Just don't intentionally deceive the world that it has been independently validated and issued licenses/approvals that you haven't.
 
#23 ·
Good info, Lynn.

I don't use, nor glean money from, Amsoil. But I do recognize their products as top performers, when used in a properly designed maintenance program that capitalizes on their specific abilities. That they (of some of their competitors) don't seek out API certification means little to me, or their users. Amsoil is in no way falsely advertising; they state up front that that don't seek API approval. They do claim that their fluids are every bit as good, if not better; in some cases, they have gone to great lengths to prove as such. And, they offer a very well written, and backed, lubricant warranty.

Accredidation from a licensing entity is always a good place to start, but it's not THE only path to your destination. If you are willing to take some risk, occasionally the reward can be worth it. With Amsoil and Schaeffers, they choose a different path, and some choose to follow. That's all.
 
#26 ·
I don't see eye-to-eye with Oilguy2 very often, and don't on this topic. I understand two things of Amsoil; 1) nearly all of their products are not API certified and 2) despite the lack of credentials, their products perform well. Their worth is debateable depending upon your definition of "value", but they consistently show decent UOA results, indicating that their products perform as designed.

But, I'll defend him by saying he likely has "a dog in the hunt" for the same reason that I do; we're both interested in lubricant related topics, and look for good information exchange.

Occasionaly, we've both been wrong, and right; no one is perfect. I learn from him when he's right, and I learn from him when he's mistaken. Either way, I encourage all people to participate, just as I like to be included.
 
#27 · (Edited)
dnewton3,

I agree that everyone is allowed their opinion but he has stated it numerous times in this thread. My question to OG2 still stands, why is he so against Amsoil & Schaeffer Supreme 9000? Does he sell a competing product that is API rated which would represent "his dog in this hunt"?

dnewton3, I also want to thank you for your honest opinion and knowledge you share here and at BITOG. I myself have switched from the Supreme 9000 to Schaeffer's #151 MolyBond 200 15w40 because I don't do UOA's and it's has a higher TBN.

Thanks again...

Rob
 
#28 ·
We all have our favorite oils, and there are several companies who offer quality products that actually have actually been independently validated to meet the specs they claim to meet. I happen to take issue with companies who intentionally mislead consumers about their claims and feel that other consumers may be interested in learning about the games some companies play - otherwise they look at the spec that is referenced on the bottle or pds and think it is true, because it MUST be to be printed, right? There is at least one person on this thread who apparently was never given the whole story about the products he sells. I've got news, there's no penalty for lying unless someone wants to spend lots of money to give you a ton of free advertising to prove you have lied.

I'm not talking about performance via UOA, I'm talking about intentionally misleading people about specs. Many people trust their UOA more than meeting specs - and they can continue doing that if that makes them comfortable. There's a reason why there are minimum performance specs in the first place - instead of just relying on a $30 UOA and looking at ppm of Fe among other UOA results.
 
#29 · (Edited)
flame me all you want, but come on guys. Oil is oil is oil.... :rolleyes:

I have taken apart duramax's that have run nothing but regular old "plebian" rotella 15/40, one of them with 300k miles on it, and the bearings/journals all looked brand new. So thats just what I run in my truck, rotella 15/40. Its cheap, you can find it anywhere, and it works.

I cant bring myself to spend 100 dollars on a stupid oil change with some Gucci-branded specialty oil when Ive personally seen that regular old every-man oil works just fine. just my opinion. But if it makes you feel like you are doubling your engines life and dressing up the outside of your truck with AMSOIL or SCHAEFFERS stickers, then go for it. :D

JUST MY OPINION

ben
 
#31 · (Edited)
Independent Testing

First off, let me announce I am an AMSOIL Direct Jobber. I started using the products in 1980, and became a dealer in 1981. So this isn't my first rodeo.

OG2 brings up a valid point in his statement "We all have our favorite oils, and there are several companies who offer quality products that actually have actually been independently validated to meet the specs they claim to meet. I happen to take issue with companies who intentionally mislead consumers about their claims and feel that other consumers may be interested in learning about the games some companies play - otherwise they look at the spec that is referenced on the bottle or pds and think it is true, because it MUST be to be printed, right?"

I'm not sure if OG2 feels AMSOIL is intentionally misleading customers about their claims, but let me offer a few thoughts of my own.

OG2 said "there are several companies who offer quality products that actually have actually been independently validated to meet the specs they claim to meet." AMSOIL does use independently validated companies to test their products and the labs are validated through ASTM International, originally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), an organization that spells out specific tools and methods for testing a myriad of products and services. http://www.astm.org/

Mr. Amatuzio, President and Founder of AMSOIL stated right from the beginning that his vision for AMSOIL would be as an industry leader, not a "me too" company. Every label of AMSOIL products display the ASTM procedure used to test that particular product. Competing companies have to use the same process and that ensures the consumer that he/she is getting what they are paying for. But AMSOIL takes that testing process further by seeing how their products compare against competing products and publish the results. My personal sense is if AMSOIL was manipulating the results at least one of those competing companies would have brought a lawsuit by now.

For the Organizational Membership Directory of labs that use ASTM methods to test products please click on the following link.

http://www.astm.org/MEMBERSHIP/memborg/index.html

In his March 2007 President's Column, The Secret Weapon of Great Companies James A. Thomas, President, ASTM, explains how great companies use standards to take their products above the average companies.

Here is a quote from the article. "Good companies can take advantage of the standards work that great companies do for them. But they won’t get there first; they won’t explore the boundaries of their fields, or see the technical trends coming. They won’t put their company’s imprint on what will become the statement that describes the product and its performance. What a loss. For some companies, being good is enough. For others, it’s just the beginning." Click here for the entire article http://www.astm.org/PRESIDENT/03_07_secret_weapon_of_great_companies.html

Because Mr. Amatuzio's quest is to be a great company, AMSOIL uses those standards to make sure they are at or very near the top in each category. By publishing the test results in their literature and on product labels AMSOIL consumers can decide for themselves if they are getting a good product or a great product. I for one am very appreciative of that fact and have enjoyed great sales and friendships over these 28 years.

I don't have a clue which labs AMSOIL uses. What I do know is that I, nor any of my 400 regular customers have ever had a failure as a result of an AMSOIL product. Bar none! So whatever they're doing seems to work just fine.

I sincerely hope this helps, but I have a nagging feeling it still won't be enough. This is the best I have. Sorry if it's not good enough for you. It is for me and my customers.

Lynn
 
#33 · (Edited)
X 2 Rob!!! it is so cheap why not use it. Not much more than most Dino oils and one of the best synthetics out there!!! I usually go 5-7k on oil changes so a synthetic isn't really nessesary, but sometimes if it's really cold out or I just don't have time to change it, I don't have to worry because I know the synthetic is probably good for a much longer duration. It is a PITA to change in the winter when it is really cold out...plus it is piece of mind esp. for the turbo when towing. I always try to let her cool off before shutting her down but I have forgot a few times...I Know turbos do not coke like they used to, but again, piece of mind for not much cost.
 
#36 ·
I will stick to full synthetic myself...
 
#37 ·
If your referring to Schaeffers 9000 or 204S-AT it is full synthetic and uses PAO base oils.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top