Mobil 1 5W-20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:
>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>for it.
That's the best point yet.
I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
end of it in TV commercials.
Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
--
Bob
wrote:
>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>for it.
That's the best point yet.
I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
end of it in TV commercials.
Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>> Exxon-Mobil,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
> produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
> until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
> not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
> base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
> resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
> effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
> likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
> not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
> chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.
Matt
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>> Exxon-Mobil,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
> produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
> until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
> not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
> base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
> resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
> effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
> likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
> not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
> chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>> Exxon-Mobil,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
> produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
> until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
> not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
> base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
> resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
> effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
> likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
> not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
> chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.
Matt
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>> Exxon-Mobil,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
> produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
> until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
> not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
> base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
> resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
> effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
> likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
> not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
> chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>> Exxon-Mobil,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
> produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
> until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
> not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
> base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
> resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
> effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
> likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
> not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
> chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.
Matt
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>> Exxon-Mobil,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
> produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
> until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
> not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
> base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
> resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
> effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
> likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
> not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
> chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>>for it.
>
>
> That's the best point yet.
>
> I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
> engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
> Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
> statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
> end of it in TV commercials.
I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.
> Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
> encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
> types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
> in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.
Matt
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>>for it.
>
>
> That's the best point yet.
>
> I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
> engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
> Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
> statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
> end of it in TV commercials.
I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.
> Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
> encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
> types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
> in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>>for it.
>
>
> That's the best point yet.
>
> I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
> engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
> Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
> statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
> end of it in TV commercials.
I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.
> Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
> encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
> types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
> in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.
Matt
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>>for it.
>
>
> That's the best point yet.
>
> I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
> engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
> Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
> statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
> end of it in TV commercials.
I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.
> Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
> encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
> types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
> in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>>for it.
>
>
> That's the best point yet.
>
> I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
> engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
> Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
> statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
> end of it in TV commercials.
I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.
> Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
> encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
> types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
> in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.
Matt
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
>>for it.
>
>
> That's the best point yet.
>
> I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
> engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
> Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
> statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
> end of it in TV commercials.
I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.
> Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
> encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
> types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
> in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.
I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
> have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
> time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.
Matt
> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
> have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
> time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
> have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
> time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.
Matt
> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
> have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
> time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
> have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
> time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.
Matt
> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
> have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
> time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
--
Bob
wrote:
>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
--
Bob
wrote:
>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
--
Bob
wrote:
>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is
>whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time.
Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!
No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.
--
Bob
>Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is
>whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time.
Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!
No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.
--
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is
>whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time.
Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!
No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.
--
Bob
>Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is
>whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time.
Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!
No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.
--
Bob