synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
> price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
> products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
> Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>
That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
really clean.
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>>>up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>>>publishing it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>
>>>"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
>>>the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
>>>purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>author's observations;...."
>>
>>If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
>>of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
>>passage."
>
>
>
> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>
> at the government source
>
> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work."
>
> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.
I'm done with you.
Matt
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>>>up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>>>publishing it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>
>>>"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
>>>the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
>>>purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>author's observations;...."
>>
>>If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
>>of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
>>passage."
>
>
>
> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>
> at the government source
>
> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work."
>
> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.
I'm done with you.
Matt
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>>>up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>>>publishing it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>
>>>"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
>>>the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
>>>purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>author's observations;...."
>>
>>If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
>>of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
>>passage."
>
>
>
> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>
> at the government source
>
> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work."
>
> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.
I'm done with you.
Matt
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>>>up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>>>publishing it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>
>>>"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
>>>the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
>>>purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>author's observations;...."
>>
>>If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
>>of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
>>passage."
>
>
>
> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>
> at the government source
>
> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work."
>
> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.
I'm done with you.
Matt
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>>>up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>>>publishing it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>
>>>"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
>>>the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
>>>purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>author's observations;...."
>>
>>If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
>>of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
>>passage."
>
>
>
> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>
> at the government source
>
> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work."
>
> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.
I'm done with you.
Matt
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>gerry wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>>>up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>>>publishing it here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You just "made up" copyright law.
>>>
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>>>
>>>"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
>>>the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
>>>regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
>>>purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
>>>scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
>>>author's observations;...."
>>
>>If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
>>of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
>>passage."
>
>
>
> Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.
>
> at the government source
>
> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work."
>
> You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.
I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.
I'm done with you.
Matt
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Bob wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
>>price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
>>products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
>>Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>>
>
> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
> That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
> Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
> nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
> really clean.
Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
Matt
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
>>price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
>>products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
>>Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>>
>
> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
> That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
> Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
> nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
> really clean.
Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
Matt
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Bob wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
>>price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
>>products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
>>Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>>
>
> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
> That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
> Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
> nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
> really clean.
Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
Matt
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
>>price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
>>products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
>>Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>>
>
> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
> That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
> Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
> nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
> really clean.
Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
Matt
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Bob wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
>>price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
>>products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
>>Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>>
>
> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
> That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
> Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
> nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
> really clean.
Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
Matt
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
>>price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
>>products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
>>Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>>
>
> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
> That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
> Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
> nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
> really clean.
Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
Matt
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:05:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than
>>> the no-name brands
>>
>>
>>> from China?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!
>
>
> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
> that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
> matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
> can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:05:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than
>>> the no-name brands
>>
>>
>>> from China?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!
>
>
> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
> that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
> matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
> can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:05:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than
>>> the no-name brands
>>
>>
>>> from China?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!
>
>
> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
> that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
> matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
> can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:05:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than
>>> the no-name brands
>>
>>
>>> from China?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!
>
>
> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
> that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
> matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
> can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:05:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than
>>> the no-name brands
>>
>>
>>> from China?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!
>
>
> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
> that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
> matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
> can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:05:22 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than
>>> the no-name brands
>>
>>
>>> from China?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!
>
>
> And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
> that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
> standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
> matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
> can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
#191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
>>> cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
>>> that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
>>> believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name
>>> brands from China?
>>>
>>
>> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in
>> china. That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
>
>
> The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
> What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
>
>
>> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge
>> Caravan, Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks,
>> no sludge, no nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these
>> vehicles, it looks really clean.
>
> Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
> else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!
BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
>>> cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
>>> that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
>>> believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name
>>> brands from China?
>>>
>>
>> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in
>> china. That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
>
>
> The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
> What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
>
>
>> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge
>> Caravan, Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks,
>> no sludge, no nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these
>> vehicles, it looks really clean.
>
> Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
> else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!
BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)
#192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
>>> cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
>>> that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
>>> believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name
>>> brands from China?
>>>
>>
>> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in
>> china. That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
>
>
> The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
> What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
>
>
>> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge
>> Caravan, Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks,
>> no sludge, no nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these
>> vehicles, it looks really clean.
>
> Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
> else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!
BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
>>> cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
>>> that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
>>> believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name
>>> brands from China?
>>>
>>
>> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in
>> china. That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
>
>
> The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
> What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
>
>
>> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge
>> Caravan, Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks,
>> no sludge, no nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these
>> vehicles, it looks really clean.
>
> Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
> else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!
BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
>>> cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
>>> that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
>>> believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name
>>> brands from China?
>>>
>>
>> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in
>> china. That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
>
>
> The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
> What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
>
>
>> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge
>> Caravan, Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks,
>> no sludge, no nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these
>> vehicles, it looks really clean.
>
> Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
> else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!
BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)
> Bob wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
>>> cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
>>> that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
>>> believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name
>>> brands from China?
>>>
>>
>> That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in
>> china. That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
>
>
> The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
> What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?
>
>
>> I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge
>> Caravan, Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks,
>> no sludge, no nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these
>> vehicles, it looks really clean.
>
> Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
> else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.
What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!
BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>>>
>>>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
>>> against such refinery or bottling accidents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years,
>> yes,
>> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
>> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to
>> prevent
>> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe
>> bottlers are
>> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
>> occurrences.
>
>
> Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
> one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
> products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
> and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
> quality orientation.
>
> Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
> "name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
> manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
> Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
> to do QC! No offense. :-)
>
> It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
> to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
> some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
> mechanism.
This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about
the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC
procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure
speculation.
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>>>
>>>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
>>> against such refinery or bottling accidents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years,
>> yes,
>> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
>> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to
>> prevent
>> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe
>> bottlers are
>> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
>> occurrences.
>
>
> Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
> one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
> products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
> and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
> quality orientation.
>
> Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
> "name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
> manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
> Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
> to do QC! No offense. :-)
>
> It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
> to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
> some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
> mechanism.
This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about
the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC
procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure
speculation.
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>>>
>>>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
>>> against such refinery or bottling accidents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years,
>> yes,
>> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
>> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to
>> prevent
>> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe
>> bottlers are
>> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
>> occurrences.
>
>
> Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
> one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
> products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
> and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
> quality orientation.
>
> Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
> "name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
> manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
> Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
> to do QC! No offense. :-)
>
> It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
> to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
> some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
> mechanism.
This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about
the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC
procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure
speculation.
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>>>
>>>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
>>> against such refinery or bottling accidents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years,
>> yes,
>> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
>> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to
>> prevent
>> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe
>> bottlers are
>> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
>> occurrences.
>
>
> Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
> one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
> products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
> and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
> quality orientation.
>
> Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
> "name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
> manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
> Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
> to do QC! No offense. :-)
>
> It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
> to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
> some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
> mechanism.
This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about
the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC
procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure
speculation.