On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:19:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>last basic quality control tests. If metal filings from a refinery
>problem get out due to poor QA, then your in trouble synthetic or not.

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.
--
Bob

 

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:23:35 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst. Almost
>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>
>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.


Mike, I'm going to have to call you out on that one.

Since you seem to be calling me a liar, I'm asking you to show your data.
Not only what, but more importantly WHEN the testing was done. Pre historic
data doesn't count!

Oil is blended in modern plants, with state-of-the art equipment, all
computer controlled. There are many controls and check points, and
everything is recorded in logs. It's been that way for 20 years. It's a very
"settled" technology. If the button pusher or computer should glitch while
one brand is being bottled, that brand could possibly have some defective
bottles. One brand is just as likely to be defective as the others. The
color of the bottle has no bearing on anything.

Even if there is a breakdown of some kind, I bet buzzers and lights go off
all over the place, and the suspect bottles are rounded up and dumped into
the waste oil bin for re-processing. (or more likely, just dumped into
Mobil-1 bottles). <ROFL!>
--
Bob

 

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:23:35 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst. Almost
>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>
>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.


Mike, I'm going to have to call you out on that one.

Since you seem to be calling me a liar, I'm asking you to show your data.
Not only what, but more importantly WHEN the testing was done. Pre historic
data doesn't count!

Oil is blended in modern plants, with state-of-the art equipment, all
computer controlled. There are many controls and check points, and
everything is recorded in logs. It's been that way for 20 years. It's a very
"settled" technology. If the button pusher or computer should glitch while
one brand is being bottled, that brand could possibly have some defective
bottles. One brand is just as likely to be defective as the others. The
color of the bottle has no bearing on anything.

Even if there is a breakdown of some kind, I bet buzzers and lights go off
all over the place, and the suspect bottles are rounded up and dumped into
the waste oil bin for re-processing. (or more likely, just dumped into
Mobil-1 bottles). <ROFL!>
--
Bob

 

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:23:35 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst. Almost
>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>
>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.


Mike, I'm going to have to call you out on that one.

Since you seem to be calling me a liar, I'm asking you to show your data.
Not only what, but more importantly WHEN the testing was done. Pre historic
data doesn't count!

Oil is blended in modern plants, with state-of-the art equipment, all
computer controlled. There are many controls and check points, and
everything is recorded in logs. It's been that way for 20 years. It's a very
"settled" technology. If the button pusher or computer should glitch while
one brand is being bottled, that brand could possibly have some defective
bottles. One brand is just as likely to be defective as the others. The
color of the bottle has no bearing on anything.

Even if there is a breakdown of some kind, I bet buzzers and lights go off
all over the place, and the suspect bottles are rounded up and dumped into
the waste oil bin for re-processing. (or more likely, just dumped into
Mobil-1 bottles). <ROFL!>
--
Bob

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:53:53 GMT, Brian Nystrom
>> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And that happened how long ago? IIRC, that was something like 25
>>> years ago and the problem was corrected. Have you heard of even ONE
>>> quality issue with modern oils?
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent point!
>>
>> Once upon a time when we all had dark hair, there was a wide
>> difference in
>> oil quality. Some was pretty good, some was bilge sludge.
>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst.
>> Almost
>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>
>
> 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.

> Some oils have far better additive packages than others, and the
> correlation wasn't perfect with price and brand name, but it was
> significantly correlated.

Define "far better". What does that nebulous term mean in the real
world? How much of a difference in lubrication are we talking about
during a typical oil change interval? Is there even ANY AT ALL?

It's convenient to throw around meaningless terms with nothing to back
them up or provide any context. The bottom line is that you simply don't
know, but you're not going to let that prevent you from making unfounded
claims. You read one article that's what, six years old, and that's
aparently become gospel for you. When you look at it that way, it seems
pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

>> This is the result of STANDARDS. SAE used to rule the roost, and their
>> standards metrics were primitive.
>
> Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a maximum
> to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure equality at
> all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its pilots (and a
> maximum as well). Do you you really think this standard means that all
> pilots in the Air Force are the same height?

Again, a pointless attempt to confuse the issue with a specious argument.

If the SAE minimum standards exceed the requirements of engine
manufacturers - WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO - how can that possibly be a
problem? It can't be, except apparently in YOUR mind.

BTW, I'm a Quality Assurance Engineer, so you're really barking up the
wrong tree when you try to make such ridiculous claims.

The SAE has continuously raised its standards, which has resulted in
continuous improvements in oil quality. Does that mean all oils are the
same? Of course not, but the more you raise the standard, the smaller
the differences become, since the upper limit isn't changing much, if at
all. When you get right down to it, there hasn't been a truly
significant development in motor oils since the introduction of
synthetics. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a
poor-quality, API certified oil.

Speaking of synthetics, if natural oils are sufficient to meet the needs
of the engine(s) - WHICH THEY ARE ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI - synthetics,
which are demonstrably superior, are already a classic case of
"exceeding the need". What possible REAL-WORLD difference could it make
if one synthetic is fractionally "better" than another?

The truth is that unless you're trying to push an oil to the limits of
its life by abusing your engine (racing) or extending your change
intervals to 10K, 15K or more miles, it doesn't make any difference what
oil you use. As long as you use an API SL/SM certified oil and change it
at Hyundai's suggested intervals, there is not likely to be any
difference in normal driving. If you don't want to believe that, it's
your perogative, but your personal paranoia doesn't change anything.
Perhaps you just find all the brand-name hype and bluster comforting,
but the truth is that it's just noise, as are your arguments.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:53:53 GMT, Brian Nystrom
>> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And that happened how long ago? IIRC, that was something like 25
>>> years ago and the problem was corrected. Have you heard of even ONE
>>> quality issue with modern oils?
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent point!
>>
>> Once upon a time when we all had dark hair, there was a wide
>> difference in
>> oil quality. Some was pretty good, some was bilge sludge.
>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst.
>> Almost
>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>
>
> 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.

> Some oils have far better additive packages than others, and the
> correlation wasn't perfect with price and brand name, but it was
> significantly correlated.

Define "far better". What does that nebulous term mean in the real
world? How much of a difference in lubrication are we talking about
during a typical oil change interval? Is there even ANY AT ALL?

It's convenient to throw around meaningless terms with nothing to back
them up or provide any context. The bottom line is that you simply don't
know, but you're not going to let that prevent you from making unfounded
claims. You read one article that's what, six years old, and that's
aparently become gospel for you. When you look at it that way, it seems
pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

>> This is the result of STANDARDS. SAE used to rule the roost, and their
>> standards metrics were primitive.
>
> Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a maximum
> to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure equality at
> all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its pilots (and a
> maximum as well). Do you you really think this standard means that all
> pilots in the Air Force are the same height?

Again, a pointless attempt to confuse the issue with a specious argument.

If the SAE minimum standards exceed the requirements of engine
manufacturers - WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO - how can that possibly be a
problem? It can't be, except apparently in YOUR mind.

BTW, I'm a Quality Assurance Engineer, so you're really barking up the
wrong tree when you try to make such ridiculous claims.

The SAE has continuously raised its standards, which has resulted in
continuous improvements in oil quality. Does that mean all oils are the
same? Of course not, but the more you raise the standard, the smaller
the differences become, since the upper limit isn't changing much, if at
all. When you get right down to it, there hasn't been a truly
significant development in motor oils since the introduction of
synthetics. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a
poor-quality, API certified oil.

Speaking of synthetics, if natural oils are sufficient to meet the needs
of the engine(s) - WHICH THEY ARE ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI - synthetics,
which are demonstrably superior, are already a classic case of
"exceeding the need". What possible REAL-WORLD difference could it make
if one synthetic is fractionally "better" than another?

The truth is that unless you're trying to push an oil to the limits of
its life by abusing your engine (racing) or extending your change
intervals to 10K, 15K or more miles, it doesn't make any difference what
oil you use. As long as you use an API SL/SM certified oil and change it
at Hyundai's suggested intervals, there is not likely to be any
difference in normal driving. If you don't want to believe that, it's
your perogative, but your personal paranoia doesn't change anything.
Perhaps you just find all the brand-name hype and bluster comforting,
but the truth is that it's just noise, as are your arguments.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:53:53 GMT, Brian Nystrom
>> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And that happened how long ago? IIRC, that was something like 25
>>> years ago and the problem was corrected. Have you heard of even ONE
>>> quality issue with modern oils?
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent point!
>>
>> Once upon a time when we all had dark hair, there was a wide
>> difference in
>> oil quality. Some was pretty good, some was bilge sludge.
>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst.
>> Almost
>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>
>
> 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.

> Some oils have far better additive packages than others, and the
> correlation wasn't perfect with price and brand name, but it was
> significantly correlated.

Define "far better". What does that nebulous term mean in the real
world? How much of a difference in lubrication are we talking about
during a typical oil change interval? Is there even ANY AT ALL?

It's convenient to throw around meaningless terms with nothing to back
them up or provide any context. The bottom line is that you simply don't
know, but you're not going to let that prevent you from making unfounded
claims. You read one article that's what, six years old, and that's
aparently become gospel for you. When you look at it that way, it seems
pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

>> This is the result of STANDARDS. SAE used to rule the roost, and their
>> standards metrics were primitive.
>
> Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a maximum
> to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure equality at
> all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its pilots (and a
> maximum as well). Do you you really think this standard means that all
> pilots in the Air Force are the same height?

Again, a pointless attempt to confuse the issue with a specious argument.

If the SAE minimum standards exceed the requirements of engine
manufacturers - WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO - how can that possibly be a
problem? It can't be, except apparently in YOUR mind.

BTW, I'm a Quality Assurance Engineer, so you're really barking up the
wrong tree when you try to make such ridiculous claims.

The SAE has continuously raised its standards, which has resulted in
continuous improvements in oil quality. Does that mean all oils are the
same? Of course not, but the more you raise the standard, the smaller
the differences become, since the upper limit isn't changing much, if at
all. When you get right down to it, there hasn't been a truly
significant development in motor oils since the introduction of
synthetics. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a
poor-quality, API certified oil.

Speaking of synthetics, if natural oils are sufficient to meet the needs
of the engine(s) - WHICH THEY ARE ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI - synthetics,
which are demonstrably superior, are already a classic case of
"exceeding the need". What possible REAL-WORLD difference could it make
if one synthetic is fractionally "better" than another?

The truth is that unless you're trying to push an oil to the limits of
its life by abusing your engine (racing) or extending your change
intervals to 10K, 15K or more miles, it doesn't make any difference what
oil you use. As long as you use an API SL/SM certified oil and change it
at Hyundai's suggested intervals, there is not likely to be any
difference in normal driving. If you don't want to believe that, it's
your perogative, but your personal paranoia doesn't change anything.
Perhaps you just find all the brand-name hype and bluster comforting,
but the truth is that it's just noise, as are your arguments.

 

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:20:33 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> I thought SuperTech filters were made by Champion Labs. Maybe I'm behind the
>> times, as usual.
>
>It likely changes year to year as Wal-Mart shops for the best price.

You neglected to say "best product". Wal-Mart is always looking for the best
products at the best prices. I would be disappointed if they didn't shop
around for something better and cheaper.
--
Bob

 

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:20:33 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> I thought SuperTech filters were made by Champion Labs. Maybe I'm behind the
>> times, as usual.
>
>It likely changes year to year as Wal-Mart shops for the best price.

You neglected to say "best product". Wal-Mart is always looking for the best
products at the best prices. I would be disappointed if they didn't shop
around for something better and cheaper.
--
Bob

 

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:20:33 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> I thought SuperTech filters were made by Champion Labs. Maybe I'm behind the
>> times, as usual.
>
>It likely changes year to year as Wal-Mart shops for the best price.

You neglected to say "best product". Wal-Mart is always looking for the best
products at the best prices. I would be disappointed if they didn't shop
around for something better and cheaper.
--
Bob

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Once again, you're conconcting hypothetical, non-existent problems in an
> effort to scare people into siding with you. What's with this nonsense?
> What drives you to simply make things up?

Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
What do you have against quality products and brand names?

What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?


>> I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I
>> am the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic
>> suppliers. And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic
>> products, especially those without some independent oversight such as
>> FDA, etc.
>
>
> So I guess the INDUSTRY STANDARD API certification isn't enough for you?
> What the heck do you want?

A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?


> We're talking about oil that comes from a source that produces oils for
> name brand companies that you seem to think are just fine. It's the same
> product with different labels. You can make up all kinds of
> preposterous, hypothetical problems, but you can't change the facts. If
> you want to be paranoid and spending more money makes you feel more
> secure, do whatever you want. But this fear-mongering of yours is
> nothing but an attempt to project your insecurties on others; it has
> nothing to do with the quality of the products we're discussing. Either
> that, or you're just so desperate for your viewpoint to prevail in this
> discussion that you'll say anything.

Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
with only different labels.


> If you want to do some actual research into the products, this API site
> is a good place to start:
>
> http://eolcs.api.org/%5Cindex.html
>
> You can look up anything you want to know about oils, certification
> standards, licencees and more.

Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
those levels.

Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
the standard so they must all be equal, right?


> If you enter "super tech" in the "Brand Name Contains" box and do a
> search, you'll see that most Super Tech oils are certified API SM, the
> highest current rating, and all other Super Tech motor oils are
> certified API SL (for 2004 and older cars). Here's a guide to what the
> API certifications mean:
>
> http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/AP...Guide_2004.pdf
>
> If you look at their recommendations, you'll notice that they're
> strikingly similar to what Hyundai recommends for their engines.
>
> Like I said, do whatever you want, but lets cut through all the crap, OK?

Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
that all products tested against the standard are equal.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Once again, you're conconcting hypothetical, non-existent problems in an
> effort to scare people into siding with you. What's with this nonsense?
> What drives you to simply make things up?

Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
What do you have against quality products and brand names?

What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?


>> I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I
>> am the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic
>> suppliers. And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic
>> products, especially those without some independent oversight such as
>> FDA, etc.
>
>
> So I guess the INDUSTRY STANDARD API certification isn't enough for you?
> What the heck do you want?

A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?


> We're talking about oil that comes from a source that produces oils for
> name brand companies that you seem to think are just fine. It's the same
> product with different labels. You can make up all kinds of
> preposterous, hypothetical problems, but you can't change the facts. If
> you want to be paranoid and spending more money makes you feel more
> secure, do whatever you want. But this fear-mongering of yours is
> nothing but an attempt to project your insecurties on others; it has
> nothing to do with the quality of the products we're discussing. Either
> that, or you're just so desperate for your viewpoint to prevail in this
> discussion that you'll say anything.

Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
with only different labels.


> If you want to do some actual research into the products, this API site
> is a good place to start:
>
> http://eolcs.api.org/%5Cindex.html
>
> You can look up anything you want to know about oils, certification
> standards, licencees and more.

Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
those levels.

Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
the standard so they must all be equal, right?


> If you enter "super tech" in the "Brand Name Contains" box and do a
> search, you'll see that most Super Tech oils are certified API SM, the
> highest current rating, and all other Super Tech motor oils are
> certified API SL (for 2004 and older cars). Here's a guide to what the
> API certifications mean:
>
> http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/AP...Guide_2004.pdf
>
> If you look at their recommendations, you'll notice that they're
> strikingly similar to what Hyundai recommends for their engines.
>
> Like I said, do whatever you want, but lets cut through all the crap, OK?

Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
that all products tested against the standard are equal.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Once again, you're conconcting hypothetical, non-existent problems in an
> effort to scare people into siding with you. What's with this nonsense?
> What drives you to simply make things up?

Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
What do you have against quality products and brand names?

What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?


>> I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I
>> am the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic
>> suppliers. And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic
>> products, especially those without some independent oversight such as
>> FDA, etc.
>
>
> So I guess the INDUSTRY STANDARD API certification isn't enough for you?
> What the heck do you want?

A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?


> We're talking about oil that comes from a source that produces oils for
> name brand companies that you seem to think are just fine. It's the same
> product with different labels. You can make up all kinds of
> preposterous, hypothetical problems, but you can't change the facts. If
> you want to be paranoid and spending more money makes you feel more
> secure, do whatever you want. But this fear-mongering of yours is
> nothing but an attempt to project your insecurties on others; it has
> nothing to do with the quality of the products we're discussing. Either
> that, or you're just so desperate for your viewpoint to prevail in this
> discussion that you'll say anything.

Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
with only different labels.


> If you want to do some actual research into the products, this API site
> is a good place to start:
>
> http://eolcs.api.org/%5Cindex.html
>
> You can look up anything you want to know about oils, certification
> standards, licencees and more.

Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
those levels.

Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
the standard so they must all be equal, right?


> If you enter "super tech" in the "Brand Name Contains" box and do a
> search, you'll see that most Super Tech oils are certified API SM, the
> highest current rating, and all other Super Tech motor oils are
> certified API SL (for 2004 and older cars). Here's a guide to what the
> API certifications mean:
>
> http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/AP...Guide_2004.pdf
>
> If you look at their recommendations, you'll notice that they're
> strikingly similar to what Hyundai recommends for their engines.
>
> Like I said, do whatever you want, but lets cut through all the crap, OK?

Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
that all products tested against the standard are equal.

Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:QJDWf.7562$lb.676859@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>
>>Yes, I would agree that cheap synthetic is better than even high quality
>>dino oil, but again that assumes that the cheap synthetic is passing at
>>last basic quality control tests. If metal filings from a refinery
>>problem get out due to poor QA, then your in trouble synthetic or not.
>>
>>I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I am
>>the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic suppliers.
>>And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic products,
>>especially those without some independent oversight such as FDA, etc.
>>
>
>
> Matt - you've been making some pretty big assumptions about QA throughout
> this thread. Where is the breakdown in QA in your mind? It's refined in
> the same plants. The distinction comes more at the packaging end of things.
> Sure - there is potential for problems at every step but those problems
> exist for everyone. Do you really believe that Mobil or any other supplier
> has a QA process that is so unique and so different from what Wal Mart or
> any other private label similar to Wal Mart has? I really doubt it.

Yes, I do believe that. I've worked for 23 years in a Fortune 500
corporation and I know a lot of things I can't say in public that would
very much surprise you about a lot of products you use every day.

> There just isn't that much room in the supply chain as it exists, for huge
> disparities in QA like you're suggesting.

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?


> Besides - you've not documented any reason to believe that there even is a QA difference, so why do you keep
> mentioning the QA point?

And you've not documented that there isn't a difference.


> At some point, this kind of thing becomes what we call FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Most times, > Totally unfounded and only intended to smear a competitor or a
product when no valid evidence exists.

The key word is most times, and it isn't even most, more like some.


Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:QJDWf.7562$lb.676859@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>
>>Yes, I would agree that cheap synthetic is better than even high quality
>>dino oil, but again that assumes that the cheap synthetic is passing at
>>last basic quality control tests. If metal filings from a refinery
>>problem get out due to poor QA, then your in trouble synthetic or not.
>>
>>I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I am
>>the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic suppliers.
>>And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic products,
>>especially those without some independent oversight such as FDA, etc.
>>
>
>
> Matt - you've been making some pretty big assumptions about QA throughout
> this thread. Where is the breakdown in QA in your mind? It's refined in
> the same plants. The distinction comes more at the packaging end of things.
> Sure - there is potential for problems at every step but those problems
> exist for everyone. Do you really believe that Mobil or any other supplier
> has a QA process that is so unique and so different from what Wal Mart or
> any other private label similar to Wal Mart has? I really doubt it.

Yes, I do believe that. I've worked for 23 years in a Fortune 500
corporation and I know a lot of things I can't say in public that would
very much surprise you about a lot of products you use every day.

> There just isn't that much room in the supply chain as it exists, for huge
> disparities in QA like you're suggesting.

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?


> Besides - you've not documented any reason to believe that there even is a QA difference, so why do you keep
> mentioning the QA point?

And you've not documented that there isn't a difference.


> At some point, this kind of thing becomes what we call FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Most times, > Totally unfounded and only intended to smear a competitor or a
product when no valid evidence exists.

The key word is most times, and it isn't even most, more like some.


Matt