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:HNDWf.7563$lb.676974@news1.epix.net...
>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Now that's a significant statement Matt - if it can be substantiated and
> qualified. Can you share what kind of data you saw? What were the
> parameters that differed and made that impression on you? How did those
> parameters compare to standards? In other words - what were the specifics?
> Is the data you saw available for review?

Yes, if you'll pay the $7 or whatever a back issue of MCN costs. I
provided the reference some time ago.

Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:HNDWf.7563$lb.676974@news1.epix.net...
>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Now that's a significant statement Matt - if it can be substantiated and
> qualified. Can you share what kind of data you saw? What were the
> parameters that differed and made that impression on you? How did those
> parameters compare to standards? In other words - what were the specifics?
> Is the data you saw available for review?

Yes, if you'll pay the $7 or whatever a back issue of MCN costs. I
provided the reference some time ago.

Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:HNDWf.7563$lb.676974@news1.epix.net...
>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Now that's a significant statement Matt - if it can be substantiated and
> qualified. Can you share what kind of data you saw? What were the
> parameters that differed and made that impression on you? How did those
> parameters compare to standards? In other words - what were the specifics?
> Is the data you saw available for review?

Yes, if you'll pay the $7 or whatever a back issue of MCN costs. I
provided the reference some time ago.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
against such refinery or bottling accidents.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
against such refinery or bottling accidents.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
against such refinery or bottling accidents.

Matt

 

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.

Since you don't want to really see probably the most comprehensive
COMPARISON data out there (I've certainly never seen anything like it
from any other source), then I guess you should hang it 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?

Buy the article. Read it.


> 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?

Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to be unwilling to obtain the data. It
is much easier to just claim it doesn't exist.

It is the only comparison I've ever found among many different oils. I
don't recall the details, but I believe they had upwards of 20 different
brands tested. If you know of a more recent or more comprehensive
comparison, I'm all ears. I'll even pay to buy it if you give me the
reference.


>> 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.

It certainly isn't obvious that you are. I'm guessing that you work for
either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
have made that connection earlier.


> 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.

How do you know where the upper limit is? Back before the advent of
synthetics, people making dino oils couldn't even imagine the
performance capability of synthetics. Who knows what the next
revolution in lubrication might be? Must be you do, so can you tell us
what the upper limits are?


> 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.

Funny, I was thinking the same things about yours...

Matt

 

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.

Since you don't want to really see probably the most comprehensive
COMPARISON data out there (I've certainly never seen anything like it
from any other source), then I guess you should hang it 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?

Buy the article. Read it.


> 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?

Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to be unwilling to obtain the data. It
is much easier to just claim it doesn't exist.

It is the only comparison I've ever found among many different oils. I
don't recall the details, but I believe they had upwards of 20 different
brands tested. If you know of a more recent or more comprehensive
comparison, I'm all ears. I'll even pay to buy it if you give me the
reference.


>> 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.

It certainly isn't obvious that you are. I'm guessing that you work for
either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
have made that connection earlier.


> 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.

How do you know where the upper limit is? Back before the advent of
synthetics, people making dino oils couldn't even imagine the
performance capability of synthetics. Who knows what the next
revolution in lubrication might be? Must be you do, so can you tell us
what the upper limits are?


> 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.

Funny, I was thinking the same things about yours...

Matt

 

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.

Since you don't want to really see probably the most comprehensive
COMPARISON data out there (I've certainly never seen anything like it
from any other source), then I guess you should hang it 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?

Buy the article. Read it.


> 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?

Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to be unwilling to obtain the data. It
is much easier to just claim it doesn't exist.

It is the only comparison I've ever found among many different oils. I
don't recall the details, but I believe they had upwards of 20 different
brands tested. If you know of a more recent or more comprehensive
comparison, I'm all ears. I'll even pay to buy it if you give me the
reference.


>> 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.

It certainly isn't obvious that you are. I'm guessing that you work for
either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
have made that connection earlier.


> 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.

How do you know where the upper limit is? Back before the advent of
synthetics, people making dino oils couldn't even imagine the
performance capability of synthetics. Who knows what the next
revolution in lubrication might be? Must be you do, so can you tell us
what the upper limits are?


> 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.

Funny, I was thinking the same things about yours...

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> 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.

That is the best laugh I've had all day. What does virtually every
Wal-Mart ad say? What is their slogan? Hint: it doesn't mention
quality or even better, let alone best.


Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> 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.

That is the best laugh I've had all day. What does virtually every
Wal-Mart ad say? What is their slogan? Hint: it doesn't mention
quality or even better, let alone best.


Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> 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.

That is the best laugh I've had all day. What does virtually every
Wal-Mart ad say? What is their slogan? Hint: it doesn't mention
quality or even better, let alone best.


Matt

 

[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.

A quote of a significant data item with credits is "fair use" and violates
no copyright.

In another thread about octane you accused me of "just making things up"
Well, you are doing exactly the same thing many places in this thread.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[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.

A quote of a significant data item with credits is "fair use" and violates
no copyright.

In another thread about octane you accused me of "just making things up"
Well, you are doing exactly the same thing many places in this thread.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots