Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
08-03-2003 | 10:20 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Very well said.
> Philip,
>
> Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
> rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
> do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
> testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
> from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
> Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
> but that doesn't change my original point.
>
> Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
> "XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
> is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
> able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
> exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
> If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
> hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
> such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
> whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
> claims are advertising hype. Period.
>
> There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
> almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
> recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
> cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
> such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
> claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
> to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
> that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
> specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
> completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
> Philip,
>
> Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
> rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
> do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
> testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
> from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
> Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
> but that doesn't change my original point.
>
> Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
> "XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
> is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
> able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
> exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
> If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
> hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
> such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
> whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
> claims are advertising hype. Period.
>
> There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
> almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
> recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
> cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
> such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
> claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
> to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
> that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
> specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
> completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
08-03-2003 | 10:20 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Royal Purple or Mobil1 Synthetic
Very well said.
> Philip,
>
> Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
> rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
> do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
> testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
> from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
> Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
> but that doesn't change my original point.
>
> Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
> "XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
> is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
> able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
> exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
> If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
> hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
> such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
> whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
> claims are advertising hype. Period.
>
> There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
> almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
> recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
> cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
> such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
> claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
> to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
> that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
> specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
> completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
> Philip,
>
> Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I really don't give a
> rat's backside about what any individual testing sequence involves. Nor
> do I care that ACEA is "better" than API, or that you prefer MB's
> testing sequence. I could add a buttload of other testing sequences just
> from the jug of Delo 400 sitting in my garage, maybe some more from a
> Castrol container and perhaps some from some miscellaneous container,
> but that doesn't change my original point.
>
> Regardless of whether the container says it meets API, ACEA, or even
> "XYZ-Zoom-Zoom" specs or any others ever used in the world, all we KNOW
> is the MINIMUM quality of the oil: it's passed the tests necessary to be
> able to use that spec on the container or in advertising. Perhaps it
> exceeds those specs. Some claim they do. But we don't know by HOW MUCH.
> If a test sequence is 100 hours, and the oil still met the spec at 100
> hrs and 10 minutes, it's legitimate to say it "exceeds" the spec but
> such a claim is relatively meaningless in the real world. We can suspect
> whatever we'd like about which one's better, but all the rest of the
> claims are advertising hype. Period.
>
> There are people here who've been reading oil cans far longer than the
> almost half century I've been looking at them, and I'm sure they'll
> recognize some of these claims such as "reduces wear" or "keeps engines
> cleaner" and all that as being virtually timeless. I remember seeing
> such claims in the mid-50's and still do today, but only a fool would
> claim a 1955 oil would be in any way similar to one today in its ability
> to protect an engine. Yet the advertising has hardly changed.
>
> If you wish to continue to argue that one spec's better than another, or
> that one oil's better than another because it has a different set of
> specs listed, knock yourself out. But you've missed my point
> completely--twice--and it's time you carry on without me. Enough said.
>
> Rick
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)