Mobil 1 vs Amsoil Case Study

[RWEST]

Most synthetic oils have better lubricating characteristics than most dino oils, e.g., better flow at very low temps, longer change intervals. These better characteristics are facts, not opinions. That's not the issue. The issue is do these advantages apply in your specific situation. If they do, buy synthetic. If they do not, buy the least expensive oil that meets the oil recommendation in your Operator's Manual. If they don't and you just want to spend the money, go for it. Absent such a situation, there's absolutely no evidence equipment performs better with a synthetic.

Sheeze, Mike, you're taking all the fun out of it...

 

[MikePA]

Sheeze, Mike, you're taking all the fun out of it...

 

[Dargo]

That's some really flawed logic there.

That's funny, I've operated and run multimillion dollar pieces of equipment and have been around such equipment most of my life. The undeniable facts prove your single tunnel vision view of the world is somewhat less than realistic and, shall I say, extremely flawed.

You are either someone new here or someone who has been banned from here and are using a different screen name to return. Either way, you can easily look back through old threads and see that I am a big proponent of using synthetic lubrication. However, your extremely limited view of people's needs and how they maintain their equipment make your statements such easy targets. If you want to discuss "flawed", let's look at the facts of how fleets are maintained. Tens of millions of dollars are spent on researching exactly how to best maintain many large commercial fleets. Nothing personal, but I'll place my money on all those studies, real life experiences, and teams of engineers rather than your opinion.

 

[ray66v]

That's funny, I've operated and run multimillion dollar pieces of equipment and have been around such equipment most of my life. The undeniable facts prove your single tunnel vision view of the world is somewhat less than realistic and, shall I say, extremely flawed.

You are either someone new here or someone who has been banned from here and are using a different screen name to return. Either way, you can easily look back through old threads and see that I am a big proponent of using synthetic lubrication. However, your extremely limited view of people's needs and how they maintain their equipment make your statements such easy targets. If you want to discuss "flawed", let's look at the facts of how fleets are maintained. Tens of millions of dollars are spent on researching exactly how to best maintain many large commercial fleets. Nothing personal, but I'll place my money on all those studies, real life experiences, and teams of engineers rather than your opinion.

Why are you so hostile?

You sure made a lot of ASSumptions about me, based on a simple statement. You actually know nothing about me, or how I feel on this subject. Did you know that personal attacks are not allowed on TBN? Saying "nothing personal" after a personal attack, does nothing to mitigate it.

I'm sorry, but that response just begs the question; Do you own and operate the absolute best equipment? If not, I don't see your point. If you can only afford "good enough" equipment and don't have a multimillion dollar fleet of the absolute best equipment available, what does it matter? If you're not going to go with the most expensive and best equipment, why do so with oil?

Your logic is flawed. I will respond in a simple rational manor. Hopefully, you will then see how to do the same.

People buy the best piece of equipment they can for the price they either are willing to pay or can afford. They generally do the same when they buy oil, they either get the best oil they can afford, or they try to get the best oil they can, for the money.

I makes no sense, and is totally illogical, to say you should only buy the best oil, if you have the best equipment. And frankly, we are all trying to figure out why you would even think that way, let alone state it.

BTW, You should really try not jumping to conclusions. I have been on here for 2 years, with the same name. And if YOU do some searching you, will find I am a proponent, and user, of synthetic oil in my tractor, and my aircraft.

 

[Dargo]

Thanks, and I'll stand completely by my previous post.

 

[rtimgray]

Your logic is flawed. I will respond in a simple rational manor. Hopefully, you will then see how to do the same.

People buy the best piece of equipment they can for the price they either are willing to pay or can afford. They generally do the same when they buy oil, they either get the best oil they can afford, or they try to get the best oil they can, for the money.

I makes no sense, and is totally illogical, to say you should only buy the best oil, if you have the best equipment. And frankly, we are all trying to figure out why you would even think that way, let alone state it.

BTW, You should really try not jumping to conclusions. I have been on here for 2 years, with the same name. And if YOU do some searching you, will find I am a proponent, and user, of synthetic oil in my tractor, and my aircraft.[/QUOTE]

I agree with Ray on this as well. Just because a person can only afford a "good enough" piece of equipment doesn't mean that they should treat it with less regard than the "best available" equipment.

A good case in point: If you can only afford a Homelite chainsaw instead of Stihl, does that mean that you should use the worst/cheapest fuel and lubricants for it, leave it outside in the snow or rain, and use it as a doorstop when not cutting wood, just because it is not the "best" saw? Of course not. Even "good enough" equipment responds to better maintenance and operating procedures, just like "best" equipment does.

It makes no difference to me in regards to people's personal choices with dino vs. synthetic. But to claim that just because you don't own the best in class equipment is an excuse to use cheaper or lower quality maintenance materials is just silly. The costs of properly maintaining any piece of equipment (either high or low dollar value) are usuallyl much less than the cost of buying that same piece of equipment. So while I can't afford to buy a Stihl chainsaw, I can maintain my Homelite saw in the same manner as a Stihl and be rewarded with good performance.

Take care.

 

[Dargo]

Rti, rti, rti... I've seen the same flawed, against the scientific facts, logic from you all along. Again, as I previously said, "Tens of millions of dollars are spent on researching exactly how to best maintain many large commercial fleets. Nothing personal, but I'll place my money on all those studies, real life experiences, and teams of engineers rather than your opinion."

Following tried and true scientific studies, tens of millions of dollars worth of studies by our own military as well as thousands of fleets across the country has served me very well. You can call popular and modern science flawed. That is your choice. I simply made it clear which side I'll follow.

 

[rtimgray]

I'm sorry, but that response just begs the question; Do you own and operate the absolute best equipment? If not, I don't see your point. If you can only afford "good enough" equipment and don't have a multimillion dollar fleet of the absolute best equipment available, what does it matter? If you're not going to go with the most expensive and best equipment, why do so with oil?

Dar, Dar, Dar,.....

Do you ever, ever, bother to read what you write?

I'm not arguing about carrying out quality maintenance procedures. What I disagree with you about - your "flawed logic" - is the above statement.

You simply state that if a person or entity cannot afford the best equipment, then it doesn't matter how they maintain it. I know that such a life-schooled and experienced person such as yourself cannot truly believe what you wrote above.

I'll leave you and the fleet maintenance studies, military reviews, teams of engineers, etc. with all of your undisputed facts. I guess I should know better than to ever question you, as you always have all the facts on your side.

But maybe not this time. The simple fact (as you are fond of) is that maintenance matters. Just because the equipment is not the best available or a multi-million dollar fleet does not mean that it will not respond to proper maintenance.

That is my contention with your flawed logic.

 

[MikePA]

You simply state that if a person or entity cannot afford the best equipment, then it doesn't matter how they maintain it. I know that such a life-schooled and experienced person such as yourself cannot truly believe what you wrote above.

Since that's not what Dargo wrote, there's no need to be in a state of disbelief.

'If you're not going to go with the most expensive and best equipment, why do so with oil?'

does not equal

'then it doesn't matter how they maintain it'

 

[rtimgray]

Since that's not what Dargo wrote, there's no need to be in a state of disbelief.

'If you're not going to go with the most expensive and best equipment, why do so with oil?'

does not equal

'then it doesn't matter how they maintain it'

Okay, Mike. Fair enough. However, the implication that I drew from his comment is that if you don't own the most expensive equipment, then why should you buy the best oil. Is that a close enough interpretation?

The reason to buy the best oil would be to provide your equipment with the best maintenance. Dargo is simply saying that if you can't afford the best equipment, it does not need the best maintenance.

That is flawed logic. Capital purchases and maintenance of purchases are two separate things.

Here's a scenario:

I can't afford a Lexus. I can afford a Yugo. The Lexus benefits from the use of synthetic oil.

Will the Yugo benefit from the use of synthetic oil?

Give me your logical answer.

Take care.