Mobil 1 vs Amsoil Case Study

[SPYDERLK]

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.

Please consider this a personal attack.
larry

 

[Dargo]

Please consider this a personal attack.
larry

How do you figure???

He purports that me using scientific based tests and analysis results along with those used by large fleet companies is flawed logic because it doesn't line up with his opinion. I state that my opinion is that I'm far more comfortable using tried and true methods as I've discussed with him in the past. Now you consider my opinion to go with analytical evidence as opposed to his opinion a personal attack?! Hey, I'll go ahead and step out on a limb and state that, based on what you just typed, I think your logic is flawed just as he thinks my relying on scientific and fleet tests is flawed.

I believe each person is entitled to their own opinion. I personally believe that synthetic lubrication provides superior performance but it is not for everyone. I simply questioned someone who implied people are foolish for not always going with the highest rated group IV PAO lubricants in all cases. That person proceeded to state that they feel my logic is flawed. I responded in kind and explained why I feel their opinion is rather close minded and, in my opinion, flawed. Perhaps you could share with me precisely why you consider something a personal attack when another poster questions why someone states that someone else has flawed logic. In one case, a certain poster has frequently disagreed with me when I've opted to believe proven and tested methods as opposed to their own personal logic. Please do share why you think such a disagreement is a personal attack. I'd like to hear your logic on such.

Many guys on this board do not have the funds available to buy $10 a quart oil for their equipment. Others have the funds available but feel it is not worth the extra expense. In my situation I feel it depends. In a high revving high horsepower 572ci big block engine that costs more than an entire Lexus, and I feel it is worth it to spend whatever amount of money is necessary to protect my investment in that engine since it is put through extreme operation. Most of my other equipment is not pushed nearly as hard and is never subjected to extended drain intervals. My opinion, backed by data, is that it would be a waste for me to spend the money for the most expensive lubrication available for those engines. Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but don't try to tell me that my opinion on such is any personal attack.

 

[KennyV]

Pull the VC using dino and have a look.

Exactly what is a VC?

As I recall VC = Viet-Cong were quite troublesome in the 60's...

 

[rtimgray]

Evidently Dargo doesn't read my post any more than he reads his own.

I'm not disputing these mutli-millions dollar fleet and military and engineering studies. I have no reason to doubt that they're corrrect.

Here is the "flawed logic" to which I and others have responded:

If you don't own the best equipment, why should you use the best oil? That's Dargo's claim. In essence, he is saying that if you are not using the best mulitmillion dollar equipment, then you don't need the protection that could be afforded by the best oil. Instead, since you have inferior equipment, you shouldn't waste money using the best oil, because for a reason only known by Dargo and as yet unshared with the rest of us, inferior equipment does not benefit from higher quality lubricants.

??????????????

One more case in point.

My 1966 Case 310 dozer is the best dozer I can afford.

I can buy Joe Sunshine's recycled 30wt oil for $2 a quart.

I can buy Shell Rotella 30wt oil for $5 a quart.

I feel and suspect (my opinion only - no multimillion dollar studies here) that the Rotella will give me better wear performance and decreased maintenance costs over the life of the machine.

But my machine only cost $5,000. It is far from the best in class. So, according to Dargo, and the mulitmilliondollarstudies, I have no benefit in using the better or best oil. Instead, I should, by Dargo's (flawed) logic, use a less than best oil. Does that really make sense.

I don't know if I can make it any clearer to Dargo than that.

Once more - no disputes from me about all the studies and life experience that Dargo has. But the flawed logic does not concern those matters. It is simply the matter that I discussed with Mike. Expensive or inexpensive equpiment BOTH benefit from using the best available lubricants. Granted, expensive equipment is more expensive equipment to replace (that's why it's expensive to start with, I guess).

But even though I only own a cheap dozer, I can't afford to replace it. So I maintain it with the "best" fluids and parts so I don't have to.

Logical?

Take care.

 

[rtimgray]

Wait - here's one more question for Dargo (in case he didn't read it earlier):

All right, one more time.

I can't afford a Lexus. I can afford a Yugo. The Lexus benefits from the use of (insert Dargo's preferred oil brand here).

Will the Yugo benefit from the use of (insert Dargo's preferred oil brand here).

Give me your logical answer.

It seemed like Mike got the "flawed logic" concept when he agreed that both machines (one expensive one cheap) could benefit from the use of the "best" oil.

Take care.

 

[MikePA]

It seemed like Mike got the "flawed logic" concept when he agreed that both machines (one expensive one cheap) could benefit from the use of the "best" oil.

Don't put words in my mouth. Putting syn oil in a Yugo is a waste of money.

 

[rtimgray]

I apologize Mike. I think these are your words:

The Lexus is operated in an environment where the average winter temperature is -10 F.

The Yugo is operated in the same environment.

Both will benefit from the better low pour performance of synthetic oil. But that's not the point. If you toast the engine the Lexus you take a bigger financial bath than the same problem in a Yugo.[/QUOTE

It seemed as though you grasped the point when you said the magic words "Both will benefit...". Evidently not. That's really what this grand debate boils down to.

Similar machines, operating under similar conditions, will benefit from the "best" oil. They will both suffer similar consequences through the use of inferior oil. That's it. Dargo said if you don't have the best equipment, why use the best oil? Somebody else said that's flawed logic. I agreed. I suppose (not trying to put words in your or Dargo's mouth) that you both think that is logical.

Believe it or not, I'm 100% agreed with Dargo on the following: Buy whatever oil you think is best for the situation, whether it actually is or not. I just don't agree that less than the best equipment should only receive less than the best oil.

Cheap machines don't know they're cheap. They are sold without a brain or ego.

It's after we install the nut behind the wheel that they get those.

 

[rtimgray]

Please consider this a personal attack.
larry

I think the real personal attack was a couple of pages back when Dargo accosted Ray about his original comment. That was the point of Dargo accusing Ray of either being new here or banned and back under a different name or something like that before going into the multimilliondollarstudies rant. That seemed personal.

Dargo's post to me was just him talking down to me. But that's normal. We've disagreed before (but at least he didn't have to give me the "Do you know who I am?" speech). I bet we'll disagree again.

But that's the fun of these boards. If Dargo didn't provide material for people to argue about and post replies, I'd have, like, twenty posts and he'd have about 200.

At least it gives us something to talke about.

Take care.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I think the real personal attack was a couple of pages back when Dargo accosted Ray about his original comment. That was the point of Dargo accusing Ray of either being new here or banned and back under a different name or something like that before going into the multimilliondollarstudies rant. That seemed personal.

Dargo's post to me was just him talking down to me. But that's normal. We've disagreed before (but at least he didn't have to give me the "Do you know who I am?" speech). I bet we'll disagree again.

But that's the fun of these boards. If Dargo didn't provide material for people to argue about and post replies, I'd have, like, twenty posts and he'd have about 200.
At least it gives us something to talke about.
Take care.

I meant that as an unspecified personal attack on Dargo for his adamant logical disconnect, that at that point had been well explained by others including you. Itll just require use of imagination to flesh out.
larry

 

[MikePA]

I apologize Mike. I think these are your words:

The Lexus is operated in an environment where the average winter temperature is -10 F.

The Yugo is operated in the same environment.

Both will benefit from the better low pour performance of synthetic oil. But that's not the point. If you toast the engine the Lexus you take a bigger financial bath than the same problem in a Yugo.

It seemed as though you grasped the point when you said the magic words "Both will benefit...". Evidently not. That's really what this grand debate boils down to.

I grasped the point. "Both will benefit" does not mean I think it's a good decision. If I used dino oil in my Yugo it's not as if the engine will explode when the temps hit -10F.

This debate is decidedly not about the benefits of syn oil since there can't be debates about facts. Facts are true or false. The debate is about whether the benefits justify the costs, which is unique to every situation.