Sully2
Veteran Member
kenmac said:Sisco may be selling the fine dining restaurant 100 % angus beef while, they are selling the bowling alley 100 % soy burger
Oh! Without a doubt the bowling alley is getting "road kill"..
kenmac said:Sisco may be selling the fine dining restaurant 100 % angus beef while, they are selling the bowling alley 100 % soy burger
Farmwithjunk said:Some of this is downright hilarious.
It's all about ON THE JOB PERFORMANCE.
I find the logic that more expensive is always better and cheap is always inferior absolutely ridiculous. By the same token, I can't see using a product just because it's the cheapest available. You DON'T always "get what you pay for". Sometimes you get MORE, sometimes you get LESS.
patrick_g said:****, I wish you were running for office, you'd sure get my vote! What a breath of fresh air.
We live in a caveat emptor world that is too complicated for most of us and so we simplify. We make generalizations like you get what you pay for, quality costs more, and such marketing phrases that are there to pry you loose from more $ than is reasonable. Unfortunately most of us lack at least one of the following: the time or the ability to rightly divine the true situation regarding our purchases or the motivation or inclination. If everything in the world were as simple as turning on or off a light switch life would be easy because you can usually tell if you want the lights on or off but most things are more like dimmer controls and deciding how much light to adjust for is a whole lot more involved than an on-off switch.
Lubricants and related topics exceed religion or politics as a source of controversy with faith based acolytes and situationalists going at it tooth and claw. The scientific and engineering approach is to find test data that has been collected appropriately and to make economic decisions based on facts in evidence not on faith, gossip, or simple platitudes like "you get what you pay for."
It is difficult to be a knowledgeable consumer in all aspects and lubricants are one of the tough areas. We all like the illusion of being in control and in the know so when we get into an area where we really don't know our hole from a donkey (think about it) in the ground we tend to rely on simplifying assumptions (higher cost = higher quality) to get us through with our illusion of control and knowledge intact.
All we know for sure is that it costs more to make a high quality lubricant with excellent additive package than to make a substandard lubricant with minimal additive package. Unfortunately the selling price likely does not give an unambiguous indication of quality as the cheapest low quality product can be sold for a high price, especially to a true believer.
Bean counters at large fleet operations can tell you from experience what is economical. They will pay more for more quality if it helps the bottom line. If I wanted a hint about what oil to run in a 1/2 or 3/4 ton diesel truck I would not hesitate to emulate a large fleet operation as they will not knowingly over pay for the level of quality they get and they need to get good quality to ensure long life of expensive engines. If brand "Y" would improve there bottom line they would be using it.
Note: I do not claim they always buy the best lubricants available. They do try to buy the lubricants that will give them the best bottom line, the best compromise between engine longevity and lubricant cost. I do claim you won't go too far wrong using the same lubricants they use. Further, it is entirely possible that you are paying mostly for advertising and misinformation and not for lubricant quality when you pay for the higher priced product.
Even if a higher priced product is better, is it going to extend your engine life enough to give you a positive return on your investment?
Again, KUDOS to farmingwithjunk for his clear, concise, and informative post.
Pat
DieselPower said:I myself use the term "You get what you pay for." quite often. It is true however that it does not always hold true.