synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6

[Matt Whiting]

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Whiting wrote:


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.

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.

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

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

 

[gerry]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

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

 

[gerry]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

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.

You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

gerry

 

[Brian Nystrom]

Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
What do you have against quality products and brand names?

What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?

I never said that; you just made that up, too. You really need to get a
grip.

A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?

As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know exactly what the difference is.
Without a standard, you can't have Quality Control, as there is nothing
to measure quality against. The purpose of QC is to ensure that a
product meets the required standard.

It's convenient for you to call into question the quality of products
that you want to denegrate, but the truth is that you know nothing about
their QC procedures. I sent you test data that shows that Super Tech oil
is a good product, but I guess you don't want to let facts interfere
with your opinions. You make nebulous accusations of inferior quality
with no evidence that it's actually the case. Is that the best you can do?

Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
with only different labels.

Show me one piece of evidence that they're not? I've given you the
information you need for comparison, so get off your butt and check it
out. You rag on me and others here about not producing any data, but all
you've done is cite one lame old article in a motorcycle magazine that
no one else here has seen. Where's the beef, Matt?

Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
those levels.

Here we go again with the ridiculous hyperbole. What exactly is
"radically exceeding"? Exactly how much difference do you think there
can be in oils when the API standards are so high. In a previous
discussion, you acknowledged that the differences are minuscule at best.
Have you suddenly changed your mind?

Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
the standard so they must all be equal, right?

No, I never said anything of the sort. How many more stupid statements
like this do you plan to make up, Matt? You're not helping your case by
continually doing this, as nobody is buying it.

Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
that all products tested against the standard are equal.

That's three times in one post that you've made the same assinine
statement. All you've done is try to put words in my mouth, but I'm not
about to let you get away with doing that. How about some substance, Matt?

 

[Brian Nystrom]

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

True, so what's your point? Do you have EVEN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
Warren Oil doesn't have outstanding QC? In case you can't bring yourself
to let the word past your lips, I'll help you. The answer is "no".

 

[Matt Whiting]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

Brian Nystrom wrote:




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.

You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
passage." As best I recall, the article was very long and took two or
three issues of the magazine to contain it all. I wouldn't type in that
much information even if I had it and it was legal, not to save you a
few bucks because you are too cheap to buy a legitimate copy.

So long and thanks for playing.

Matt

 

[Brian Nystrom]

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

Why don't you scan it and send it to us? I sent you the data I had. I
doubt that MCN is going to get worked up over a six-year-old article
being sent to a handful of people.

Hmmm, I suppose I could take a page out of your book and insinuate that
you MUST have something to hide, since you haven't produced the goods.
You MUST have gone back and re-read the article and figured out that you
were wrong. Yeah, that MUST be it!

See, it's easy to make up crap. How about producing some evidence, Matt?

 

[Bob Adkins]

What do you have against quality products and brand names?

A father used to say to his teenage son: Take good care of her son, and use
nothing but Esso Extra and Uniflow motor oil, and she'll last you 90,000
miles!

Now the single dad says: Dude! Take good care of your whip, m'k? Make sure
to use the right octane gas, and use oil with the right SAE service rating,
m'k? Dude! If you don't get T-boned and shit, that car will last you
300,000 miles!

It boils down to this Matt: We used to rely on our favorite trusted brands
to promise us that the product in the bottle was good. Now, we are more
sophisticated, and can judge for ourselves. The governing and testing bodies
stamp the rating on the bottle, and all we have to do is educate ourselves a
little and read the label.

Truth be told? I rather it the old way. But that's life, dude.

 

[Brian Nystrom]

Mike, I'm going to have to call you out on that one.

Since you seem to be calling me a liar, I'm asking you to show your data.
Not only what, but more importantly WHEN the testing was done. Pre historic
data doesn't count!

Oil is blended in modern plants, with state-of-the art equipment, all
computer controlled. There are many controls and check points, and
everything is recorded in logs. It's been that way for 20 years. It's a very
"settled" technology. If the button pusher or computer should glitch while
one brand is being bottled, that brand could possibly have some defective
bottles. One brand is just as likely to be defective as the others. The
color of the bottle has no bearing on anything.

Even if there is a breakdown of some kind, I bet buzzers and lights go off
all over the place, and the suspect bottles are rounded up and dumped into
the waste oil bin for re-processing. (or more likely, just dumped into
Mobil-1 bottles). <ROFL!>

The article he's referring to is from 2000. It's in a motorcycle
magazine, which alone is enough to cast doubts about how relevent it is
to an automobile discussion.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Do you really believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands
from China?

Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!

 

[Matt Whiting]

Absolutely!!! If they sound the same, they are just as good!

And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff.

Matt

 

[Bob Adkins]

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

Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
occurrences.

 

[Matt Whiting]

Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
occurrences.

Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
quality orientation.

Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
"name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense.

It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
mechanism.

Matt

 

[Brian Nystrom]

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.

Nice try Matt, but that's not going to cut it. Either post the info or
send it to me. I'm not going to spend my money on an outdated article in
a motorcyle magazine just to refute your ridiculous claims. If you're so
invested in one friggin' magazine article, it's incumbent on YOU to
produce it.

I also find it pretty amazing that you can't even recall when the
article was or whether you have it, but you know for sure that it showed
huge differences between oils. Funny stuff, Matt.

Buy the article. Read it.

You send it to me and I'll read it.

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

Who said that? There you go making things up again, Matt. You seem to
have a REAL problem with that.

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.

Why don't you buy a copy of the article that you keep eluding to and
share it with us?

Is there something more current? Perhaps, but I have no idea and never
claimed to. Whether there is or not is irrelevent to whether your claims
have any validity. All you've done is make unfounded statements and
insinutations. That's not evidence or data, Matt.

It certainly isn't obvious that you are.

It would be if you had the slightest clue as to what it means or what
quality is.

I'm guessing that you work for
either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
have made that connection earlier.

So now you're concocting conspiracy theories? Do you ever live in the
real world?

For the record, I have nothing to do with the petroleum industry or the
retail industry or any company that has anything to do with this
discussion.

Wait a minute, I get it. YOU work for Mobile, don't you??? That MUST BE
IT!!!

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it, Matt? Just like your comment above.

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?

Yet another specious argument. Imagine that?

There are limits to current technology. That doesn't mean that there
won't be a breakthrough in the future comparable to the introduction of
synthetic oils, but it's not available today. Modern oils are mature
products; they've been researched and developed thoroughly. The
differences between them are tiny, as there's simply no place to go
within the limits of current technology. Any changes in the past decade
or two have been at best incremental and at worst, nothing but marketing
hype.

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

Well, I'm not the one continually shooting myself in the foot by making
things up. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

[gerry]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

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.

You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
passage."

Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.

at the government source

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work."

You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.

gerry

 

[Don Allen]

Hmm . . . I believe the original queston was regarding synthetic oil
for the Sonata V6, not some debating match on the technicalities of
"everything pertaining to oil QC and pricing." Just purchase a case of
Mobil 1 5W-30, and be done with it. I just paid $4.49 per quart this
evening, either single quarts or case quantities. I think all of us
have far too much time on our hands!