I wouldn't worry about it.
GUYS - - - HELP!
- Thread starter SHAMUS
- Start date
- Status
I'm late to the party but I'll agree that all synthetic oils are the same as long as she is willing to agree that all shoes and hand bags are the same just some are prettier than others.
In all seriousness, when discussing/debating an issue, one is wise to put their emotions aside.
In all seriousness, when discussing/debating an issue, one is wise to put their emotions aside.
Hey at least she didn't call you a left-wing socialist. Anyway, explain the differences between oils like Redline and Mobil 1 and that they are used for different styles of driving and different drain intervals. Or the recommended mileage limit on Amsoil SSO compared to Castrol Edge. Maybe then she will see they are not all the same.
Originally Posted By: eoghan
Why is a synthetic oil better?
Synthetic lubricants are chemically engineered from pure chemicals rather than refined from crude oil. That gives them significant advantages over refined oils. Conventional oils (dinosaur juice) - the oils most people are familiar with - are refined from crude oil. Refining is a process of physically separating light oil components from heavy ones. Synthetic lubricants are pure, their molecular structure is uniform, and they are designed to work in applications in which refined oils cannot. Their ability in reducing friction, heat and wear for maximum power, performance and fuel efficiency, and resistant to high temperature burn-off, chemical breakdown and sludging makes them superior to all petroleum oils at keeping engines cleaner, reducing wear, etc.
When is a synthetic NOT a synthetic?
In 1998 Castrol Syntec created a new refining process called Hydro Cracking. They simply refined their petroleum oil to a very high degree, and called it "Synthetic." Exxon Mobil sued the Castrol Company for false marketing; however the judging board declared "synthetic" as only a marketing term, and not based on the oils components. Now due to the cost of creating true synthetics 95% of all "synthetic" motor oils on the market are actually petroleum based or petroleum/synthetic blends and not true synthetics. The big oil companies can sell them as "synthetic" while it costs them less to produce their oils and increase their profits. True synthetics on the other hand are genuine group 4, Poly-Alpha-Olefin - PAO, 100% true "synthetics." So while it may say synthetic on the label in reality it may be a blend or a highly refined conventional oil labeled and sold as a synthetic while it is really not a true synthetic so she would be wrong in stating that "all" synthetics are the same as they are not; some oil companies just use synthetic as a marketing term and they really don't sell a true synthetic buyer beware!!
And now back to our regular scheduled programming.....
Why is a synthetic oil better?
Synthetic lubricants are chemically engineered from pure chemicals rather than refined from crude oil. That gives them significant advantages over refined oils. Conventional oils (dinosaur juice) - the oils most people are familiar with - are refined from crude oil. Refining is a process of physically separating light oil components from heavy ones. Synthetic lubricants are pure, their molecular structure is uniform, and they are designed to work in applications in which refined oils cannot. Their ability in reducing friction, heat and wear for maximum power, performance and fuel efficiency, and resistant to high temperature burn-off, chemical breakdown and sludging makes them superior to all petroleum oils at keeping engines cleaner, reducing wear, etc.
When is a synthetic NOT a synthetic?
In 1998 Castrol Syntec created a new refining process called Hydro Cracking. They simply refined their petroleum oil to a very high degree, and called it "Synthetic." Exxon Mobil sued the Castrol Company for false marketing; however the judging board declared "synthetic" as only a marketing term, and not based on the oils components. Now due to the cost of creating true synthetics 95% of all "synthetic" motor oils on the market are actually petroleum based or petroleum/synthetic blends and not true synthetics. The big oil companies can sell them as "synthetic" while it costs them less to produce their oils and increase their profits. True synthetics on the other hand are genuine group 4, Poly-Alpha-Olefin - PAO, 100% true "synthetics." So while it may say synthetic on the label in reality it may be a blend or a highly refined conventional oil labeled and sold as a synthetic while it is really not a true synthetic so she would be wrong in stating that "all" synthetics are the same as they are not; some oil companies just use synthetic as a marketing term and they really don't sell a true synthetic buyer beware!!
And now back to our regular scheduled programming.....
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
For most engines and common OCI she is correct.
She needs to apologize calling you a Nazi PERIOD.
Don't get caught up with this [censored]. Oil is NO REASON to be throwing words like she has said above.
Bill
well +1 to that
For most engines and common OCI she is correct.
She needs to apologize calling you a Nazi PERIOD.
Don't get caught up with this [censored]. Oil is NO REASON to be throwing words like she has said above.
Bill
well +1 to that
Originally Posted By: javacontour
If she was his wife, I'd suggest the same. However, it seems she can be a bully at work with the Nazi comment and should probably consider herself lucky it's not an HR incident and just a discussion on some site full of oil nerds.
you know this is going to sound off topic, but i had a similar situation at work. I did not involve synthetic oil. to make a long story short one of the female service writers came in to the shop at my work, and asked me if i could perform some jobs on a customers truck. I had been there since six in the morning, and it was already 12:00 and i have not had my lunch yet. I told her no i cant work on that truck i need my lunch. she went to the service counter and told the customer that i would get started right away. well after a lot of mayhem and confusion took place i called her on her mistake, and she got hot headed with me and accused me of calling her a [censored]. unfortunately the boss was gone for the week, and there was no immediate supervisor (everyone for themselves) so after a few days passed i tried talking to her and making peace. she got upset and started spouting off obscenities to me in front of the customers. I talked to the hr lady and filed a harassment complaint. ever since then things have been good, because the female service writer was written up, and told that if she ever cussed in front of a customer again, that she would be fired on the spot, and escorted out by security. unfortunately there are sick men and women in the work place who will try to get a rise out of someone, and when they do it can cost that other person his or her job. if someone ever called me a natzi i would go to hr and tell them that 5 of my relatives died from genocide because of their faith. Then watch the poop hit the fan.
sorry to bore you shamus. Just wanted to let you know i can relate to the situation. i hope every thing works out for you in the best ways possible.
If she was his wife, I'd suggest the same. However, it seems she can be a bully at work with the Nazi comment and should probably consider herself lucky it's not an HR incident and just a discussion on some site full of oil nerds.
you know this is going to sound off topic, but i had a similar situation at work. I did not involve synthetic oil. to make a long story short one of the female service writers came in to the shop at my work, and asked me if i could perform some jobs on a customers truck. I had been there since six in the morning, and it was already 12:00 and i have not had my lunch yet. I told her no i cant work on that truck i need my lunch. she went to the service counter and told the customer that i would get started right away. well after a lot of mayhem and confusion took place i called her on her mistake, and she got hot headed with me and accused me of calling her a [censored]. unfortunately the boss was gone for the week, and there was no immediate supervisor (everyone for themselves) so after a few days passed i tried talking to her and making peace. she got upset and started spouting off obscenities to me in front of the customers. I talked to the hr lady and filed a harassment complaint. ever since then things have been good, because the female service writer was written up, and told that if she ever cussed in front of a customer again, that she would be fired on the spot, and escorted out by security. unfortunately there are sick men and women in the work place who will try to get a rise out of someone, and when they do it can cost that other person his or her job. if someone ever called me a natzi i would go to hr and tell them that 5 of my relatives died from genocide because of their faith. Then watch the poop hit the fan.
sorry to bore you shamus. Just wanted to let you know i can relate to the situation. i hope every thing works out for you in the best ways possible.
What has this got to do with the OP's post?
Originally Posted By: eoghan
April 8, 2009
Truth in Advertising: BP v. Royal Purple
By George Gill
Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP Lubricants USA took it to task over advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding a receptive audience in the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple modify or discontinue numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP Lubricants. The NAD examined comparative performance and superiority claims in print, broadcast and Internet advertising. In some of the advertising, Royal Purple compared its performance to Castrol, Shell, Amsoil and other motor oil brands.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,” the organization stated. “While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.”
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP’s Castrol oil for comparisons. “The results were provided to the challenger’s expert statistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidate oils,” NAD stated. “The challenger’s [BP’s] expert determined a 0.9 percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to the level of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim made by the advertiser.”
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, “there was no statistically significant difference between the fuel economy, emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,” NAD said.
Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, “Reduces emissions up to 20 percent or more” and “Reductions in emissions of 20 percent or more” because the studies on which the claims were based were outdated and not consumer-relevant.
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.” Noting that API and ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories with different meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinue its claim that its synthetic oils are “generally ‘API/ILSAC Certified.’”
In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.
The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked Service Symbol, or ‘donut,’ for display on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the ILSAC ‘starburst’ logo for oils that meet the auto industry’s latest energy-conserving standards. In API’s online directory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of these may additionally display the words ‘energy conserving’ within the donut logo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburst logo.
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future advertising.”
BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube Report requesting comment on NAD’s decision.
Originally Posted By: eoghan
April 8, 2009
Truth in Advertising: BP v. Royal Purple
By George Gill
Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP Lubricants USA took it to task over advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding a receptive audience in the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple modify or discontinue numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP Lubricants. The NAD examined comparative performance and superiority claims in print, broadcast and Internet advertising. In some of the advertising, Royal Purple compared its performance to Castrol, Shell, Amsoil and other motor oil brands.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,” the organization stated. “While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.”
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,” “Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more” because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the “Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors’ oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.”
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP’s Castrol oil for comparisons. “The results were provided to the challenger’s expert statistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidate oils,” NAD stated. “The challenger’s [BP’s] expert determined a 0.9 percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to the level of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim made by the advertiser.”
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, “there was no statistically significant difference between the fuel economy, emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,” NAD said.
Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, “Reduces emissions up to 20 percent or more” and “Reductions in emissions of 20 percent or more” because the studies on which the claims were based were outdated and not consumer-relevant.
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is “API/ILSAC Certified.” Noting that API and ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories with different meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinue its claim that its synthetic oils are “generally ‘API/ILSAC Certified.’”
In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.
The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked Service Symbol, or ‘donut,’ for display on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the ILSAC ‘starburst’ logo for oils that meet the auto industry’s latest energy-conserving standards. In API’s online directory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of these may additionally display the words ‘energy conserving’ within the donut logo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburst logo.
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future advertising.”
BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube Report requesting comment on NAD’s decision.
SHAMUS:
1st of all it is obvious to me this is not a person who is rational and she most definitelly is not worth your time and effort. Clearly she has her mind made up and nothing you say or any of us say is going to change her mind. The fact she got offended by what someone said about her on here, so she won't read anymore, after SHE verbally abused you, shows her true colors. You can NOT win with a person like that and it is not worth your efforts trying. One set of rules for them and another for everyone else. Just lame.
You could spend some time and print out the definitions of Grp III, Grp IV, and Grp V oils to show her, and print out some info on how different oils use different add packs and such. However, do you really think it is wise to even have anything to do with the person anymore? She sounds like she is about 51 cards short of full deck and you may end up getting in trouble if you continue to converse with her.
Trust me if a woman camplains about you in the work place you are doomed even if you did nothing wrong. That isn't a sexist, woman hating, etc... comment either( easy Helen
). It is just how it is if people are honest. So you need to avoid her from now on seeing as you have had a confrontation. However, you also need to complain about her before she does you.
What you need to do is forget trying to convince her of anything. Avoid her like the plague. I strongly urge you to then follow the advice of others here and IMMEDIATELY go to your supervisor or HR dept( if you have one )and file a complaint against her for the Nazi and Right Wing comments/diatribe. Don't let her get away with that. If YOU callled her a left wing zealot, socialist,, commie, female body part slang, etc... you would be written up and or fired already. She was extremely out of line and you need to file a complaint against her IMMEDIATELY!
Best of luck and avoid the psycho!
1st of all it is obvious to me this is not a person who is rational and she most definitelly is not worth your time and effort. Clearly she has her mind made up and nothing you say or any of us say is going to change her mind. The fact she got offended by what someone said about her on here, so she won't read anymore, after SHE verbally abused you, shows her true colors. You can NOT win with a person like that and it is not worth your efforts trying. One set of rules for them and another for everyone else. Just lame.
You could spend some time and print out the definitions of Grp III, Grp IV, and Grp V oils to show her, and print out some info on how different oils use different add packs and such. However, do you really think it is wise to even have anything to do with the person anymore? She sounds like she is about 51 cards short of full deck and you may end up getting in trouble if you continue to converse with her.
Trust me if a woman camplains about you in the work place you are doomed even if you did nothing wrong. That isn't a sexist, woman hating, etc... comment either( easy Helen
What you need to do is forget trying to convince her of anything. Avoid her like the plague. I strongly urge you to then follow the advice of others here and IMMEDIATELY go to your supervisor or HR dept( if you have one )and file a complaint against her for the Nazi and Right Wing comments/diatribe. Don't let her get away with that. If YOU callled her a left wing zealot, socialist,, commie, female body part slang, etc... you would be written up and or fired already. She was extremely out of line and you need to file a complaint against her IMMEDIATELY!
Best of luck and avoid the psycho!
Last edited:
Just about any car will get to 200K miles with the cheapest SM rated oil on the market. If Bette puts the cheapest SM rated oil in her car (even if it's a non-synthetic dino oil) and it gets her to work everyday she will forever remind you of that fact and say that it just proves all oils are the same and that you can't prove otherwise.
I think Bette is just arguing with you because she has the hots for you and wants you to ask her out on a date. (Geesh, that comment won't get me a vacation, will it?)
P.S. Tell her that all brands of hair spray, mascara and lipsticks are the same. I won't tell you to mention other feminine products as that will get me booted for sure.
I think Bette is just arguing with you because she has the hots for you and wants you to ask her out on a date. (Geesh, that comment won't get me a vacation, will it?)
P.S. Tell her that all brands of hair spray, mascara and lipsticks are the same. I won't tell you to mention other feminine products as that will get me booted for sure.
Hand her a sheet with the printed differences listed. Ask her to supply her data and sources.
WARNING!:
This may have no effect. Some people HATE facts. Feelings are the name of the game, nowadays.
WARNING!:
This may have no effect. Some people HATE facts. Feelings are the name of the game, nowadays.
+1 Post facts, get flamed. The astroturf people especially hate those that post facts.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
She was extremely out of line and you need to file a complaint against her IMMEDIATELY!
Don't you think that would be a bit much over a discussion about oil?
I don't know (SHAMUS clue us in), but this doesn't add up to a hostile interaction, but probably a competitive one.
While being called a Nazi can be offensive to some due to the true implications behind the term, in today's contemporary lexicon I'd put it well below "joe six pack" (Manswers Spike type) or "chauvinist" (it just means a "traditionalist") in terms of insults.
I don't think SHAMUS needs (what could be termed) revenge in the mask of justice for this. At least I hope not.
She was extremely out of line and you need to file a complaint against her IMMEDIATELY!
Don't you think that would be a bit much over a discussion about oil?
I don't know (SHAMUS clue us in), but this doesn't add up to a hostile interaction, but probably a competitive one.
While being called a Nazi can be offensive to some due to the true implications behind the term, in today's contemporary lexicon I'd put it well below "joe six pack" (Manswers Spike type) or "chauvinist" (it just means a "traditionalist") in terms of insults.
I don't think SHAMUS needs (what could be termed) revenge in the mask of justice for this. At least I hope not.
Gary;
No, I truly don't think it is a bit much and frankly it isn't about the oil. I will repeat - If SHAMUS callled her a left wing zealot, socialist,, commie, female body part slang, etc... he would be written up and or fired already!
Calling someone a right wing Nazi is pretty bad. If I read SHAMUS's original post in the correct context that was a very serious insult, not just a joking disagreement, and it should not be ignored and allowed to go bye. I can tell you joking or not if someone labeled me a RW Nazi in the work place I would file a complaint before they got that last "i" out!
I actually am a staunch right wing conservative so I don't mind being called RW. In my case it is very true. However, in today's world of political hate when you add "Nazi" into the conversational label that is the same as calling a Democrat a LW Commie. That takes it beyond a joke or something mild you just shrug off especially when one worker calls the other worker one of those things. No call for that anywhere let alone the work place.
JMO. File a complaint.
No, I truly don't think it is a bit much and frankly it isn't about the oil. I will repeat - If SHAMUS callled her a left wing zealot, socialist,, commie, female body part slang, etc... he would be written up and or fired already!
Calling someone a right wing Nazi is pretty bad. If I read SHAMUS's original post in the correct context that was a very serious insult, not just a joking disagreement, and it should not be ignored and allowed to go bye. I can tell you joking or not if someone labeled me a RW Nazi in the work place I would file a complaint before they got that last "i" out!
I actually am a staunch right wing conservative so I don't mind being called RW. In my case it is very true. However, in today's world of political hate when you add "Nazi" into the conversational label that is the same as calling a Democrat a LW Commie. That takes it beyond a joke or something mild you just shrug off especially when one worker calls the other worker one of those things. No call for that anywhere let alone the work place.
JMO. File a complaint.
Last edited:
- Status
