JHZR2
Staff member
This thread reads to me like an analog of the "fake synthetic" group III discussions in the oil subforums.
Is PAO/POE theoretically better? Sure.
Does group IIi get the job done for 99% of users? Yes.
Do we have objective evidence to compare and contrast the similar and inferior traits of one versus the other? Yes.
Do we see the economic benefit of using a lower cost product to do the same job with similar design margin as a more expensive blend? Yes.
The reason redline and amsoil exist is to play off of the human nature need of having th best so as to it compromise on some quality that is comfortable to retain. Yes 1% or so of the driving population could benefit from those products. If it requires the rest of the crowd feeling good about buying and using it to keep them in business.
So is the situation with these receivers.
Id love to buy an LRB M14A with USGI parts. But would I ever shoot to failure a simple M1A? Not likely. And if I did, could I get replacement parts? Sure.
Like the group III argument leading to some feeling like they're paying premium money for inferior product, some here seem to think they're paying premium money for an inferior Springfield M1A. I get that. It's like the comfort some derive desiring PAO for a highway commuter car that sees no severe use. But they don't realize that the "premium price" being paid for group III is actually a deal compared to the cost of a bona fide PAO lube.
Cost structure is relative. If a junk part is put in lieu of a quality one and the junk part fails, it's a real argument. If you pay for Amsoil and get group I/II blend, it's an issue. But if you're getting 25k rounds, it's no different than getting 5 quarts of GTL on rollback for $22 and getting 250k miles out of your engine.
Prices were stabilized and longevity was met. The beauty of the free market is that anyone so inclined can readily go and buy an LRB instead of a SA, pay $2700 minimum, and have the peace of mind they desire that a $1300 SA couldn't provide to them.
My 82 Mercedes had forged wheels; I wonder if Daimler still used them?
Is PAO/POE theoretically better? Sure.
Does group IIi get the job done for 99% of users? Yes.
Do we have objective evidence to compare and contrast the similar and inferior traits of one versus the other? Yes.
Do we see the economic benefit of using a lower cost product to do the same job with similar design margin as a more expensive blend? Yes.
The reason redline and amsoil exist is to play off of the human nature need of having th best so as to it compromise on some quality that is comfortable to retain. Yes 1% or so of the driving population could benefit from those products. If it requires the rest of the crowd feeling good about buying and using it to keep them in business.
So is the situation with these receivers.
Id love to buy an LRB M14A with USGI parts. But would I ever shoot to failure a simple M1A? Not likely. And if I did, could I get replacement parts? Sure.
Like the group III argument leading to some feeling like they're paying premium money for inferior product, some here seem to think they're paying premium money for an inferior Springfield M1A. I get that. It's like the comfort some derive desiring PAO for a highway commuter car that sees no severe use. But they don't realize that the "premium price" being paid for group III is actually a deal compared to the cost of a bona fide PAO lube.
Cost structure is relative. If a junk part is put in lieu of a quality one and the junk part fails, it's a real argument. If you pay for Amsoil and get group I/II blend, it's an issue. But if you're getting 25k rounds, it's no different than getting 5 quarts of GTL on rollback for $22 and getting 250k miles out of your engine.
Prices were stabilized and longevity was met. The beauty of the free market is that anyone so inclined can readily go and buy an LRB instead of a SA, pay $2700 minimum, and have the peace of mind they desire that a $1300 SA couldn't provide to them.
My 82 Mercedes had forged wheels; I wonder if Daimler still used them?
