94 Accord - tires?

jim beam wrote:

> > and that this
> >> is a business, which like many others i know from personal experience,
> >> are "open" to "sales enhancement".
> >
> > i.e., you have no proof.
>
> with respect, i think i have more experience in this kind of thing than you.

I'm not doubting your experience. I'm doubting your ability to draw a
definitive conclusion without proof. What you have is conjecture.


>
> if you address the point above, maybe i can illustrate by example?

Sure, I'll play.
The information contained at the Mobil 1 web site provides zero
information re. % PAO in any of their products. Given the 1999(?) court
ruling re. what constitutes a synthetic motor oil, it would not
surprise me to learn that the amount is now zero. If, as you say, their
Super Syn is PAO, I suppose their oil contains some amount given the
Super Syn label on the package. Of course, the web site does not state
that Super Syn = PAO, I have only your word on that.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>> and that this
>>>> is a business, which like many others i know from personal experience,
>>>> are "open" to "sales enhancement".
>>> i.e., you have no proof.
>> with respect, i think i have more experience in this kind of thing than you.
>
> I'm not doubting your experience. I'm doubting your ability to draw a
> definitive conclusion without proof. What you have is conjecture.

dude, what do you want me to do to spell this out more clearly for you?
i have direct personal experience of companies fudging results in
order to affect sales. and i have direct personal experience of that in
several companies in several industries. it is par for the course
absent some form of legal consequence, and here there is none. now
/you/ go ahead and show why, for some apparently altruistic reason, this
would be an exception.

>
>
>> if you address the point above, maybe i can illustrate by example?
>
> Sure, I'll play.
> The information contained at the Mobil 1 web site provides zero
> information re. % PAO in any of their products. Given the 1999(?) court
> ruling re. what constitutes a synthetic motor oil, it would not
> surprise me to learn that the amount is now zero. If, as you say, their
> Super Syn is PAO, I suppose their oil contains some amount given the
> Super Syn label on the package. Of course, the web site does not state
> that Super Syn = PAO, I have only your word on that.
>

very good. that's not what i asked since you introduced the castrol vs.
mobil council of better business bureaus ruling, but you got the
position right. but i doubt most people would infer what you say from
reading only the mobil web site, what i'd asked.

http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095

jim beam wrote:

>
> dude, what do you want me to do to spell this out more clearly for you?
> i have direct personal experience of companies fudging results in
> order to affect sales.

Yeah, well I worked for a company engaged in a similar practice many
years ago.

and i have direct personal experience of that in
> several companies in several industries. it is par for the course
> absent some form of legal consequence, and here there is none. now
> /you/ go ahead and show why, for some apparently altruistic reason, this
> would be an exception.
>
Your assumption is that the company is attempting to push a particular
product. What if the business model does not rely upon any single
product but volume sales? These guys are into moving units. The
particular unit is less important than sheer numbers.

Does The Tire Rack attempt to get buyers into higher-priced, more
profitable tires? Yes. They do that by using tire categories with
catchy names like "high performance" and by listing tire search results
by tire category, not price, by default. When you speak with a sales
rep. they will always push the latest, greatest and most profitable.

On the other hand, their user comments are not edited. I have submitted
comments intentionally recommending tires not sold by The Tire Rack and
those comments appear just as I wrote them. Their rating tables by
category show all the manufacturers represented on the site in the top
10 on one or another of the categories. Bias, other than to the brands
sold by The Tire Rack, is not in evidence. Individual tire ratings do
not suddenly change. The number of written comments closely matches the
claimed number of customer ratings. Simply put, for a business model
based on volume, its not worth their time to mess with these data.
Furthermore, for a volme-based business, bad press is a killer. Should
someone reveal that the consumer data has been falsified, the bad press
would kill their internet-based sales.

Risks outweigh rewards. Let the consumers have their fun. In the end,
it means more internet traffic and greater sales volume.


> very good. that's not what i asked since you introduced the castrol vs.
> mobil council of better business bureaus ruling, but you got the
> position right. but i doubt most people would infer what you say from
> reading only the mobil web site, what i'd asked.

I think you're selling most people short. I think most people figure if
there was a good story to tell (lots of good stuff in the product) the
manufacturer would be happy to tell you all about it. No data = no good
story.

>
> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095

just how long should I wait for a response from this place?
if you already have this data, why not just post it in a new topic? I'm
sure others would be interested.

jim beam wrote:

>
> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095

finally got into this server and if I'm reading it correctly it says
that Mobil 1 10-30 contains 5% PAO. But I don't see a date associated
with the spec.

Apparently, lots of info. type sites now reference the MSDS info., for
example
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Synthetic_oil

The information re. Amsoil is also interesting.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> dude, what do you want me to do to spell this out more clearly for you?
>> i have direct personal experience of companies fudging results in
>> order to affect sales.
>
> Yeah, well I worked for a company engaged in a similar practice many
> years ago.
>
> and i have direct personal experience of that in
>> several companies in several industries. it is par for the course
>> absent some form of legal consequence, and here there is none. now
>> /you/ go ahead and show why, for some apparently altruistic reason, this
>> would be an exception.
>>
> Your assumption is that the company is attempting to push a particular
> product. What if the business model does not rely upon any single
> product but volume sales? These guys are into moving units. The
> particular unit is less important than sheer numbers.
>
> Does The Tire Rack attempt to get buyers into higher-priced, more
> profitable tires? Yes. They do that by using tire categories with
> catchy names like "high performance" and by listing tire search results
> by tire category, not price, by default. When you speak with a sales
> rep. they will always push the latest, greatest and most profitable.
>
> On the other hand, their user comments are not edited. I have submitted
> comments intentionally recommending tires not sold by The Tire Rack and
> those comments appear just as I wrote them. Their rating tables by
> category show all the manufacturers represented on the site in the top
> 10 on one or another of the categories. Bias, other than to the brands
> sold by The Tire Rack, is not in evidence. Individual tire ratings do
> not suddenly change. The number of written comments closely matches the
> claimed number of customer ratings. Simply put, for a business model
> based on volume, its not worth their time to mess with these data.
> Furthermore, for a volme-based business, bad press is a killer. Should
> someone reveal that the consumer data has been falsified, the bad press
> would kill their internet-based sales.

how is anyone ever going to find out? back-dating stock options was
rife for decades, despite the thousands of people involved, auditors,
lawyers, etc. but no one "found out" until an academic started doing
analysis based on logic, not the "accepted truth". it's naked emperor
syndrome writ large.

>
> Risks outweigh rewards. Let the consumers have their fun. In the end,
> it means more internet traffic and greater sales volume.
>
>
>> very good. that's not what i asked since you introduced the castrol vs.
>> mobil council of better business bureaus ruling, but you got the
>> position right. but i doubt most people would infer what you say from
>> reading only the mobil web site, what i'd asked.
>
> I think you're selling most people short. I think most people figure if
> there was a good story to tell (lots of good stuff in the product) the
> manufacturer would be happy to tell you all about it. No data = no good
> story.
>
>> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>
> just how long should I wait for a response from this place?
> if you already have this data, why not just post it in a new topic? I'm
> sure others would be interested.
>

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>
> finally got into this server and if I'm reading it correctly it says
> that Mobil 1 10-30 contains 5% PAO. But I don't see a date associated
> with the spec.
>
> Apparently, lots of info. type sites now reference the MSDS info., for
> example
> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Synthetic_oil

that site's a word-for-word rip from wikipedia!

>
> The information re. Amsoil is also interesting.
>
indeed. [i provided the msds references to the wikipedia entry.] what
interests me more is what the msds's /don't/ contain and how reluctant
manufacturers are to reveal. [so much so in fact that the msds link i
provided to wikipedia "disappeared" for mobil, with the redline and
amsoil entries remaining! that's since been reverted.] as pointed out
before on this group, they're not keeping secrets from other
manufacturers - lab analysis ensures they know what their competitors
use - they're scared silly about consumers having information though.
if you go to amsoil's own msds's, all content is "proprietary" and they
just give a medical emergency phone number. to my way of thinking, if
they had something special worth talking about, they'd talk about it.
like dupont with kevlar for instance.

jim beam wrote:
>
> > Apparently, lots of info. type sites now reference the MSDS info., for
> > example
> > http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Synthetic_oil
>
> that site's a word-for-word rip from wikipedia!

they're not trying to hide that connection
>
> >
> > The information re. Amsoil is also interesting.
> >
> indeed. [i provided the msds references to the wikipedia entry.] what
> interests me more is what the msds's /don't/ contain and how reluctant
> manufacturers are to reveal. [so much so in fact that the msds link i
> provided to wikipedia "disappeared" for mobil, with the redline and
> amsoil entries remaining! that's since been reverted.]

Yeah, I did notice that.

as pointed out
> before on this group, they're not keeping secrets from other
> manufacturers - lab analysis ensures they know what their competitors
> use - they're scared silly about consumers having information though.

I also found, at a Chevron site, the cost differential between PAO and
Group III+; their published estimate $1.50-$2.00/gallon
(http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...pdf/0701c.pdf). Yup,
Mobil 1 could be PAO based for the cost of about $3 per 5-quart jug.
You'd think someone in their marketing dept would figure that buyers
sophisticated enough to have made Mobil 1 a hit when it cost 3 times as
much as other oils would be happy to spend the extra $3/jug for a PAO
product.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>>> Apparently, lots of info. type sites now reference the MSDS info., for
>>> example
>>> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Synthetic_oil
>> that site's a word-for-word rip from wikipedia!
>
> they're not trying to hide that connection
>>> The information re. Amsoil is also interesting.
>>>
>> indeed. [i provided the msds references to the wikipedia entry.] what
>> interests me more is what the msds's /don't/ contain and how reluctant
>> manufacturers are to reveal. [so much so in fact that the msds link i
>> provided to wikipedia "disappeared" for mobil, with the redline and
>> amsoil entries remaining! that's since been reverted.]
>
> Yeah, I did notice that.
>
> as pointed out
>> before on this group, they're not keeping secrets from other
>> manufacturers - lab analysis ensures they know what their competitors
>> use - they're scared silly about consumers having information though.
>
> I also found, at a Chevron site, the cost differential between PAO and
> Group III+; their published estimate $1.50-$2.00/gallon
> (http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...pdf/0701c.pdf). Yup,
> Mobil 1 could be PAO based for the cost of about $3 per 5-quart jug.
> You'd think someone in their marketing dept would figure that buyers
> sophisticated enough to have made Mobil 1 a hit when it cost 3 times as
> much as other oils would be happy to spend the extra $3/jug for a PAO
> product.
>
well detected - that's a great find. but i'm not 100% sure the author
has the full story - he says that m1 is still pao, but the msds
contradicts that - i have to go with the msds rather than the market
analyst.

interesting comment on cost. you're right, that's not much difference
to differentiate a "boutique" product. doubtless someone has done the
math on what price the market will bear for a true branded labeled pao
vs. groupIII, and has concluded that the incremental profit on gIII is
just too irresistible. and is doubtless producing a handsome bonus for
the line manager responsible! hence we have secrecy to keep the
consumer in the dark.

jim beam wrote:

> >
> i'm not 100% sure the author
> has the full story - he says that m1 is still pao,

note 2001 date on article

but the msds
> contradicts that - i have to go with the msds rather than the market
> analyst.
>
I'm sure the more recent msds is correct.

The article offers hope re. return of PAO. Competition will force down
the price of "synthetic" oils (I've got a coupon from Pep Boys for $15
off on a case of Pennzoil or Quaker State). Once that happens it will
be easier to put PAO back into M1 and market accordingly. Well, maybe.

jim beam wrote:

>
> how is anyone ever going to find out? back-dating stock options was
> rife for decades, despite the thousands of people involved, auditors,
> lawyers, etc. but no one "found out" until an academic started doing
> analysis based on logic, not the "accepted truth". it's naked emperor
> syndrome writ large.
>
>
But if the consumer were to find out, their core business model is
toast. Murphy's Law.

Smackdown!
Naked emperor syndrome vs. Murphy's Law
- film at 11