After having laid in the hospital for the last three days with no access to my computer, it was interesting to come back and read the follow-up comments to my original post regarding the group "memberships" of various name-brand oils, e.g. Group II, Group III, Group IV, Group V.
I've come to a few conclusions:
1. The proof is in the performance, and there are as many different combinations of applications and variables as there are automobiles.
2. It appears that the best way to determine the best oil for your application is to do a series of UOA's...period.
3. I do not think it is unreasonable for an oil company to disclose what base oil(s) it is using in its products. I do not compare it to the "KFC" analogy...rather more like a milk analogy. I don't want to just buy "milk" - I want to know if it's skim, 1%, 2%, whole, buttermilk, chocolate milk, or whatever else. Doing so would not create a competitive disadvantage...do you think that all the majors don't already know what their competitors are using for their base? Now it would be different if I were asking for a detailed breakdown of their additive packages, which WOULD be more like the "eleven herbs and spices", correct?
4. I also do not think it's unreasonable to know what percentage of blend a syn-blend contains. Again, if competitors know, which I'm sure they do, then why can't consumers know?
At the end of the day, I'm going to try my standard dino's and do UOA's, then go try some semi-s or GIII's and do some UOA's, then go full-syn and do some UOA's. I will base my ultimate decision on the results thereof.
Cheers!
I've come to a few conclusions:
1. The proof is in the performance, and there are as many different combinations of applications and variables as there are automobiles.
2. It appears that the best way to determine the best oil for your application is to do a series of UOA's...period.
3. I do not think it is unreasonable for an oil company to disclose what base oil(s) it is using in its products. I do not compare it to the "KFC" analogy...rather more like a milk analogy. I don't want to just buy "milk" - I want to know if it's skim, 1%, 2%, whole, buttermilk, chocolate milk, or whatever else. Doing so would not create a competitive disadvantage...do you think that all the majors don't already know what their competitors are using for their base? Now it would be different if I were asking for a detailed breakdown of their additive packages, which WOULD be more like the "eleven herbs and spices", correct?
4. I also do not think it's unreasonable to know what percentage of blend a syn-blend contains. Again, if competitors know, which I'm sure they do, then why can't consumers know?
At the end of the day, I'm going to try my standard dino's and do UOA's, then go try some semi-s or GIII's and do some UOA's, then go full-syn and do some UOA's. I will base my ultimate decision on the results thereof.
Cheers!