Sure, I understand slightly but it's a pretty big difference between the two, which might mean a change in formula. I'm just trying to pinpoint when the change in formula might have occurred, to help us consumers out who may want one formula over the other.
I emailed PQIA to see if they could offer the date/batch code that was JUST cropped out of the picture on the website. Will let the BITOG community know if I get a response, should clear up the big additive difference between their test and mine.
I see where and when they bought their sample but like I've said previously in this thread; just because you buy oil off the retail shelf in Feb 2020, doesn't mean you're getting a new batch/latest formula. I'm living proof of this and now, as an experiment for Rotella T5 anyways, I'm going to test the "new" T5 batch from Sept 2018 vs the batch from March 2020. Both bought at the same Advance Auto in April 2020.
Regarding PQIA:
(likely an unpopular opinion but it's corona lockdown #1 and I've got the time for a bit of a rant)
I don't know anyone at the company, personally nor professionally like TomNJ does.
I'm not trying to personally insult anyone at the company, here. Heck, I appreciate that the site compiles the reports in a neat and organized manner for all to see and appreciate. It's a great format!
But what really grinds my gears is when someone who claims to personally and professionally know PQIA/their leadership downplays the company's revenue, brought in by dealing with and/or benefitting directly/indirectly from major oil corporations.
They're cleverly calling big petroleum corporations "supporters" and act like they're just covering the cost of these analyses for the protection of us, the consumer, and to ensure a level playing field among the big companies.
However... PQIA earns millions in revenue every year, and they're gonna play it off as if all they do is test samples of oil for the safety of consumers every day?
Riiiiiiiight...
This (petroleum/lubricants, whatever you want to call it) is an industry driven nearly exclusively by profit and every single decision is controlled by the dollar. No surprise there, just like most high dollar industries.
I've got no beef with big business and profit but don't tell me PQIA has no bias. That's just ridiculous.
PQIA preident Thomas F. Glenn has been in the petroleum industry since the 1970s and his jobs ranged from a data analyst in a lab, to a field sales rep for Texaco, and an oil jobber for Amoco (they buy lots of raw product for resale).
Now, Tom Glenn in NJ has several consulting firms which work the petroleum industry. PQIA is one of them. Petroleum Trends International, Inc. is another. Both bring in more money in one year than I'll ever earn in a lifetime.
That is fantastic that Tom from NJ has struck out on his own after a career working for the big petroleum companies and has brought in a LOT of revenue for him and his employees (at least 50+, according to the internet).
But you can't tell me that any one of us BITOG UOA/VOA enthusiasts, could have turned out passion into a business like PQIA simply by sending VOAs to independent labs for analysis and posting them online. You need to have big connections within the petroleum industry, and the drive/grit/determination to craft and execute a big picture business plan like Tom from NJ has done.
This is classic consulting start-up 101. Oftentimes it fails but PQIA has definitely succeeded, and seems to be doing well. I have many close friends who have done this in various industries and government consulting and it doesn't make them bad people. But there is very real and definite business ethics concerns. So when PQIA touts business codes of ethics, yeah I get riled up and will rant about it.
I love BITOG and the community here because it's fed VOA and UOA from actual consumers. Grassroots, good for us all. Free speech on the forum, also good!!
And hey, PQIA also exposes oil brands and formulas that are downright dangerous to be using, I can see that from their press releases. That's commendable and I love that they're helping the consumer in this regard.
But I'm not a fan of conflicts of interest and integrity means everything in my little world. When a company like PQIA touts that they require the signing of a Code of Ethical Business Conducts, then turns around and accepts "support" (money) from oil corporations... Isn't that a bit of hypocrisy in action? Could we not call that the very definition of a conflict of interest?
It's arrogant to think that by waving around this act of having members sign a business ethics code, outsiders are supposed to just assume all is well and there's absolutely nothing rotten in Denmark.
Give me a break.
Don't preach about Business Code of Ethics and tell me there's complete unbias and no influence from supporters when your estimated revenue is eight figures plus (10-11 million dollars annual revenue estimated by zoominfo/owler, quick 5min Google search) and from what we can tell on the outside, the majority of this is funding from your listed supporters.
Aww heck. Who am I kidding, I'm sure all the supporters and board members are routinely re-investigated to ensure strong business ethics and they all have nothing other than "an interest in maintaining a level playing field" and the consumers in mind.
I can write whatever mission statement I want if I head up PQIA but at the end of the day, actions speak louder than words and the money trail definitely plays a factor.
I'll continue to share whatever UOA and VOA I have done and I'll continue to enjoy the lovely website format that PQIA provides us. I don't PQIA is a big bad evil company. But don't try and BS a BS'er.
PQIA is making plenty of dough off its supporters, and just take a look at who that is and tell me there's no conflict of interest. If you can, I've got some excellent beachfront property for you to invest in!
Fin. Rant over.