NXA-16H
20th April 2009, 09:51 PM
Ok now. This thread is in many ways a follow-on to two previous, hotly discussed and debated threads on another automotive forum which I subscribe to, a la links below:
AussieFrogs Thread on Oil Additives (http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68516)
Oils are oils especially in France (http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68638)
Now upon reflecting on the implications of what was discussed in both threads, especially those informative posts made by Gerry, I cannot help but develop an unpleasant feeling that we consumers (I say this in the collective sense) are being forced to accept pre-determined, and pre-programmed lifecycles and obsolescence points in everything we happen to purchase. In this case, I am referring specifically to a modern motor vehicle.
Now in both threads linked above, Gerry goes to great lengths to point out that, unlike in Australia (and dare I say it, most other western countries) whereby the purchaser of a motor vehicle is quite within his/her statutory rights to purchase, install and use NON-OEM parts and fluids, and yet retain his/her new-car warranty... as long as the vehicle is not subject to unreasonable stress and/or damage, such as that from high-speed motor racing, excessive loads, etc, the purchaser of a product or service in France is effectively obligated to purchase strictly OEM or officially endorsed parts, accessories and fluids, if that person wishes to retain his/her new-car warranty.
So, anyone in France who purchases a new Citroën C5 or Peugeot 407 for example, MUST purchase parts and fluids with an explicit PSA Part Number... Just to keep that warranty.
This argument raises some serious questions as to the ulterior motives of a motorcar company such as PSA (http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/en/hp1.php), whilst "in collaboration" with TOTAL S.A. (http://www.total.com/en/home_page/).
The following quotes have been collated to paint an intellectual argument:
Such insistence on one brand and type of fluid only would prove to be a bloody nuisance in Australia...
I still cannot see how a new car warranty could be legally voided through the use of a NON Total-branded fluid, as long as such fluid meets ACEA specifications.
No amount of Gallic shoulder-shrugging from some "mechanic" would stop me from pursuing my statutory rights, if my own C5 shat itself for no good reason.
At this point, Gerry effectively confirms the absence of Anglo-Australian statutory rights in France:
We don't have whatever your statutory rights are, the law and its implementation is quite different...
I think it would be that if you claimed against the manufacturer of the oil or engine you would have to prove that your treatment of their product against their recommendations was not detrimental. It is in general a caveat emptor scene and the onus of proof would be with you, not the manufacturer.
Gerry goes on further to say:
Since 1964 joint research and testing both in the lab. and on the road have been carried out by Citroën and Total...
This (collaboration) allows (PSA) to continually offer users of the Citroën range, products of high performance meeting the optimal conditions demanded by Citroën.
It is very subtle wording but it in the end it comes down legally to the specification that Citroën put on their parts, including lubricants. They specify the lubricants by a part number, not an industry norme. So even if you use a perfectly good product and they have not tested it and confirmed that it meets their spec., it is not the component that they specified...If you look at that gearbox oil label, it does meet an industry norme but it conforms with Citroën Part number...
I do know how PSA go about it in the (its) home territory to get the engine and gear box lives that the market expects...
It is my submission at this point, that such engine and gearbox life-span is not what a market expects of a company, but rather what the company of its own volition asserts on the market.
...The French have used collaborative research as their ‘secret weapon’ to outsmart their competitors. They draw on the government research labs like the French Institute of Petroleum and their relationship with tyre designers, lubrication designers etc.
The Total collaboration is typical of this mode of gaining competitive advantage. For protection against it, industries like the lubrication industry come up with Normes which provide a lowest common denominator and then try and force that on the car assemblers, blocking them from gaining individual advantage from oil developments.
By collaborating and not sharing with others, Total can put a better oil in Citroëns matched to the engine design, to give their engines an enhanced performance and not declare its properties to its competitors until they have gained the rewards from innovation. This gives PSA a competitive advantage because its service periods are longer, its maintenance charges fixed, its pollution controls rigid and perhaps even its engines perform better. Total gains competitive advantage because it has a tied customer base.
The consumer has no complaints in Europe at least, because they cannot execute the right to choose oil any more....They get a better car and lower costs of ownership and a warm feeling that Citroën remains on the leading edge of technology.
The idea that oil is a generic accessory that the consumer chooses has largely been put to rest. Brand authorised garages do the servicing and they treat the lubricants as just another item on the cars parts list.
Gerry goes on further to reinforce his argument
If a...company makes brakes for GM you do not ask your local garage to fit them on your Citroën, when it goes in to have the pads changed. It is a proprietary part and integrated with the overall design. The fluids are available in every approved service outlet in just the same way as the brake pads. If it is not on the shelf, the mechanics moves to the screen, calls up the part number and it is in stock the next morning.
It is here that I suggest that as long as a fluid meets official industry-determined grades and specifications, such as those determined by the API and/or ACEA, a consumer ought to be permitted to use a NON Total-branded fluid, despite this feel-good claim by PSA and TOTAL that their collaboration results in superior automotive performance with fewer scheduled services and tighter environmental controls.
This argument extends to the use of NON-OEM parts and accessories, as long as such NON-OEM parts, upon cross-reference with the original Part Number, meets or even exceeds industry, environmental and OH&S standards.
...(one must) get (his/her) mind around the concept that the lubricants and working fluids are now car components and not consumables. This applies not only to engine and gear box oil but to brake and suspension fluids and especially to coolant.
Now despite the common practice of companies such as PSA to attach part numbers to lubricating and working fluids, I assert that a lubricating or working fluid is indeed as much a consumable as petroleum or diesel is, despite PSA's or GM's insistence to the contrary. In this situation, a part number is nothing more than a reference within the respective company's archives system.
This fact is reinforced through the following quote:
Lubricants ARE consumables.....the mechanical nature of the product must be of high enough quality to not only satisfy "local" but global performance in relation to lubricants...
Focusing mandatory dependence for factory specified performance and reliability which is based on specific "brand" of oil rather then the specification of the lubricants is uncompetitive and unfair....Whats next? One has to buy a particular brand of FUEL to maintain warranty?...
In summary, I have attempted to illustrate the attempts by Big-Auto (whilst in "collaboration" with Big-Oil) to force a pre-determined and thus, pre-programmed lifespan and obsolescence point in the motor vehicles that they manufacture and sell, through the warranty-linked mandate that strictly OEM parts, accessories and fluids be used in their vehicles.
This insistence and warranty-linked mandate is not dissimilar to the requirement of commercial airlines to maintain their fleets of Boeing and Airbus aircraft in strict accordance with Boeing and/or Airbus servicing schedules, using strictly OEM parts. In this context, it is not difficult to see the implications on passenger safety.
In the context of automotive servicing however, whereby the imperative for passenger safety is not as obvious and immediate as that for a commercial airliner, one must come to a conclusion that such warranty-linked mandate for OEM parts and fluids is integral to the respective company's attempt to maintain, or indeed exacerbate the vehicle's pre-programmed lifespan.
In a modern world where most consumer items are not designed and manufactured for longevity, but rather to a pre-determined budget, one can only conclude that strictly recommended or enforced automotive parts, accessories and/or fluids are not so much in the consumers' best interests, but rather those of the respective company.
I suggest at this point that such mandatory fluids as those for modern PSA-manufactured vehicles are are not superior to other high-quality brands, but may indeed be inferior, as far as protective and/or lubricative qualities are concerned.
Maybe an independent, scientifically-backed court challenge to such collaborative companies and their warranty-linked mandates may be in order.
What's your take on this potentially serious consumer issue?
David.
NXR-94N
AussieFrogs Thread on Oil Additives (http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68516)
Oils are oils especially in France (http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68638)
Now upon reflecting on the implications of what was discussed in both threads, especially those informative posts made by Gerry, I cannot help but develop an unpleasant feeling that we consumers (I say this in the collective sense) are being forced to accept pre-determined, and pre-programmed lifecycles and obsolescence points in everything we happen to purchase. In this case, I am referring specifically to a modern motor vehicle.
Now in both threads linked above, Gerry goes to great lengths to point out that, unlike in Australia (and dare I say it, most other western countries) whereby the purchaser of a motor vehicle is quite within his/her statutory rights to purchase, install and use NON-OEM parts and fluids, and yet retain his/her new-car warranty... as long as the vehicle is not subject to unreasonable stress and/or damage, such as that from high-speed motor racing, excessive loads, etc, the purchaser of a product or service in France is effectively obligated to purchase strictly OEM or officially endorsed parts, accessories and fluids, if that person wishes to retain his/her new-car warranty.
So, anyone in France who purchases a new Citroën C5 or Peugeot 407 for example, MUST purchase parts and fluids with an explicit PSA Part Number... Just to keep that warranty.
This argument raises some serious questions as to the ulterior motives of a motorcar company such as PSA (http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/en/hp1.php), whilst "in collaboration" with TOTAL S.A. (http://www.total.com/en/home_page/).
The following quotes have been collated to paint an intellectual argument:
Such insistence on one brand and type of fluid only would prove to be a bloody nuisance in Australia...
I still cannot see how a new car warranty could be legally voided through the use of a NON Total-branded fluid, as long as such fluid meets ACEA specifications.
No amount of Gallic shoulder-shrugging from some "mechanic" would stop me from pursuing my statutory rights, if my own C5 shat itself for no good reason.
At this point, Gerry effectively confirms the absence of Anglo-Australian statutory rights in France:
We don't have whatever your statutory rights are, the law and its implementation is quite different...
I think it would be that if you claimed against the manufacturer of the oil or engine you would have to prove that your treatment of their product against their recommendations was not detrimental. It is in general a caveat emptor scene and the onus of proof would be with you, not the manufacturer.
Gerry goes on further to say:
Since 1964 joint research and testing both in the lab. and on the road have been carried out by Citroën and Total...
This (collaboration) allows (PSA) to continually offer users of the Citroën range, products of high performance meeting the optimal conditions demanded by Citroën.
It is very subtle wording but it in the end it comes down legally to the specification that Citroën put on their parts, including lubricants. They specify the lubricants by a part number, not an industry norme. So even if you use a perfectly good product and they have not tested it and confirmed that it meets their spec., it is not the component that they specified...If you look at that gearbox oil label, it does meet an industry norme but it conforms with Citroën Part number...
I do know how PSA go about it in the (its) home territory to get the engine and gear box lives that the market expects...
It is my submission at this point, that such engine and gearbox life-span is not what a market expects of a company, but rather what the company of its own volition asserts on the market.
...The French have used collaborative research as their ‘secret weapon’ to outsmart their competitors. They draw on the government research labs like the French Institute of Petroleum and their relationship with tyre designers, lubrication designers etc.
The Total collaboration is typical of this mode of gaining competitive advantage. For protection against it, industries like the lubrication industry come up with Normes which provide a lowest common denominator and then try and force that on the car assemblers, blocking them from gaining individual advantage from oil developments.
By collaborating and not sharing with others, Total can put a better oil in Citroëns matched to the engine design, to give their engines an enhanced performance and not declare its properties to its competitors until they have gained the rewards from innovation. This gives PSA a competitive advantage because its service periods are longer, its maintenance charges fixed, its pollution controls rigid and perhaps even its engines perform better. Total gains competitive advantage because it has a tied customer base.
The consumer has no complaints in Europe at least, because they cannot execute the right to choose oil any more....They get a better car and lower costs of ownership and a warm feeling that Citroën remains on the leading edge of technology.
The idea that oil is a generic accessory that the consumer chooses has largely been put to rest. Brand authorised garages do the servicing and they treat the lubricants as just another item on the cars parts list.
Gerry goes on further to reinforce his argument
If a...company makes brakes for GM you do not ask your local garage to fit them on your Citroën, when it goes in to have the pads changed. It is a proprietary part and integrated with the overall design. The fluids are available in every approved service outlet in just the same way as the brake pads. If it is not on the shelf, the mechanics moves to the screen, calls up the part number and it is in stock the next morning.
It is here that I suggest that as long as a fluid meets official industry-determined grades and specifications, such as those determined by the API and/or ACEA, a consumer ought to be permitted to use a NON Total-branded fluid, despite this feel-good claim by PSA and TOTAL that their collaboration results in superior automotive performance with fewer scheduled services and tighter environmental controls.
This argument extends to the use of NON-OEM parts and accessories, as long as such NON-OEM parts, upon cross-reference with the original Part Number, meets or even exceeds industry, environmental and OH&S standards.
...(one must) get (his/her) mind around the concept that the lubricants and working fluids are now car components and not consumables. This applies not only to engine and gear box oil but to brake and suspension fluids and especially to coolant.
Now despite the common practice of companies such as PSA to attach part numbers to lubricating and working fluids, I assert that a lubricating or working fluid is indeed as much a consumable as petroleum or diesel is, despite PSA's or GM's insistence to the contrary. In this situation, a part number is nothing more than a reference within the respective company's archives system.
This fact is reinforced through the following quote:
Lubricants ARE consumables.....the mechanical nature of the product must be of high enough quality to not only satisfy "local" but global performance in relation to lubricants...
Focusing mandatory dependence for factory specified performance and reliability which is based on specific "brand" of oil rather then the specification of the lubricants is uncompetitive and unfair....Whats next? One has to buy a particular brand of FUEL to maintain warranty?...
In summary, I have attempted to illustrate the attempts by Big-Auto (whilst in "collaboration" with Big-Oil) to force a pre-determined and thus, pre-programmed lifespan and obsolescence point in the motor vehicles that they manufacture and sell, through the warranty-linked mandate that strictly OEM parts, accessories and fluids be used in their vehicles.
This insistence and warranty-linked mandate is not dissimilar to the requirement of commercial airlines to maintain their fleets of Boeing and Airbus aircraft in strict accordance with Boeing and/or Airbus servicing schedules, using strictly OEM parts. In this context, it is not difficult to see the implications on passenger safety.
In the context of automotive servicing however, whereby the imperative for passenger safety is not as obvious and immediate as that for a commercial airliner, one must come to a conclusion that such warranty-linked mandate for OEM parts and fluids is integral to the respective company's attempt to maintain, or indeed exacerbate the vehicle's pre-programmed lifespan.
In a modern world where most consumer items are not designed and manufactured for longevity, but rather to a pre-determined budget, one can only conclude that strictly recommended or enforced automotive parts, accessories and/or fluids are not so much in the consumers' best interests, but rather those of the respective company.
I suggest at this point that such mandatory fluids as those for modern PSA-manufactured vehicles are are not superior to other high-quality brands, but may indeed be inferior, as far as protective and/or lubricative qualities are concerned.
Maybe an independent, scientifically-backed court challenge to such collaborative companies and their warranty-linked mandates may be in order.
What's your take on this potentially serious consumer issue?
David.
NXR-94N