17 Civic 1.5T, 58K on odo, PP 5W30, 7,382 OCI

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
I agree, this UOA inspires confidence... with 58K on the odometer and almost 8K OCI, this combo seems to work well.
  • Almost no short trips
  • Relatively long daily commutes
  • Hot FL temperatures
  • ... and I don't think she's an aggressive (racing) driver
I'm going to stick with PP 5W30 and a 7.5K OCI.
Given the level of fuel dilution you are seeing, I'd highly encourage you to consider using a lab that uses GC, which unfortunately, Blackstone doesn't.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
We've had samples mixed up before, which does of course mean it's probably a different oil, but it could be Blackstone's error, not his.
But when it's BS, any possibility, no matter how minute, that they could be blamed for something, someone here will voice it. Even if it's a 0.0000000001% chance. And a bunch of other people will then chime in with completely inaccurate statements about things like "their element results are always low" or "they always report low viscosity" or some such heresay. They read someone else saying these things, and without doing any fact-checking, repeat it as "fact."
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
Given the level of fuel dilution you are seeing, I'd highly encourage you to consider using a lab that uses GC, which unfortunately, Blackstone doesn't.
If the flashpoint is low and it's known that there is fuel dilution, how does knowing the exact percentage (through GC) help the end-user? Whether it's 2% or 4%, it's still an issue, and usually a known issue that comes with the engine type. Our CRV is a known fuel-diluter. I don't get how having an exact % will help me in any way.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
If the flashpoint is low and it's known that there is fuel dilution, how does knowing the exact percentage (through GC) help the end-user? Whether it's 2% or 4%, it's still an issue, and usually a known issue that comes with the engine type. Our CRV is a known fuel-diluter. I don't get how having an exact % will help me in any way.
Multiple things here:
1. Unless you know virgin flashpoint, you have no idea how far it has fallen. This varies by oil.
2. Blackstone posts their fuel "guess" in the same report, so unless you KNOW their fuel number is wildly inaccurate, which most people on this forum had no idea about until quite recently and people like myself began harping on it, you are going to assume everything is fine.
3. Knowing how much fuel you have lets you know if you are in dangerous territory or not. Let's say your oil starts at 380F and it drops to 340F, OK, that could be 2% fuel. But if it starts at 480F and drops to 340F, that's a LOT more fuel. So, unless you VOA/UOA all your oils to know how far they fell, and even then, you don't have a percentage, it's far more valuable to know how much fuel is actually in the lubricant.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
But when it's BS, any possibility, no matter how minute, that they could be blamed for something, someone here will voice it. Even if it's a 0.0000000001% chance. And a bunch of other people will then chime in with completely inaccurate statements about things like "their element results are always low" or "they always report low viscosity" or some such heresay. They read someone else saying these things, and without doing any fact-checking, repeat it as "fact."
Let's not get carried away with hyperbole here.

- People (primarily myself and @kschachn) often point out that Blackstone's fuel figure is wildly inaccurate. That's not a dig at the lab, it's a factual comment based on the fact they don't measure fuel dilution using Gas Chromatography. That's a decision they made as a lab and board members should be made aware of it. This has been brought to the fore more often recently because of the surge in DI vehicles on here, which, as you know, fuel dilute far more than their port injected siblings.

- Lab error happens. When you see results that are wildly inconsistent with either previous results or what you were expecting, it's not uncommon to request the lab to re-run the sample. We've had people do this in the past and the results came back as they were expected. This could be the sample getting mixed-up, the results getting mixed-up...etc, it happens. Yes, we see more of these with Blackstone because we see more reports from Blackstone.

- Viscosity is often low because fuel is improperly factored into interpretation, that's more of a board issue than it is a Blackstone issue, but it is one that is predicated on the knowledge that their fuel dilution figure is going to be wrong, which, as I pointed out, has historically not been the case.

- Different labs will have variation in their results. This could be elemental analysis, viscosity...etc. There was a member that made a spreadsheet that compared several of the labs with samples from the same oil sent to them. The infatuation with UOA's and their abuse/misuse drives some of this commentary; obsession over minutiae which is outside the scope of accuracy for the tool.

That said, reacting as you have here to my comments isn't constructive, despite my efforts at making my remark amusing/fun with the "lol". Blackstone may have messed up the sample, it happens, other labs have messed up samples too, but this sample was done by Blackstone. They might have buggered something up and it would be silly to dismiss that as a possibility just because you are a fan of their services, have some relationship with them, or some other vested interest in preserving some sort of perception of perfection that applies to their services, which doesn't accurately represent:
A) The value/quality one should expect in a $20 UOA
B) The history of reports on here that have had to be re-run

There is absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing that imperfection is going to happen in something you pay $20 for, which is cheaper than other labs that use GC, and those other labs also make mistakes. Getting offended does nobody any favours.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
Let's not get carried away with hyperbole here.
If you'd like, I can spend a couple of hours digging through the forums to link to the various posts illustrating what I said. This is no exaggeration.

People (primarily myself and @kschachn) often point out that Blackstone's fuel figure is wildly inaccurate. That's not a dig at the lab, it's a factual comment based on the fact they don't measure fuel dilution using Gas Chromatography. That's a decision they made as a lab and board members should be made aware of it.
You're preaching to the choir, though I wouldn't call it "wildly" inaccurate. Less accurate, yes. I've already gone on the record here multiple times agreeing that GC is more accurate.

Lab error happens. When you see results that are wildly inconsistent with either previous results or what you were expecting, it's not uncommon to request the lab to re-run the sample. We've had people do this in the past and the results came back as they were expected. This could be the sample getting mixed-up, the results getting mixed-up...etc, it happens. Yes, we see more of these with Blackstone because we see more reports from Blackstone.
Exactly.

reacting as you have here to my comments isn't constructive, despite my efforts at making my remark amusing/fun with the "lol"
When you are blaming a company for something they almost certainly had nothing to do with, then following with an "lol", I take that as passive-aggressive.
Blackstone may have messed up the sample, it happens, other labs have messed up samples too
Or they may NOT have messed up the sample. Which is more likely in this case? That the actual oil in the car was Pennzoil Platinum Euro L 5W30 instead of regular Pennzoil Platinum 5W30, or that Blackstone somehow mixed up samples but still managed to get results that fit the wear profile of the OP's vehicle with 7580 miles? Why the emphasis on assigning blame to BS when chances are they had nothing to do with it?

They might have buggered something up and it would be silly to dismiss that as a possibility just because you are a fan of their services, have some relationship with them, or some other vested interest in preserving some sort of perception of perfection that applies to their services
I've been accused of this before and I've already explained why I defend them: I'm not a fan of anyone or anything getting unfairly attacked. If it was Polaris or even you, I'd defend them the same way. When you see someone in the high school hallway getting picked on unfairly, do you defend them or join in? This is how the situation boils down in my book.

Where I think we may have a disconnect is all the snide, passive-aggressive digs toward BS that happen here due to herd mentality. I see them frequently in oil analysis posts here. They are simply not fair and only encourage those who don't know any different to repeat the behavior without checking any facts.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
If you'd like, I can spend a couple of hours digging through the forums to link to the various posts illustrating what I said. This is no exaggeration.
I don't believe they are as numerous as you believe. I think there's a bit of confirmation bias taking place, but I do believe you've seen what you say you have, I just don't think that they are as prolific as you might be inclined to think. It's a bit like buying a specific car and then you see them everywhere.
You're preaching to the choir, though I wouldn't call it "wildly" inaccurate. Less accurate, yes. I've already gone on the record here multiple times agreeing that GC is more accurate.
Well, if Blackstone says you have <1% fuel and Polaris says you have 7% fuel, that's as relative chasm. I'd call that "wildly" inaccurate, and do.
When you are blaming a company for something they almost certainly had nothing to do with, then following with an "lol", I take that as passive-aggressive.
It wasn't intended to be, it was just pointing that out as a possibility (which it is), while trying to keep the conversation upbeat. Again, this is a $20 report, not a $200 Dyson analysis.
Or they may NOT have messed up the sample. Which is more likely in this case? That the actual oil in the car was Pennzoil Platinum Euro L 5W30 instead of regular Pennzoil Platinum 5W30, or that Blackstone somehow mixed up samples but still managed to get results that fit the wear profile of the OP's vehicle with 7580 miles? Why the emphasis on assigning blame to BS when chances are they had nothing to do with it?
No emphasis, just pointing it out as a possibility, because it is one. Sure, the OP could have bought completely different oil for that change, the lab may also have swapped his sample with somebody who had the same vehicle but used a different oil. There are enough examples over the years on here that we cannot just dismiss it out of hand.
I've been accused of this before and I've already explained why I defend them: I'm not a fan of anyone or anything getting unfairly attacked. If it was Polaris or even you, I'd defend them the same way. When you see someone in the high school hallway getting picked on unfairly, do you defend them or join in? This is how the situation boils down in my book.
That's a bit of a stretch. I'd consider this more akin to somebody buying a low-cost good from Walmart, it breaking, and then somebody else chiming-in that "that's what you get for buying it at Walmart". Do you jump in and defend Walmart to the death at that point? No, a pragmatist would consider what was purchased, the cost of that item, the fact that Walmart does have a history of selling some stuff that breaks, but that overall, most people are satisfied with their purchases. This isn't going to stop people from buying things at Walmart, just like lab error is unlikely to dissuade people from using Blackstone, because ultimately, they are still the least expensive lab, which is why they make up the bulk of reports on this site, despite their shortcomings.
Where I think we may have a disconnect is all the snide, passive-aggressive digs toward BS that happen here due to herd mentality. I see them frequently in oil analysis posts here. They are simply not fair and only encourage those who don't know any different to repeat the behavior without checking any facts.
Sure, there are some of those, just like there are mindless digs at Mobil, AMSOIL...etc. People learn reasonably quickly if they are around here for more than a hot minute, to disregard the deluded ramblings of the posters making these sort of remarks.

One still needs to be careful that defence doesn't get out of hand and start pushing back against legitimate criticism.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
One still needs to be careful that defence doesn't get out of hand and start pushing back against legitimate criticism.
And one needs to be careful that blanket criticism and grade-school name-calling do not get out of hand.
I don't believe they are as numerous as you believe.
This is just from the first few pages of search results for the word "Blackstone" in the UOA and VOA forums:

-"Blackstone's inability to accurately measure is legendary."
-"I'm referring to them as Wackstone from this point forward as their results are wack!"
-"Blackstoned?"
-"That's a Whackstone guess."
-"For whatever reason Blackstone always shows viscosity as lower than it really is."
-"The Blackstone scam continues."
-"Something is out of calibration at Blackstone."
-"blackstone is inaccurate right now"
-in response to "what do you mean that blackstone is inaccurate right now?": "add packs being under reported by a significant percentage"
-"All this VOA shows is that Blackstone sucks. If you were to take that same oil sample and send it to ALS, Polaris, PMS, Wearcheck, Speediagnotix, etc... you'd likely get ~20% higher values across the board." When shown a VOA from WearCheck that matches Blackstone results, the response is "Either Wearcheck is also wrong or Mobil 1 is lying about that oil being API SP. I'm thinking the former." When a 3rd VOA confirms results, the response is "Then that's a big problem with Mobil 1."
-"just thought it should be noted as blackstone’s TBNs are notoriously low."
-"Also, this is Blackstone. They don't exactly have a good track record of being accurate. (consistent low reporting)"
-"Blackstone is always low on VOAs"
-"Typical Blackstone misreporting."
-"Seems like Blackstone is always pushing people to go farther on oil changes." (in reality, they only make such comments if you check the YES box to the question "Are you interested in extend oil use?")
-"I don’t trust anything on a Blackstone report including the spectrographic results."

I could keep going, but I won't. You can paste those into Google or BITOG search to confirm I'm not making them up.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
And one needs to be careful that blanket criticism and grade-school name-calling do not get out of hand.
OK, who is doing grade school level name calling here? I'm certainly not calling anyone any names.
This is just from the first few pages of search results for the word "Blackstone" in the UOA and VOA forums:
OK, but how many posts are in those forums? Going searching for what you are looking for is obviously going to net the results you seek.
-"Blackstone's inability to accurately measure is legendary."
If this is in regards to fuel, it's technically accurate.
-"I'm referring to them as Wackstone from this point forward as their results are wack!"
-"Blackstoned?"
Agreed, not nice.
-"That's a Whackstone guess."
If that's on fuel again, it's while not nicely worded, accurate.
-"For whatever reason Blackstone always shows viscosity as lower than it really is."
If this is a UOA, this is quite common because of fuel not being properly measured. Now, if this is a VOA? Then that's not supported by facts.
-"The Blackstone scam continues."
-"Something is out of calibration at Blackstone."
-"blackstone is inaccurate right now"
-in response to "what do you mean that blackstone is inaccurate right now?": "add packs being under reported by a significant percentage"
-"All this VOA shows is that Blackstone sucks. If you were to take that same oil sample and send it to ALS, Polaris, PMS, Wearcheck, Speediagnotix, etc... you'd likely get ~20% higher values across the board."
Well, you might get different results (which the spreadsheet investigating this showed to be the case) but again, this is a misuse of UOA's.
When shown a VOA from WearCheck that matches Blackstone results, the response is "Either Wearcheck is also wrong or Mobil 1 is lying about that oil being API SP. I'm thinking the former." When a 3rd VOA confirms results, the response is "Then that's a big problem with Mobil 1."
Which again, would suggest a misuse of UOA's.
-"just thought it should be noted as blackstone’s TBNs are notoriously low."
They are notoriously low, because they use a different test method to measure it. If people understood that, they wouldn't make these comments. Again, UOA's are widely misunderstood and misused on here, which lead to comments like these.

We had a whole discussion on the different TBN methods in a thread for this very reason. Problem is if course that not everybody making these comments bothers to read the technical discussions.
-"Also, this is Blackstone. They don't exactly have a good track record of being accurate. (consistent low reporting)"
-"Blackstone is always low on VOAs"
-"Typical Blackstone misreporting."
-"Seems like Blackstone is always pushing people to go farther on oil changes." (in reality, they only make such comments if you check the YES box to the question "Are you interested in extend oil use?")
-"I don’t trust anything on a Blackstone report including the spectrographic results."

I could keep going, but I won't. You can paste those into Google or BITOG search to confirm I'm not making them up.
Why would I think you would make stuff up? Have I accused you of fabricating? No, I did suggest that there may be a bit of hyperbole here, and still maintain that's the case, Blackstone is over-represented in the comments because they are by far the most common lab that reports come from on here, just like Mobil is slagged more often than other brands.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
OK, who is doing grade school level name calling here? I'm certainly not calling anyone any names.
I wasn't accusing you of that, man. Sorry if you thought so. It was a preface to the upcoming quotes I listed below that statement.

Why would I think you would make stuff up?
Because you said "I don't believe they are as numerous as you believe."
They are notoriously low, because they use a different test method to measure it.
Blackstone is not the only lab that uses D4739. Oil Analyzers, NAPA and ALS at least, use the same method. Probably others. And D4739 is what ASTM recommends for used oil analysis and virgin analysis when the same oil will be tested after use.

I'm done. My comments aren't making a lick of difference that I can tell. People are set in their ways here so there's no point in wasting my time.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
I wasn't accusing you of that, man. Sorry if you thought so. It was a preface to the upcoming quotes I listed below that statement.
No worries.
Because you said "I don't believe they are as numerous as you believe."
That in no way implied, nor were you to infer, that I thought you were a purveyor of fiction. Simply that we tend to see what we are looking for and with the number of UOA's and VOA's posted on this site, and Blackstone making up the bulk of them, there are going to be what appear to be lots of examples.
Blackstone is not the only lab that uses D4739. Oil Analyzers, NAPA and ALS at least, use the same method. Probably others. And D4739 is what ASTM recommends for used oil analysis and virgin analysis when the same oil will be tested after use.
Absolutely! But my point is that most people don't understand that. How many people do you think read the exchange we had on this? Very few would be my guess. Blackstone will get slagged for it more often by those who don't understand, simply because we see more of their reports.
I'm done. My comments aren't making a lick of difference that I can tell. People are set in their ways here so there's no point in wasting my time.
Hey, I thought we were having a pretty decent conversation? 🤷‍♂️
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
That in no way implied, nor were you to infer, that I thought you were a purveyor of fiction.
Fair enough. Thanks.

Simply that we tend to see what we are looking for and with the number of UOA's and VOA's posted on this site, and Blackstone making up the bulk of them, there are going to be what appear to be lots of examples.
This is true. Irritating (re: lots of examples), but true.

Hey, I thought we were having a pretty decent conversation? 🤷‍♂️
I don't know, it felt like I was pissing in the wind. ;)

Seriously, the several times I have brought this topic up, I don't think anyone ever chimed in with a "good point, maybe we are being unfair in (at least some of) our comments about Blackstone." I don't get the impression that I changed even one mind. 🤷‍♂️
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
Fair enough. Thanks.


This is true. Irritating (re: lots of examples), but true.


I don't know, it felt like I was pissing in the wind. ;)

Seriously, the several times I have brought this topic up, I don't think anyone ever chimed in with a "good point, maybe we are being unfair in (at least some of) our comments about Blackstone." I don't get the impression that I changed even one mind. 🤷‍♂️
I think our exchange was productive; I think hashing this out in the manner in which we have, gives people the opportunity to re-evaluate their position and what it is based on. I think just based on that alone, this conversation was worth having :)
 
Top