Originally Posted By: dnewton3
2010_FX4
Sorry if it came off harsh; did not mean it to be.
But I thought you and others understood the difference here, but you and Jim fell right back into the old trap. You called the M1 "better" only after two UOAs.
It takes at least 30 samples to establish a reasonable mean and standard deviation node. So, for each lube you try, you'd have to run 30 UOAs. And when you vary the OCI duration, you're changing inputs. I have always said there is not a BITOGer here I know of that has the time/money to really call something "better" from a truely scientific perspective. I include myself and you and everyone else in that. But what we can do is compare/contrast our individual UOAs to known averages, and then see how they stack up, given our choices of inputs. Your M1 runs did not even spike out of the first node of sigma deviation. While you may perceive that the M1 was better than the MS5K, it really was not. All your lube reports are totally normal for the exposure.
As for the TBN/TAN relationship, your condemation points are fine, but we've all discussed before the fact that TBN/TAN are only predictors of possibilities; in and of themselves they mean nothing. Only if that TBN/TAN affects wear, would you then be able to claim that the relationship had merit. Until that time, it's moot. I've shown that TAN crossing over TBN, even on order of 2x, means nothing to the wear data. If you choose to use TBN/TAN as condemnation, that's fine. But you're doing so arbitrarily.
What I am impressed with is that you stick to one lube for a reasonable amount of time, to establish that it's "normal" in it's performance. I applaud you for that. Both publically and privately, I've praised you for your approach. But I cannot agree with this new conclusion you have come up with; you are misinterpreting the data.
But you're falling prey to the wrong convictions here. You have no ability to safely and accurately say any lube you have tried is better than another lube you've tried. You have zero data to support that conclusion. You have anecdotal evidence that your lubes all perform to a very satifying standard, where the engine most likely outlast your use for it, regardless of what lube you use.
When I ran my longer OCI trials, I never claimed that the ST lube was "better" than any other in terms wear. To the contrary, I called out the fact that the performance of it was "normal", showing that it was on par with all other options, and that the longer OCIs had zero negative effects. Yours are the same; you are proving that longer OCIs are safe and practical. You are showing that the syns and dinos all perform (essentially) the same.
EVERYTHING we do should be targeted as a question of how it effects wear. If it does NOT cause effects in wear ranges and trends, then it is either ambiguous, or not at a magnitude that yet has merit. If wear were fine, would it matter if vis was too high or low? If wear were fine, would it matter if you added one packet of KoolAid to the OCI? If wear were fine, would it matter if you ran goat urine rather that oil? EVERYTHING we do should be studied in refernce to wear. You can look at other things as predictors, but those are only inputs. The output (wear data) is what matters. Vis is low? Tan is high? FP low? If the wear is not shifted, it means nothing other than the equipment is not yet affected. This topic reminds me of the recent movie "Moneyball" ... it does not matter if the player has a nice swing, or is a leftie, or etc. What matters is pushing up the score, and that is only done by getting on base. The same is here for engines; wear is what takes equipment from use, period. If your variable is not effecting wear, it is either unable to do so, or not in such quantity as to make a difference. Period.
Again - sorry to be blunt, but the point needs to be understood. UOAs are great tools, but are often used for improper conclusions. For you and Jim to call M1 "better" is fine for you to opine, but the facts are not supportive of your position. All of your UOAs are "normal", and nothing more. You are proving that syns and dinos in your application are essentially the same, and that they can be safely run for longer durations than the OEM prescribes. Nothing more; nothing less.
If I have offended you, then I owe you, and offer, this appology. I am sorry.
MONKEY NIPPLE'S