dnewton3
Staff member
- When I post, it often comes off rude; that is unfortunate and a burden I have to shoulder. It often sours the reception of others; I get that. So be it.
- When I post, it is with the knowledge that comes from a HUGE amount of UOA data (much, much more than any BITOG pretender).
- When I post, it is with the experience that comes from years of statistical process quality control engineering.
- When I post, I most always put up my evidence, either directly with my personal work data, or referring to the work of others such as SAE studies, UOA data, etc.
- When I post, I ask for those who disagree with me to PROVE their position with facts and data, rather than rhetoric and mythology. Anecdotal tidbits aren't proof.
And typically I'm met with personal attacks and ... (insert sounds of chirping crickets in lieu of real facts) ...
I once participated in a thread and made a very short observation; I was told that it was wrong and not well thought out. I then replied with a very detailed thorough analysis, and included several links as proof. The response to my elaboration? It was said I type too much .... some folks are just never happy with the response they get.
In this thread, I never said the 5k mile syn OCI was a bad idea. I said that there is zero evidence to PROVE it's the right decision; there is no data I've seen to indicate the OP (or anyone else) has any idea of what marker(s) may show the onset of the issue, and therefore NO ONE has ANY idea past a barn-wide SWAG.
What I have said is that IF (emphasis on IF) the UOA contains any marker, then the syn did nothing to distinguish itself from a dino alternative because this UOA is totally average. If the marker(s) is NOT present, then why brag on the lube and point to the OCI duration as the near-perfect solution?
Where is the value of a UOA here? I've already said it; it's OTHER FOLKS UOA data you should be looking at. Look for a marker, if one even exists. Then use it to predict the safe OCI duration, regardless of the lube base stock chosen.
The bug up my posterior here is that the methodology (or more accurately, the lack thereof) is haphazard. The OP brags on the lube and OCI as a best-fit solution, but cannot articulately describe WHY that syn or that OCI is right other than to point at other folks who happen to not have sludged engines; that is correlation and nothing more. Nor can he provide any statistical data as to how many VCM engines do sludge, under what contributing circumstances, and what delineates the OCI duration relative to base stock (dino versus syn) for the onset of that condition. And then folks run to his rescue with personal attacks on me when I ask for proof on concept.
Any dino lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.
Any syn lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.
The question I ask is this: is there an identifiable marker, and if so, does it reveal any PROOF as to the duration any particular lube can safely sustain?
I return you to your regularly scheduled rhetoric, hype and personal affronts.
- When I post, it is with the knowledge that comes from a HUGE amount of UOA data (much, much more than any BITOG pretender).
- When I post, it is with the experience that comes from years of statistical process quality control engineering.
- When I post, I most always put up my evidence, either directly with my personal work data, or referring to the work of others such as SAE studies, UOA data, etc.
- When I post, I ask for those who disagree with me to PROVE their position with facts and data, rather than rhetoric and mythology. Anecdotal tidbits aren't proof.
And typically I'm met with personal attacks and ... (insert sounds of chirping crickets in lieu of real facts) ...
I once participated in a thread and made a very short observation; I was told that it was wrong and not well thought out. I then replied with a very detailed thorough analysis, and included several links as proof. The response to my elaboration? It was said I type too much .... some folks are just never happy with the response they get.
In this thread, I never said the 5k mile syn OCI was a bad idea. I said that there is zero evidence to PROVE it's the right decision; there is no data I've seen to indicate the OP (or anyone else) has any idea of what marker(s) may show the onset of the issue, and therefore NO ONE has ANY idea past a barn-wide SWAG.
What I have said is that IF (emphasis on IF) the UOA contains any marker, then the syn did nothing to distinguish itself from a dino alternative because this UOA is totally average. If the marker(s) is NOT present, then why brag on the lube and point to the OCI duration as the near-perfect solution?
Where is the value of a UOA here? I've already said it; it's OTHER FOLKS UOA data you should be looking at. Look for a marker, if one even exists. Then use it to predict the safe OCI duration, regardless of the lube base stock chosen.
The bug up my posterior here is that the methodology (or more accurately, the lack thereof) is haphazard. The OP brags on the lube and OCI as a best-fit solution, but cannot articulately describe WHY that syn or that OCI is right other than to point at other folks who happen to not have sludged engines; that is correlation and nothing more. Nor can he provide any statistical data as to how many VCM engines do sludge, under what contributing circumstances, and what delineates the OCI duration relative to base stock (dino versus syn) for the onset of that condition. And then folks run to his rescue with personal attacks on me when I ask for proof on concept.
Any dino lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.
Any syn lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.
The question I ask is this: is there an identifiable marker, and if so, does it reveal any PROOF as to the duration any particular lube can safely sustain?
I return you to your regularly scheduled rhetoric, hype and personal affronts.
Last edited: