Last time I heard that comment was from a Movie back in the early 1990's
2015 Yukon 5.3L 0w20
- Thread starter pjmbull
- Start date
Ford Boss Me is a blathering idiot.Sir, I'm going by what I have read and heard(including Blackstone lab reports) I personally do not use M1 products on any of my vehicles and don't really ever plan to since the "sheeples" always demand it and it's my #1 selling product lol
1.When I was doing my sales, I stopped by a well known Porsche/German car shop in DFW owner saying they were having "heat issues" running M1 on a clients 996 and when they switched to Motul/Liqui-Molly the "heat issues" went away??? It was a quick stop and this was 2 years ago, so next time I'm around there I will ask him for more info on the M1 issues they had
2. I've had few of my clients tell me they had "engine noise" running M1 new triple action formula and also have read MANY online reviews on WM.com and Amazon about M1 "Vanilla" and many common complaints/reports of a "engine noise" and a "louder engine" when they switched to M1 and then going away once they switched back to original oil brand they had been running or a different brand??? Anyone is welcomed to go through all of those reviews like I did
3. Anyone is free to watch FORDBOSSME (Ford ASE tech) on YT and watch/listen to his Blackstone lab reviews on many oil including M1 and his explanation of why it's a "weak formula" I'm sure all of us can respect Blackstone labs and not much the guy on that channel who comes off very obnoxious and arrogant lol...................Must be a "Midwest attitude" thing ??
4. LSJR I believe made some negative comments about "plain jane M1" but will have to dig for that one and post it on here
Don't get me wrong seems like a good 3K-5K oil for most of us. But thankfully there's MUCH better oil options out there in today's market
And Blackstone cannot determine a weak formulation, other than one that is possibly dangerous to engine operation. A spectrographic analysis will not yield this type of subjective determination.
And are these heat issues related to your earlier hot dipstick problem?
dnewton3
Staff member
DFWoilguy -
I appreciate your efforts regarding finding some info, but frankly many of us here are not impressed with Amazon reviews and YT testimonials. They don't represent any substantial, meaningful OBJECTIVE analysis; they are SUBJECTIVE conjecture at best. They nearly always lack any baseline data; we need more than "sounds better" or "runs smoother". That's hardly the kind of details we accept here on BITOG as meaningful.
Your claim is that M1 AFS is "weak" relative to its predecessor, but I've seen no data that indicates it fails to meet the goals. I'm not even sure what criteria you're using to judge these lubes
- wear rates? where's the data streams?
- tear-down analysis? where's the measurements of the components?
- field fleet trials? using what DoE? and where's the historical before/after data?
These types of criticisms remind me of the old "CJ-4 oil is junk" claims because some elemental additives were reduced in favor of sustaining emissions equipment life. Yet here we are, nearly two decades later, and there's no clear evidence that the CJ-4 shift was as horrible as many claimed. CJ-4 and CK-4 lubes are doing just fine in the field, and have plenty of trial data and SAE data to back them up.
These complaints boil down like this for the common man ....
- I like something
- it was changed
- I don't understand why or how it changed
- therefore I don't like it now, because it's different
And yet when that person is challenged to put forth credible data (from sources like SAE studies and/or large qualified DOE fleet programs), the quest falls onto deaf ears and the conversation goes into an abyss.
I would ask that you understand we're a tough bunch here; hearsay, internet product reviews and anecdotal YT vids are NOT going to impress us, nor change how we think lubricants.
I appreciate your efforts regarding finding some info, but frankly many of us here are not impressed with Amazon reviews and YT testimonials. They don't represent any substantial, meaningful OBJECTIVE analysis; they are SUBJECTIVE conjecture at best. They nearly always lack any baseline data; we need more than "sounds better" or "runs smoother". That's hardly the kind of details we accept here on BITOG as meaningful.
Your claim is that M1 AFS is "weak" relative to its predecessor, but I've seen no data that indicates it fails to meet the goals. I'm not even sure what criteria you're using to judge these lubes
- wear rates? where's the data streams?
- tear-down analysis? where's the measurements of the components?
- field fleet trials? using what DoE? and where's the historical before/after data?
These types of criticisms remind me of the old "CJ-4 oil is junk" claims because some elemental additives were reduced in favor of sustaining emissions equipment life. Yet here we are, nearly two decades later, and there's no clear evidence that the CJ-4 shift was as horrible as many claimed. CJ-4 and CK-4 lubes are doing just fine in the field, and have plenty of trial data and SAE data to back them up.
These complaints boil down like this for the common man ....
- I like something
- it was changed
- I don't understand why or how it changed
- therefore I don't like it now, because it's different
And yet when that person is challenged to put forth credible data (from sources like SAE studies and/or large qualified DOE fleet programs), the quest falls onto deaf ears and the conversation goes into an abyss.
I would ask that you understand we're a tough bunch here; hearsay, internet product reviews and anecdotal YT vids are NOT going to impress us, nor change how we think lubricants.
We live in America and the general public and BITGO members have the FREEDOM and CHOICE to look up unbiased and "real world reviews and watch YT to make the right choice for their application. I was just sharing what I have heard and read personally in my travels regarding basic M1 that's all
Many on here discredit LSJR as "another Youtuber" but if that was true then why would HPL let him in their labs to run his tests?????????
Not going to argue with a "Staff member" and we all know Mr "Upper Midwest" gets a "hall pass" around here to do and say whatever he wants lol
So ill leave it at that with the M1 VS XXX debate
Last edited:
If you quote what he said we can discuss it directly.
MolaKule
Staff member
Some YouTubers provide technical content supported by data; that should be the criteria by which we consider the credibility or non-credibility of YouTubers.
As far as HPL, HPL is very transparent and accommodating when it comes to experimentation, testing, and formulation results.
No one is above the rules and guidelines established here and no one gets a free pass. If at any time you cannot support your answers, then just say so or one can say, "Let me get back to you after further research."Not going to argue with a "Staff member" and we all know Mr "Upper Midwest" gets a "hall pass" around here to do and say whatever he wants lol
Last edited:
I posted my sources and it was removed and called "Trash" ?? Why not let BITGO members decide if it's "Trash" VS Censoring people???
Censoring/removing comments creates more questions and validity of this site
dnewton3
Staff member
Not all BITOGers live in the USA; many are outside our borders. That does not add or subtract from their ability to make their own choices, relative to what we do here on this site. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I would agree with you that folks can find info wherever they seek it. The issue several of us want to bring to light is that many YT and Amazon reviews lack any sensible credibility in terms of objective measurements, etc. The fact that you are merely regurgitating what you've seen/read elsewhere doesn't lend credibility to the base of your claim.We live in America and the general public and BITGO members have the FREEDOM and CHOICE to look up unbiased and "real world reviews and watch YT to make the right choice for their application. I was just sharing what I have heard and read personally in my travels regarding basic M1 that's all
I, for one, am critical of LSJr; not because of his credentials, but rather his presentations are lacking professional production quality, and he's clearly in it for the typical monetization. Why does HPL let him in their lab? That's their choice; not unlike you tout freedom of choice above.
You are free to debate me and any member all you want. As long as you don't violation any rules, there is nothing to fear. If you break the rules however, it's our job to deal with the transgression(s). Should you choose to "argue" with me, that's fine. But beware - I have a high threshold for credible data expectations, and backyard wrenchers and YT pundits don't impress me.Not going to argue with a "Staff member" and we all know Mr "Upper Midwest" gets a "hall pass" around here to do and say whatever he wants lol
You lost me at Fordbossme….
dnewton3
Staff member
To be clear, I was not the one who removed that information. But I do support the decision.
We hold a high standard at BITOG for what we call "proof" when it comes to claims. When you link Amazon reviews from unverifiable sources, there's no ability for us to challenge their statements or get at their data. When you link YT videos from self-proclaimed experts who, at best, display a total disregard for clinical, scientific standards, that does not bolster your "proof". When we remove those links from public view, it is not done on a whim; it's a methodical process with the goal of retaining a very high standard we've earned over more than two decades of improving the BITOG brand. We don't remove stuff because we disagree; we remove it because it compromises the quality of information we support. If someone wants to know what Amazon has to say about a product, it's appropriate to go to that site and find that info. But it's NOT appropriate to dump it here as if it's golden intel. What you have done is link unverifiable 3rd party hearsay; that's not what we're about.
At this point, it would be fair to the OP to get back on track. There are literally dozens of threads with thousands of posts regarding the underlying topic of "thick vs thin". If he can't figure out what to do after reading what already exists here, no amount of Amazon or YT reviews will help him any further.
I removed your post that contained a raw copy/paste of Amazon reviews. There are two problem with your copy/paste. First, the paste was full of embedded links to Amazon user profiles, products, etc. Second, the reviews were full of feelings and emotions with zero objective evidence, none. These issues are why I removed your post.
Last edited: