My family have owned and cared for many subarus; from the humble Justy 3cyl to the sporty 6cyl. SVX.
OK, but you have also claimed, in your own words, to have experienced more engine problems, and failures, across a huge range of vehicles than everybody else on this site combined. For better or worse, this is always in the back of my mind when I read posts like this from you. Perhaps a bit unfair, but that's unfortunately how my mind works
I say this not to demean or diminish you, but to hopefully help explain why I chose to reply to your comment.
To your comments.
What is "considerable" fuel? When is "trace" or than 0.5% "considerable" fuel?
Fuel needs to be properly measured by a lab that uses GC. Since you used Blackstone, that is not the case. A 385F flashpoint points to considerable fuel, regardless of Blackstone's inference methodology that results in them grossly underreporting it as "trace".
If you don't put any weight in relative wear rates then I guess there is nothing to see. I do understand that.
Yes, based on the extensive data and details by experts on this such as Doug Hillary. Small variances in PPM between similar applications don't matter. The tool simply lacks the resolution to produce useful data for this purpose. Gross variation on the other hand, can be valuable, particularly with a trending history. If you know what "normal" is for a given combination and note a significant departure from that, this can be grounds for further investigation.
But there is often much hand wringing over wear metals.
Yes, there is often much
misplaced hand wringing over wear metals because people want the data to "mean something" more than it does, they want to use it as a divining rod to help them figure out the "best oil", which a $30 spectrographic analysis is incapable of, but that's not going to deter them from trying. Though I think we've made considerable progress on driving that point home in recent years.
My HTHS assessment is from experimenting with higher HTHS lubricant in the N.A. FB engine family and finding the drivability and engine response to be far from acceptable or to design target. Consider that a well-considered opinion.
So, it's opinion based on absolutely no hard science then. Perhaps
@kschachn or
@ZeeOSix would care to comment further on this specific subject, but I think we should generally avoid making these sorts of assertions without adequately prefacing them to indicate that they are opinion only. It helps when trying to ascribe the appropriate amount of weight.
Maybe my post was a bit "cocky" but I am proud of how this engine ran on my frankenblend, extending the OCI and the resultant excellent UOA results. Just something in my back pocket if Subaru took issue.
- Ken
I am inherently conservative when it comes to discussing additives and mixing, based on the knowledge I've garnered with respect to how oils are developed and tested. The odds are infinitesimally low that a superior product will emerge as a result of mixing two dissimilar oil formulas, while the odds are quite high that there will be a negative impact on some aspect of performance. While that impact may not be measurable outside a lab (IE, it's not visible to average Joe playing home chemist), it does warrant mentioning the oft-cited adage by
@Shannow that absence of failure is not proof of performance. "Works great" or "It's super smooth" or other subjective non-scientific products of perception, readily influenced by desire, are not sufficient grounds upon which to base things.
You may not share my views here, and that's completely fine, but I think you deserve an explanation, so I've provided one.
Anyone want to guess how much longer it will take for Blackstone to get me my report? I say one more week, so three weeks longer than Horizon. They are both in Indiana so location can be ruled out.
