Actual Numbers

[Jake777]

Why is it that with motor oil we are all satisfied with zero data? Think about it. What is required to meet API SN (see below) Or what about Dexos 1 and how about ACEA A5/B5...There are specific performance requirements and tests developed where oil has to meet specific standards of performance with specific data point and that could be compared to another oils perfromance. We don't see any of that because its too expensive for independent people to run those exact tests and the big oil companies refuse to call each other out using this data because then they might have to actually compete on real facts. I wish someone like Amsoil or Penn Oil or other smaller guys would consider showing us their data points and how they stack up against the big guys and if they did that I bet more people would be willing to give them some business. As long as there product actually surpass some of the big boys in actual ILSAC, Dexos, ACEA tests not tests they design to show only a few points of performance.

ILSAC - http://pceo.com/key-specs/gf-5/performance
Deos 1 - http://www.hankgraffbgc.com/Dexos1.pdf
ACEA A5/B5 - https://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/Sequences/ACEA-A5B5-10.html

 

[Rolla07]

Proprietary info, thats why. They may be able to say theirs surpasses sn rating by x %..but they would need to prove that the competitors oil surpasses it by less. Also, I dont think the little guys want to start challenging the big dogs..since we all know who has the most money to argue who is best. I dont think its zero facts..just very few that we can base oil on.

 

[AirgunSavant]

It's hard for a little guy to pay all of the payola required to print fancy specs on bottles to thrill the anal. I totally understand but as you said it's a big boys game.
In my business I am a sole proprietor and I had to buy 3 tons of material which cost me $42,000. to be competitive.

The big companies who were worth many millions in the UK got together and shared the cost.
All five did. From my own experience I also tend to believe that those that can afford to spend big usually don't. Were the little guy has to just to create his own niche.

 

[Leo99]

Maybe an oil expert will chime in but I'm thinking oil is variable from batch to batch. There are specs and they perform QC testing to assure the samples meet spec. Some batches will be better than others but they all meet the spec. The tests themselves have variances associated with them. The oil companies don't want to make their certs of analysis public. How will you, the public, know which deltas between two oils are significant or just analytical variation?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Jake777
Why is it that with motor oil we are all satisfied with zero data? Think about it. What is required to meet API SN (see below) Or what about Dexos 1 and how about ACEA A5/B5...There are specific performance requirements and tests developed where oil has to meet specific standards of performance with specific data point and that could be compared to another oils perfromance. We don't see any of that because its too expensive for independent people to run those exact tests and the big oil companies refuse to call each other out using this data because then they might have to actually compete on real facts. I wish someone like Amsoil or Penn Oil or other smaller guys would consider showing us their data points and how they stack up against the big guys and if they did that I bet more people would be willing to give them some business. As long as there product actually surpass some of the big boys in actual ILSAC, Dexos, ACEA tests not tests they design to show only a few points of performance.

ILSAC - http://pceo.com/key-specs/gf-5/performance
Deos 1 - http://www.hankgraffbgc.com/Dexos1.pdf
ACEA A5/B5 - https://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/Sequences/ACEA-A5B5-10.html


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3789194/1/Porsche_A40_Testing_Protocol

Quote:

Here is Porsche A40 testing procedure:

This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through:
- 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving,
- 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving,
- 40 cold starts,
- 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack,
- 3.5 hours of “running-in” program
Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter
will be taken into account to grant the approval or not:
- torque curve (internal friction),
- oxidation of the oil,
- Piston cleanliness and ring sticking,
- Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 um.
- Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible.
- Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method.


That's a real test.

Also, details on what constitutes AP SN testing, and the details of the various SAE tests can all be found with a bit of searching.

 

[Nate1979]

Because no one but a few people on this site cares, and only a few of those would actually understand what the numbers actually meant. Why should they give away proprietary data, it would hurt their business more than help.

 

[SR5]

Yeah it would be nice to get real numbers, but I can't see then doing it. Most people don't know API from ACEA, so all that extra detail wouldn't help them much.

I think it would fence the oil manufacturers in a bit too, right now they can change formation within reason, as long as they keep the OEM certs they claim. This allows a certain flexibility with base component supply and economics. Give a number to 2 decimal places, and (a few) people will start thumping books and demand the old formulation back.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Jake777
We don't see any of that because its too expensive for independent people to run those exact tests and the big oil companies refuse to call each other out using this data because then they might have to actually compete on real facts.

They call each other out on it all the time, particularly if an oil is making false claims or falls beneath specifications. There were some poor batches of Mobil 1. Valvoline, and others, too, if I recall correctly, called Mobil 1 out on it and made some hay on advertising the issue. Castrol caused Royal Purple to get its knuckles rapped for making idiotic fuel economy and horsepower claims.

The real conclusion to be drawn is this, and it's not popular, particularly for those who like to justify spending a bunch of money on a fancy product. In a given application over a given OCI, any specified lubricant is completely interchangeable with any other specified lubricant, and you will see no differences. And, if you move up a tier or two, the competition ensures that things are equal, once again. PYB, GTX, QSGB, and Mobil Super conventional are completely interchangeable - period. Mobil 1 5w-30, black bottle Edge 5w-30, QSUD 5w-30, and PP 5w-30 are completely interchangeable, too, and likely to survive the exact same length OCI in a given application.

You can run all the one armed bandit tests you want, or light your oil on fire, or hot knife it, or put it in the oven, and none of this will tell you anything useful about its performance in your engine.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Yeah it would be nice to get real numbers, but I can't see then doing it. Most people don't know API from ACEA, so all that extra detail wouldn't help them much.

We also have to note that most people wouldn't know what do do with the numbers even if they had them. If given the real numbers, and told that the statistical difference between Oil A and Oil B in whatever test you want is actually zero, even thought the data points aren't identical, they wouldn't believe it anyway, and would be trumpeting one data point over another.

 

[circuitsmith]

Why would the companies spend money on something ~1% of their customers are remotely interested in?
Most shops and individual DIYers look no further than the viscosity #'s and for any certification logo.
How many owners of 2nd and 3rd hand Euro luxury cars care if the oil their shop meets some Euro spec?
50% of car owners don't even check oil level between changes.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Most people don't choose an oil. They take what they get when the oil is changed. Some smaller number of people choose based on an unqualified person's advice or marketing hype. The rest are BITOG members and there's no way to predict how they choose their oil.

For BITOG members having an absolute method of picking an oil would take all the fun out of talking about motor oil

 

[Nate1979]

I can see it now. The Jiffy Lube employee down the street surfs onto BITOG, checks out the oil performance data to see if the oil they recommend exceeds the specs for their customers. What world does this happen?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
Your post is confusing......
Are you saying you would like to see proof that he didn't get the oil
sent to him or the other way around? ( thanks) I read that blog many times and as usual if you give any opinions contrary to the established B/S your wrong. Even though the naysayers have tested nothing- they never do....

I give the guy props- agree or not B/S walks and he is trying and testing. More than 99% here. His blog spurred me on to test Prolong here under several experiments I will post next month

I believe Shannow is asking for proof that Mobil sent this guy anything. They have extensive in-house testing facilities, why would they send their product to a 3rd party to be run in this simple bench test when much of their testing involves actual engines and the lubes run in them with tear-down inspections?

 

[kschachn]

Little guys who can't afford to demonstrate that the product they wish to sell meets the standards they say it meets don't have any business being in business. A standard is a standard whether you happen to like it or not. I for one do not wish to live in motor oil anarchy land where I really have no clue whether the oil I'm buying is suitable for my application or not.

I think in years gone by it was part of the mystique or secret club to sell oils that didn't demonstrate they carried a standard. It played into the marketing strategy of those companies to say in whispered tones, "no, we don't test it because it's better than the standard" or "we prefer to put our money into R&D rather than spending money on unnecessary standards testing". They would rather you be wowed by watching the state fair apparatus smoke and screech on different oils since that is more viscerally appealing than numbers on a bottle.

Sure it sounds good to claim The Man is just forcing standards and specs down our throat but the reality is that modern engines require modern oils and obtaining approvals and specs is the only way anyone is ever going to know which oils actually are appropriate for an engine.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
Your post is confusing......
Are you saying you would like to see proof that he didn't get the oil
sent to him or the other way around? ( thanks) I read that blog many times and as usual if you give any opinions contrary to the established B/S your wrong. Even though the naysayers have tested nothing- they never do....

I give the guy props- agree or not B/S walks and he is trying and testing. More than 99% here. His blog spurred me on to test Prolong here under several experiments I will post next month

I believe Shannow is asking for proof that Mobil sent this guy anything. They have extensive in-house testing facilities, why would they send their product to a 3rd party to be run in this simple bench test when much of their testing involves actual engines and the lubes run in them with tear-down inspections?


Yep, evidence of the claim that any of the majors sent anything for him to test...most specifically Mobil, and Mobil 1, as that was the specific claim.

Given the secrecy of the test procedure, and as Garak points out, nothing in the way of error analysis (I brought out the paper for 4 ball, and IT's error is 20%), PLUS the dinky "thermal breakdown test", I doubt any major would risk their oil falling into the error bands and being discredited on a test that has nothing to do with engines, and engine oil performance.

But if there's evidence that Mobil DID send him Mobil 1, specifically to find out how it ranks...well I'll obviously stand corrected.

As I've said previously, if this test does everything that RAT promises, being the ultimate predictor of engine wear, then he's going to be very rich, and put the ASTM out of business on a whole lot of fronts...He's been around so long that I'm surprised that this hasn't happend actually.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
I give the guy props- agree or not B/S walks and he is trying and testing.

No "props" from me unless the error analysis and methodology are published. No "props" either when he says his testing has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on inside in engine.

Shannow: A 20% error on the 4 ball test doesn't jive very well with a six significant figure data point, does it? But, hey, he's testing, that's more than we're doing. Maybe I should do the colour testing. Royal Purple will obviously win, since it's really different.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Little guys who can't afford to demonstrate that the product they wish to sell meets the standards they say it meets don't have any business being in business. A standard is a standard whether you happen to like it or not. I for one do not wish to live in motor oil anarchy land where I really have no clue whether the oil I'm buying is suitable for my application or not.

I think in years gone by it was part of the mystique or secret club to sell oils that didn't demonstrate they carried a standard. It played into the marketing strategy of those companies to say in whispered tones, "no, we don't test it because it's better than the standard" or "we prefer to put our money into R&D rather than spending money on unnecessary standards testing". They would rather you be wowed by watching the state fair apparatus smoke and screech on different oils since that is more viscerally appealing than numbers on a bottle.

Sure it sounds good to claim The Man is just forcing standards and specs down our throat but the reality is that modern engines require modern oils and obtaining approvals and specs is the only way anyone is ever going to know which oils actually are appropriate for an engine.


I use an oil from one of those "little guys'. In my case it's a matter of trust in the manufacturer and my experience with their products. I am not bothered with the fact that they don't have official certifications. I'm not sure I know of any other "little guy" I would trust.

 

[kschachn]

In a test when something seems to correlate but something else does not, that means that nothing does.

Originally Posted By: bbhero
About rat540 testing results... Sure would be nice to know how his test is performed. Also a bit odd that Castrol 0w30 and Mobil 1 0w40 are "ranked" rather low on his test results aka in the 80s. Yet these two oils are specified to some of the toughest standards. MB 229.5, Porsche A40, ACEA A3B4 etc... Also look up the UOA results= usually stellar. Plus PYB is low on his test results. Look up PYB UOA test results = very good too. Having said that, the oils in his say top 90 out of 160+ tests results are all good oils. It's not like he has say Food Stamp Oil 5w30 or Welfare Generic Oil 5w40 in the higher part of his test results. Closest to that is the Oil Extreme in there. Which may qualify has Food Stamp Oil 5w30

 

[bbhero]

Yeah Shannow the Porsche test regimen clearly makes HTHS the biggest factor in keeping those motors running correctly and for a long time. When one runs a motor near or at max rpms for a long time... You need an oil that can stand up to that.

 

[bbhero]

I think your right about that kschachn.

You have a high mileage fleet. What have you generally run in those vehicles?? Pretty cool there in my book.