Best oil

[Gene K]

You had to "bow out" of the other thread where you were peddling this incorrect information and now you post it here? It was carefully explained to you by multiple individuals and by several methods that these tests were irrelevant and the "results" meaningless. Dd you not understand the technical reasons why they are not?

You also need to stop the nonsense that there are "no tests" that back up opinions rather than PF or Rat, you also keep making that incorrect statement when it has been explained that there are tests that indicate oil quality that have actual statistical and procedural validity. Yet you persist in being unable or unwilling to understand that either. Please stop deceiving people with this error.

I don't think I read the other comment but I think that's a bit unkind.

It's not exactly what he just posted.

He said "Personally real tests from Project Farm or Rat carry more weight then opinions with no tests, we ourselves determine if the test is valid enough for us, just as we ourselves determine if ones opinion is valid."

That they carry more weight with him and we are free to accept or reject them isn't really a radical position. Also the fact that opinions with no test data to back it may or may not be valid didn't seem that radical.

I often find certain test data (ie viscosity loss) more distressing than others and some less destressing (NOACK) than others. That doesn't mean I'm right and others are wrong. We just have different priorities. To be honest I haven't looked into Ray's test to see how well it correlates to a Solid Lifter Racing Cam. The last solid I had was 30 years ago (0.636/0.636 310/320 270/280) and it lived just fine on 20W-50 VR1.

I find Project Farm entertaining if not technically informative. I don't feel like I lost as much IQ after watching it as the Kardashians.

 

[kschachn]

I don't think I read the other comment but I think that's a bit unkind.

It's not exactly what he just posted.

He said "Personally real tests from Project Farm or Rat carry more weight then opinions with no tests, we ourselves determine if the test is valid enough for us, just as we ourselves determine if ones opinion is valid."

That they carry more weight with him and we are free to accept or reject them isn't really a radical position. Also the fact that opinions with no test data to back it may or may not be valid didn't seem that radical.

If the technical validity of test results if solely dependent on personal belief then I agree with you. Although that is unscientific to the core one is certainly free to have that opinion. However, saying that an opinion based on the tests contained in SAE J300 or in a manufacturer's approval process is "no test" is also unscientific.

The problem is that what PF and Rat are doing are inappropriate tests to characterize motor oils, they are performed with no controls on the procedure whatsoever and the test values are not properly analyzed. Each one of these errors by itself is sufficient to invalidate any of the so-called results. As a result the validity of their measurements is identical to someone using a hamster's opinion to rank motor oils.

 

[PimTac]

Another problem here is using examples of engines that have inherent issues. No oil is going to fix a manufacturing defect or design issue.

 

[Astro14]

I don't think I read the other comment but I think that's a bit unkind.

It's not exactly what he just posted.

He said "Personally real tests from Project Farm or Rat carry more weight then opinions with no tests, we ourselves determine if the test is valid enough for us, just as we ourselves determine if ones opinion is valid."

That they carry more weight with him and we are free to accept or reject them isn't really a radical position. Also the fact that opinions with no test data to back it may or may not be valid didn't seem that radical.

I often find certain test data (ie viscosity loss) more distressing than others and some less destressing (NOACK) than others. That doesn't mean I'm right and others are wrong. We just have different priorities. To be honest I haven't looked into Ray's test to see how well it correlates to a Solid Lifter Racing Cam. The last solid I had was 30 years ago (0.636/0.636 310/320 270/280) and it lived just fine on 20W-50 VR1.

I find Project Farm entertaining if not technically informative. I don't feel like I lost as much IQ after watching it as the Kardashians.

I think Kschachn's point was; that Alarmguy had been argumentative about the relevance and validity of Project Farm in a previous thread, and that caused the thread to be closed, so now, he's bringing the same argument into this thread...

If you choose an oil that meets specs, and it happens to stroke your fan-boy sensibilities, have at it...

 

[Gene K]

If you choose an oil that meets specs, and it happens to stroke your fan-boy sensibilities, have at it...

Like using PUP in your Miata because the Ferrari F1 Team used Shell Helix Ultra?

Or Kendall because you have fond memories of Big Daddy in Top Fuel?

 

[Astro14]

I've got a Wolf's Head motor oil display stand from the 1950s...designed to hold cans, of course...that came from my Great Uncle's shop, and was once my Dad's

So, I would happily run Wolf's Head, if I could find it! It would look great on the stand!

As good a reason as any...

 

[alarmguy]

You had to "bow out" of the other thread where you were peddling this incorrect information and now you post it here? It was carefully explained to you by multiple individuals and by several methods that these tests were irrelevant and the "results" meaningless. Did you not understand the technical reasons why they are not?

You also need to stop the nonsense that there are "no tests" that back up opinions rather than PF or Rat, you also keep making that incorrect statement when it has been explained that there are tests that indicate oil quality that have actual statistical and procedural validity. Yet you persist in being unable or unwilling to understand that either. Please stop deceiving people with this error.

I’m still waiting for you to post the tests to back up the nonsense that you’re saying, which seems to imply one oil is better than the other in the same API or manufacturers category. The fact is all oils rated the same meet the manufacturers specifications for the vehicle.
Most others who read my posts understand what I’m saying.
By the way discontinuing a conversation with you is not bowing out of a thread, I like anybody else in any forum decides when they’ve said enough.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well that is true to some degree. But is the $50 a gallon oil going to add 100,000 plus miles of life to your engine say over Mobil 1 in a 5 quart Jug at $22.38 a Jug. I have serious doubts about that. I am not taking best I'm talking average serviceability those oils are going to really provide for you.

I'd never pay exorbitant amounts of money on boutique oils. What I do is look at all the popular "everyday consumer oils" and compare formulation specs (I like oils with Moly), and also home in on oils that have high HTHS for their viscosity rating, low Noack and look at the VI. I went through that a while back and chose Valvoline Advanced 5W-30, and didn't mind spending a few more bucks for a 5qt jug of that. If it makes a difference or not who knows, but my engines run well and quiet on it (more so than Mobil 1 did) so it's worth to me.

 

[alarmguy]

Both Project Farm and 540Rat conduct tests which have little relevance to actual performance in internal combustion engines.

If you’re picking an oil on the basis of a specious and perhaps, irrelevant, test, done in a barn, without controls, the kind of silly test in which shampoo beats oil, and that makes you happy, go ahead.

If it makes you happy.

But don’t confuse this amateur "testing" with meeting manufacturer’s specifications, or the rigorous testing done by certifying agencies.

If you choose an oil that meets specs, and also happens to rock the amateur hour fan-base on Youtube or the internet blogs, well, then, you’re fine, too...

I think you can agree that you agree with me and I agree with you, as I pointed out in my posts. First and foremost choose the oil of the proper manufacturer specifications, then, if it makes one happy from that group choose based on what suits your fancy, which would include oil company marketing, thoughts on forums, garage oil testing ect.

 

[ZeeOSix]

First and foremost choose the oil of the proper manufacturer specifications ...

And then go up one notch in viscosity if it ends in 20 or less.

 

[kschachn]

I’m still waiting for you to post the tests to back up the nonsense that you’re saying, which seems to imply one oil is better than the other in the same API or manufacturers category. The fact is all oils rated the same meet the manufacturers specifications for the vehicle.
Most others who read my posts understand what I’m saying.
By the way discontinuing a conversation with you is not bowing out of a thread, I like anybody else in any forum decides when they’ve said enough.

I already answered that question in the other thread where you were so thoroughly beaten down and discredited that it became embarrassing for you and you "bowed out". Now you've added the additional criteria of "better than the other in the same API or manufacturers category".

Rather than this abject nonsense why don't you describe in technical language how and why the PF and Rat "tests" are valid? That whole discussion is curiously absent from any of your posts, have you noticed that? Many individuals in these threads have given you legitimate and concise reasons why they are invalid, how about you tell us in similar terms why they are instead representative and valid?

And although I appreciate your personal attention in these threads I suggest you might respond to others that point out the clueless nature of your posts. I'm not the only one.

 

[PimTac]

And then go up one notch in viscosity if it ends in 20 or less.

that’s really scientific and fact based.

 

[ZeeOSix]

that’s really scientific and fact based.

What do you think these mean? --->

But I do that 20 ---> 30 step-up for all the tribology related things I've talked about in this thread, which is actually based on wear vs viscosity studies.

 

[kschachn]

I think you can agree that you agree with me and I agree with you, as I pointed out in my posts. First and foremost choose the oil of the proper manufacturer specifications, then, if it makes one happy from that group choose based on what suits your fancy, which would include oil company marketing, thoughts on forums, garage oil testing ect.

The way I read it, Astro14 didn't agree with one single thing you wrote.

If someone is using secondary criteria to make a choice above and beyond the specifications shouldn't they be based on some sort of valid criteria? If not then you would agree with me that a taste test or a hamster making the distinction is equally valid. In that case why bother? Where's the added value?

The bottom line is that PF and Rat are promoting utterly useless information that is of zero worth, plain and simple. Maybe I'll start my own website or YouTube channel where I rank oils based on which come up first on Google as opposed to Bing and Yahoo.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Gokhan did a bunch of oil manufacturer's specifications heavy number crunching to come up with an overall type rating system. Lots of the oils in the same viscosity range were close, but a few did stand out in their respective viscosity rating groups. I think that was more useful data then 540Rat or Project Farm info.

 

[alarmguy]

I think Kschachn's point was; that Alarmguy had been argumentative about the relevance and validity of Project Farm in a previous thread, and that caused the thread to be closed, so now, he's bringing the same argument into this thread...

If you choose an oil that meets specs, and it happens
[/QUOTE

I think Kschachn's point was; that Alarmguy had been argumentative about the relevance and validity of Project Farm in a previous thread, and that caused the thread to be closed, so now, he's bringing the same argument into this thread...

If you choose an oil that meets specs, and it happens to stroke your fan-boy sensibilities, have at it...

I think you really need to re-read all the posts.
Argumentative? Not in the slightest.

 

[OilReport99]

I think you really need to re-read all the posts.
Argumentative? Not in the slightest.

What's the point? Are you in need of attention? Let's forget about knowledge of motor oil performance; from your posts one can assume you're either argumentative or you don't have a [censored] clue about formal logic. In any case - why re-read your posts?

 

[dblshock]

to pick one it's Castrol 0/40...although I use M1 0/40 in my legacy Toyota engines for it's hi Ca.

 

[Malo83]

50+ years of trouble free driving.

 

[Rytautas]

50+ years of trouble free driving.
View attachment 26459

Shell is number 1. Although I believe rotella t6 is better than pennzoil.