Blackstone "article"?

doyall · Sep 24, 2003

Somebody on a truck forum posted this a bit earlier:

quote:
Blackstone oil testing labs issued an article about 2 to 3 months ago that echoes your statement. Assuming a gasoline engine light duty application, not in heavy duty service (either mechanically or environmentally heavy), Blackstone saw no real difference in the type of oil that was used (i.e. they werent saying it was ok to use recycled 50 cent chain saw blade oil but just a decent oil that was in the weight and grade recommended by the manufacturer).

Anybody seen this "article"?

csandste · Sep 24, 2003

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/which_oil_to_use_.html "WHICH OIL TO USE? Managers and analysts at Blackstone Laboratories often do presentations regarding the fascinating world of oil analysis. Regardless of the immediate topic, the most common question we hear is, "What type of oil should I use in my car?" Because we're an independent laboratory, we don't recommend any specific oil brands. We always recommend using an oil grade recommended for your engine by the manufacturer and a brand that fits your budget. You can go into any mass retailer (Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Meijer, etc.) that sells engine oil and buy a 10W/30 (or any other preferred grade) that will perform well in your engine. One of the best-kept secrets of the oil industry is that these store brands are actually the same, quality oils that are produced by the major oil companies. The only difference between these products and the major company brands is the name on the container and about 50¢ a quart." But wait! We do actually have a preference when it comes to buying oils for our personal use engines. That preference however, has little to do with brand names. We analyze oils from our personal use engines (right down to our lawn mowers) religiously. We tend to choose oils that do not contain additives. Additives tend to get in the way of elements we want to see in the analysis data. For instance, many light, multi-grade oils use compounds of copper and/or sodium as oil additives. The copper additive masks brass or bronze wear from the engine. Sodium additives can mask anti-freeze contamination. There are many types of after-market additives you can buy. Some contain unusual compounds that can cause make it difficult for our analysts who are trying to determine if your engine has a mechanical problem. One additive we know of contains a lead compound. But lead is a metal common to bearing inserts. If you're using an additive with lead in it, it is difficult to tell whether the high lead is from your additive or a problem with the bearings. Another type of additive we often run across contains silicone (which is read as silicon by our spectrometer). Silicon is often found in the oil when a fault exists at air filtration. If we do not know there is an additive in use, it can be difficult to diagnose true problems that may be producing high silicon. If you are interested in having your engine oil analyzed by a quality lab, you will receive a better analysis if you avoid oils and after-market additives that use elements we need to see clearly to do a thorough analysis. If you feel you truly want to use an after-market additive, please let us know about it on the information slip provided with the sample." [ September 25, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: csandste ]

dene57K · Sep 24, 2003

what are examples of additive in oils, and examples of brands without additives...Virgin oils....do all major producers also have Virgin oils as well as oils with additives?

Pablo · Sep 25, 2003

quote:
We tend to choose oils that do not contain additives. Additives tend to get in the way of elements we want to see in the analysis data.

I assume I am not interpreting this correctly. They mean aftermarket additives, no? Not AW type adds that are part of the oil's formulation, right? It would be whacked to have zero adds....

MolaKule · Sep 25, 2003

Pablo, I agree, the statement is poorly worded and Blackstone probably wished they had proofread this before posting. I am sure they meant to say, "we used Major Brand formulated oils without third party or OTC additives." I do not know when this was written (it seems Out-Of-Date), but "For instance, many light, multi-grade oils use compounds of copper and/or sodium as oil additives. The copper additive masks brass or bronze wear from the engine. Sodium additives can mask anti-freeze contamination." I don't agree: If you have the VOA's of the same oil you CAN detect AF contamination because of the glycol detection process, and the VOA will show a difference between it and the UOA. Copper additives? They may be used at the factory, but I know of only one additive supplier that supplies copper adds, and that add is used only in high temp steel rolling mill lubricants. [ September 25, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

pgtr · Sep 25, 2003

quote:
Because we're an independent laboratory, we don't recommend any specific oil brands.

Out of curiosity why can't an independent lab make brand recomendations? Is there like a rule or law or something governing the practices of independent laboratories?

pscholte · Sep 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by csandste: For instance, many light, multi-grade oils use compounds of copper and/or sodium as oil additives. The copper additive masks brass or bronze wear from the engine. Sodium additives can mask anti-freeze contamination.

Doesn't this statement refer to the additives in the oil as it is sold, not with aftermarket inputs?

Drstressor · Sep 25, 2003

I don't think this is the article doyall is referring to. I believe it was in Vol 1, Issue 1 of the Blackstone Newsletter a couple of months ago. They simply concluded that from their extensive UOA data, they could not conclude that any particular brand of oil was better than any other. The article argued the importance of regular maintenance over the brand of oil.

CJH · Sep 25, 2003

Just an opinion, but if you start praising some brands and bashing others, it may lead people to question your objectivity. If you are a lab, I think your credibility is your best asset, and you strengthen your position if you stick to reporting the facts.

quote:
Originally posted by pgtr:
quote:
Because we're an independent laboratory, we don't recommend any specific oil brands.
Out of curiosity why can't an independent lab make brand recomendations? Is there like a rule or law or something governing the practices of independent laboratories?

buster · Sep 25, 2003

quote:
They simply concluded that from their extensive UOA data, they could not conclude that any particular brand of oil was better than any other. The article argued the importance of regular maintenance over the brand of oil.

I think this statement is true. Look at the UOA's on here. Good dino oil like Pennzoil is great for 5k mile drains. Changing it frequently will ensure your car lasts. With Amsoil and Mobil 1, they will go longer and give you better performance in sports cars etc. They also will keep your engine clean. If 3k is still the desired interval change, then yes, no one oil will really stand out among others.

pgtr · Sep 25, 2003

quote:
Just an opinion, but if you start praising some brands and bashing others, it may lead people to question your objectivity. If you are a lab, I think your credibility is your best asset, and you strengthen your position if you stick to reporting the facts.

Where did they say that? They specifically said they did not provide brand recommendations "Because we're an independent laboratory" Why would drawing a logical conclusion based on the observed facts suddenly draw objectivity and credibility into question? Consumer Union makes NO bones about making both recommendations and warnings [Eek!]

about the products they test. THey make those recomendations based on empirical data. The insurance institute makes NO bones about making both recomendations [Eek!]

and warning about vehicles with regards to things like rollovers and collision tests. They make those recomendations based on observed empirical data. I'm just not understanding why an organization, if it were to observe notable factual differences by brand, can't make a recomendation simply because it's in the independent oil analysis business vs say the collision analysis business or consumer product analysis business where recomendations are not only allowed, but expected. [I dont know]

Drstressor · Sep 25, 2003

I must agree with Buster. If you look at the data that have been posted on this site, the only thing that becomes apparent is that synthetic oils hold up longer than conventional oils. There are no consistent trends indicating decreased wear rates. In a large data set such as the one that Blackstone has accumulated, differences in engine types and (most importantly) driving styles must be far greater variables than the oil.

doyall · Sep 25, 2003

Anybody know how to get on the mailing list for the Blackstone Newsletter Drstressor referred to or even get a copy of that issue? Seems like BITOG members would be on top of the mailing list. [ September 25, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: doyall ]

Drstressor · Sep 25, 2003

They post it on their website. There is no archive of the old ones on the site. I think they are only on the second issue.

williar · Sep 25, 2003

What one should look for is the difference between the virgin oil & additives used, and the UOA. That's why the lab needs to know what you put into the crankcase. Of course their job is easier if you don't use any addatives as they pretty much know what most virgin oils contain and likely haven't analyzed all the possible additives out there, let alone any reactions between the two.

3 Mad Ponchos · Sep 25, 2003

PGTR, they probably just don't want to get caught up in the oil wars. I sure wouldn't, if I were them. Cheers, 3MP

Pablo · Sep 25, 2003

I can't really imagine a lab endorsing an oil brand. Think about for a minute. Not that I wouldn't "trust" them but money has exhanged hands for lesser things. It's bad enough that there are doubts about OAI (which is an Al Amatuzio company) - so I was actually glad when the routine UOA's when to CTC. Just the doubts are enough - I had never seen a bias (data comparison), and when I talked to them in the past they really didn't seem to give a cr@p what brand of oil.....almost to the point of ignorance is bliss.

MNgopher · Sep 25, 2003

I think Pablo puts into the correct context. People have always been a bit leery of OAI, since it was connected with Amsoil. No information to document there was any bias in the results from the lab, but the appearance that there could be some bias was enough to scare some people off. Less of a factor for them now at CTC, but any connection still makes people flinch a little. In that respect, Blackstone is playing it smart. I also don't doubt that their results show just about any conventional brand meeting SL designations works fine, with some lasting longer than others. From their standpoint, that is a strength - no ties or recommendations to brands means impartiality on reccomendations. Makes sense to me, anyways...

pgtr · Sep 26, 2003

The winner is 3 Mad Ponchos! 3 Mad Ponchos is absolutely correct... No matter which way they may recommend something - they'd cheese off some oil brand contingency or other. He called it dead spot on. And that's like clan warfare or something. "you're either for us or against us!" And if they did that (correlating and supporting facts be danged!) it could very well affect their bottom line revenues. 'Course this isn't precisely the reason they gave us now is it? [Smile]

While they can claim to be "independent" they are in fact a for profit business. A so called "independent" lab can no more afford to cheese off the brand X or brand Y clan any more than a so called independent automotive magazine (not owned by any particular automaker) can afford to cheese off any of it's major advertisers. Personally if I had my own for profit oil lab I wouldn't recommend any brand of oil either - and I'd probably dress up my reason for not doing this as being some sort of sacred "independent lab" schtick but the bottom line is that it's a business decision to not tick off or alienate a potential revenue source. Plain and simple. But my hats off to them for speaking their minds on supermarket brand oils - that took some courage and I respect that. The minimum I would insist upon (and they may very well do this) is that they provide statistical median & average data to give relevancy to values and results. Is a value, good, bad or average? Is it within the acceptable variance or outside? thanks, [ September 26, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: pgtr ]

pgtr · Sep 26, 2003

quote:
I can't really imagine a lab endorsing an oil brand

Why not? Other labs do it all the time. Plenty of poeple expect Consumers Unions labs to do exactly that and recommend or warn against specific brands when the data supports it no? And they too claim to be "independent". Some of the money you pay to your insurance company probably goes to labs that test automobiles for collision and rollovers and such. They make no bones about saying this brand is good and that brand is bad. They also claim to be "independent". What makes oil brands so special over say recomendations for a brand of automobiles based on crash data w/ respect to independent lab testing?

quote:
...impartiality on reccomendations

What recomendatons? They already stated they don't made brand recomendations.

Blackstone "article"?

Similar threads