Further observations on syn vs. dino

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
For clarification to all:
My premise is not anti-synthetic, or that it is not superior in some applications, but rather for the normally aspirated engine, driven under normal conditions, in a temperate climate, by the normal American driver who will not do used oil analysis, he will be probably be better served by a 5k dino change than an extended syn change, in relation to the longevity of his engine. That premise i believe is supported by the large number of used oil analysis here.

---

Ironically, I don't really disagree with the first part of what you say here. I just disagree as to whether or not you can say its supported by our UOA collection. As intriguing and interesting as it is, it is heavily weighted at the short end of the OCI range. This is, of course, is an inherent limitation and one we're not likely to get past. It is a free country afterall, and we own vehicles to get around, not to perform experiments on. I doubt we're going to get many volunteers to use their rides to probe the boundaries of oil life. Oh well.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
The thing for you synthetic afficianados, though, is this:

No matter how extensive...

No matter how meticulous...

No matter how well regimented...

No matter how well funded...

No matter how all inclusive...

No matter how "real world perfect" the study is--you guys would take potshots at the outcome if it didn't show synthetics to be superior. There's not a doubt in my mind about that.

Oddly enough, it seems that in order for a man to remain firmly ensconced in the "syn camp" he must believe the following:

1. The Consumer Reports study was flawed and/or deliberately biased and therefore provided no useful information.

2. The used oil analysis here at BITOG--extensive as they may be--are not typical of what synthetic oils are really capable of in the "real world."

3. Blackstone Laboratory's observation and commentary that conventionals seem to show lower wear metals than syns in short drains is meaningless information from a novice source.

4. Copper and iron readings in synthetic used oil analysis aren't likely to have come from actual component wear.

5. If wear metal counts can be determined to have come from corrosion rather than actual wear that is somehow a good thing.

6. Synthetics reduce engine wear on start up, but this is something that used oil analysis are not capable of indicating.

7. Two thirty dollar used oil analysis along the course of a 15000 mile OCI plus twenty-five dollars for the oil is a more feasible approach to engine maintenance than three twelve dollar conventional oil changes in that same interval.

---

The CR study was not extensive, meticulous, well regimented or all-inclusive, although you certainly could argue it was decently funded. Dan, you want so "prove" your point so badly, you seem willing to stretch one "result" or another to absurd lengths.

Suppose you want to find out whether Americans or Canadians are better chess players. So you select seventeen Canadians and one American, and let them play chess for a while. Oh, and make them play under conditions not ever normally seen by regular chess players. From this one player, you would generally declare that American chess players are better, worse, the same, whichever, as Canadians. That would be pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it. Yet that's what you're trying to do with the silly NYC cab study.

Every one of your seven "must believes" is false. I think you're just letting your emotions get the better of you.

1. While the CR study is flawed and biased, it does provide some useful info.

2. Some are and some aren't. Which, Dan, tell us please.

3. "...seem to show..." would be the operative phrase here. Many samples don't show this effect either, so it's far from a consistent pattern. I've never seen it from one of my vehilces.

4. Pure truth twisting. Some obviously comes from coponent wear, while some comes from other sources. You just can't tell which, and this drives you to take shots like suggesting I said none of it comes from wear. I did not, and you know it...

5. Neither good nor bad, just a part of normal engine operation. Again, you can separate it out, can you??

6. Not a necessary belief, just a theory some have suggested. Not a fundamental reason I like syns anyway.

7. You don't need to do UOA like that with every OCI, obviously. Maybe you should do more of them.

Dan, try making your points with facts that support your position, versus making silly characterizations about those who disagree with you.

 

[fuel tanker man]

I rest my case.

 

[T-Stick]

quote:

---

You're stating definite, broad conclusions as if one screwball study, with numerous flaws, performed by an organization with known biases and an active agenda, is all mankind needs to establish fundamental truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

---

I did not draw any broad categorical conclusions, I said the study does show that running synthetic in an engine does not guarantee that it will perform any better than dinos being run in a similar engine. Only one case is needed needed to prove that to be true. If it does not do it in one instance, it cannot be said that it will in all others. That is very simple logic which you refuse to accept, but which you distort with smokescreens, off-topic comments, stat courses, etc.

Further the statement of "NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH" is a categorical broad-based, biased statement which is obvious that you cannot verify, unless you can prove that every other study ever taken was closer to the truth. You did exactly what you falsely accuse others of doing. This is commonly known as "open mouth, insert foot."

quote:

---

1. They're taxicabs. They get started up, and run all day. They are not subjected to anywhere near the cold starts per mile of use that a normal private vehicle would be. If you'd at least agree that there's a question about relative protection, dino vs. syn at startup, you can see a huge skew right there.

---

You are missing the point entirely. The test is consistently performed with both conventional and synthetic -- each having the same approximate number of starts. You also totally ignore that taxis are considered a severe service due to other issues -- idling, stop and go driving, rapid exceleration, quick stops etc.

For your point here to have anything remotely connected to merit, it would mean that unless there are a lot of cold starts syn will show no measureable advantages over dino. But the used oil analysis which includes that criteria still does not indicate any difference. Where is your evidence to sustain your proposition?

quote:

---

2. They used only one brand of true syn and of that in only one grade (10w-30). It's absolutely amazing that you'd generalize to making claims about syns in general based upon one test of one brand in one grade. Thats virtually the antithesis of competent sampling. You think you could predict the performance of, say, Amsoil S3000 5w30 from what a 10-year-old version of Mobil 1 10w30 did in taxi service? Of course not, but that's what you're doing anyway.

---

The test was made on the basis of oils commonly available at that time (there were few OTC syns), not boutique oil makers. Of course it does not prove what the current Amsoil performance would be. But we know that M1 was touted as superior to dino then, which it could not prove in this application. It is also generally recognized that dinos have gotten better since then -- to a much greater degree than syns, so whatever unmeasureable advantage there may have been in that application, would most likely be even less now.

Again your argument stands on its head, and when logically analyzed, and in fact confutes the point your were trying to make.

quote:

---

3. They used only one type of engine, the GM 4.3L V-6, with modded internals. Actually, as single choices go, this probably was not too bad an idea. I have not noticed that this engine has a particularly good or bad rep, so probably not much distortion from engine effects. But that said, you'd need to try several groups of different types and configurations of engines, and see from each a consistent pattern before you can start generalizing about oil instead of just oil in this engine. I think the only solid conclusion you can draw from this "study" is that strangely modified GM 4.3L V-6 engines are easy on oil. Big deal.

---

Again you miss the whole point. It does illustrate that synthetics do not show superiority in all engines under severe service duty. You do not have to test all engines to prove what may true for that one engine. If a pattern can be shown in one engine, it "may" hold true for others as well. We certainly cannot deduce any advantages of syn in this engine under this application. Again, if we apply your logic to your vaunted extended UOA, it would prove nothing about your engine unless we took a sampling from a big cross-section of other engines. How absurd is that?

We are not making the categorical statemnts you misconstrue upon us. But you indeed are making some rather desparate arguments.

quote:

---

Could have been better??? Yeah, and Ted Bundy could have been a better person too. Look, if the propositions you believe in are so self-evident, there should be a lot more evidence out there, competent evidence, not this hokey NYC taxi mess.

---

While more evidence is always better, yet you miss the point again -- that all the evidence we have shows your assumptions to be in error. This is actually becoming a bit amusing.

 

[ekpolk]

What's most amusing is your absolute lack of understanding of what constitutes valid proof, and what does not.

=====> You said, "I did not draw any broad categorical conclusions, I said the study does show that running synthetic in an engine does not guarantee that it will perform any better than dinos being run in a similar engine. Only one case is needed needed to prove that to be true. If it does not do it in one instance, it cannot be said that it will in all others. That is very simple logic which you refuse to accept, but which you distort with smokescreens, off-topic comments, stat courses, etc." (emphasis added).

That is a broad, categorical statement based upon one sampling instance. That is the height of illogic. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

=====> You said, "Further the statement of "NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH" is a categorical broad-based, biased statement which is obvious that you cannot verify, unless you can prove that every other study ever taken was closer to the truth. You did exactly what you falsely accuse others of doing. This is commonly known as "open mouth, insert foot.""

OK, got me, to be pefectly precise, I should have just kept it to the rigid, narrow, technical reality -- the statement I said that about was false. Easy.

=====> You said, "You are missing the point entirely. The test is consistently performed with both conventional and synthetic -- each having the same approximate number of starts. You also totally ignore that taxis are considered a severe service due to other issues -- idling, stop and go driving, rapid exceleration, quick stops etc."

Nope, it's you who miss the point on two counts. First, they performed the test on only one grade of one syn versus seventeen dinos. Are you utterly incapable of seeing the problem there? Second, the starts within the test may be on parity (where did I say they weren't), but they have no comparison to how non-taxis are operated. Oh and one more thing, the severe service thing is true, but again, it is not service comparable to what most people do with their cars. Just different. I guess that was three...

=====> You said, "For your point here to have anything remotely connected to merit, it would mean that unless there are a lot of cold starts syn will show no measureable advantages over dino. But the used oil analysis which includes that criteria still does not indicate any difference. Where is your evidence to sustain your proposition?"

You put your illogical words into my mouth and then fault me for being unable to prove something that you've cut from whole cloth? Gee, that's fair. I have merely said that there's a question about differential startup performance, no more. I phrased it that way, precisely because the evidence I've seen is inconclusive. But this wear questionis a totally different issue than the repeated heating and cooling that engines undergo. The taxis start once, stay hot all day, and are put away dry. Many normal cars get started, run short, and put away "wet." Repeatedly. Totally different from taxi service.

=====> You said, "The test was made on the basis of oils commonly available at that time (there were few OTC syns), not boutique oil makers. Of course it does not prove what the current Amsoil performance would be."

This is false. M1 was then available in three or four grades, as I recall. I also recall other brands being available, OTC, but surely not the array that's out there today. But it was CR that was making claims about "synthetics", not just OTC syns, so they should have honestly qualified what they did or used fair, balanced sampling. See my point in the last post about American and Canadian chess players.

=====> You said, "it "may" hold true for others as well. We certainly cannot deduce any advantages of syn in this engine under this application".

Finally, a glimmer of actual logic and intellectual honesty. The key word is "may". And again, this study is so flawed that you can only reach the narrowest, most limited conclusions from it.

===== > You said, "While more evidence is always better, yet you miss the point again -- that all the evidence we have shows your assumptions to be in error."

Yes, more evidence would not merely be "better," it is absolutely necessary before we can accept any of the things you are saying.

Precisely what "assumption" have I made that's "in error"?

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

What's most amusing is your absolute lack of understanding of what constitutes valid proof, and what does not.

---

Pretty much why I gave up on this thread awhile ago. It's like there is no concept of (or use for) connected logic, clear decision making, scientific method or statistical validation.

 

[ekpolk]

Thank you, Pablo.

 

[Gary Allan]

Ok, lay it all out your way, and prove the synthetics superiority in a 5k test with data, which is the point in question. If you can't, you cannot prove its advantages. If you can, be my guest.

I am waiting ....

Are we getting back to "are they worth it?" ???


This will always mean a qualified opinion. There will always be elements to discount or bolster one view over the other depending on whether your opinion is "yes' or 'no'.

 

[Bio-T]

About four threads running on this. Time to put one to bed.

 

[T-Stick]

Ok, lay it all out your way, and prove the synthetics superiority in a 5k test with data, which is the point in question. If you can't, you cannot prove its advantages. If you can, be my guest.

I am waiting ....