Hotshots oil vs schaeffers

[maraakate]

Gosh, I never heard of Hotshots or Schaeffers until I purchased my diesel pickup and happened upon this HDEO forum. I just use the good old Delvac brand that my company used for years on our fleet vehicles. I had no idea of these fancy oils for a diesel engine (Mobil 1 excluded). I'm almost 2nd guessing myself on the 3,000 - 5,000 mile oil change intervals.

Delvac been around for a long time no need to switch if it's working for you.

 

[FlyingTexan]

More involvement is certainly welcome, but I don't know if I would lead with a PF video here- the BITOG crowd gets cranky about those.

The same ones that will never be happy and never accept any data in any form.

 

[FlyingTexan]

I’ve suggested several times that the guy should stick to knives, shovels and screwdrivers. When he floats into comparative motor oil quality he’s far out of his league and comes up with rankings or determinations that aren’t based on any actual substantive information whatsoever.

Somewhere there's a sour person on a forum that self-labels themself superior about knives, shoves, and screwdrivers that's suggesting he needs to stick to doing oils.

 

[Creekside]

Schaeffer's is in my home state & they've been around longer than Valvoline. I know that's what I'd choose. Look at their PDF's & what specifications they're designed to meet to get a better answer. VOA should be interesting nonetheless.

Fellow Missourian

 

[gunnellett]

Somewhere there's a sour person on a forum that self-labels themself superior about knives, shoves, and screwdrivers that's suggesting he needs to stick to doing oils.

Hall Monitors and keyboard commandos, with questionable credentials, need a safe space to lash out, and be tough, without getting wedgies and swirlies.

 

[CleverUserName]

I remember this. Anyone have a link? I thought it was marketed as 100% PAO and was essentially all group III. One big lie. If they would lie on that scale, why would I trust any of their other marketing?

I actually contacted HSS about this a few years ago. Their SDS didn’t list PAO even though it has a CAS # and the Pour Point also suggested there was little to no PAO in their “100% PAO” oils. The response I got was very convoluted and did not answer my questions.

I also posted this same question on Amazon (back when you could do that) and the response I got from a “satisfied customer” was basically trust me bro, it’s great oil.

Trust me bro?

HSS does guerilla advertising on forums so it’s hard to get an unbiased opinion on their oils and additives from real people. Personally I would not buy anything from this company as the oil analysis I’ve seen have not been great and some have actually been bad.

 

[JackWildfeuer]

Sure his tests are not ASTM level but that does not make his data wrong. The data he generates is still valid data. How do you thing ASTM became a thing? You think this testing body poped up one day as it is today fully formed with all of it's standards in place? You guys are the same types that would poop on the origanal lathe that built the world if PF presented it. Ignorance is bliss but to outright poop on his show and data is just wrong. Sure his methods are primitive by todays standards but 70 years ago most of you would poop on just about everything and everyone that has got us to where we are today. If your not dong it better than PF is why are you even putting him down?

You guys have no historical footing in science and all need to take a hike back in time to the GIANTS whos backs we stand upon like Hertz, Tesla, Marconi, Bell, Volta, Newton, Nobel, etc........According to the standards of you lot these guys would be laughed at and their ideas and primitive equipment pooped on! If you get your education and science briefs from Youtube the problem is you not the content creators on YT! YT is for entertainment. If you are watching Project Farm channel on Youtube for anything other than entertainment purposes that is on you not him! You know MIT and many other Universities and Colleges have free courses online you can sign up and take. You do not get credit for them but they are educational. It is just like paying $50 to audit a class in real life if that is still a thing. You get no credit for the class but you get the education on the cheap and only take what you are intersted in! Learn the difference between entertainment and education! Next we will be attacking clowns and circuses becaue they make it look like anyone with big feet and bad makeup can ride a unicycle and juggle at the same time.

 

[johnmyster]

I’m not sure I could pick between HSS and Schaefers without a tried and true wear scar test to supplement the VOA.

 

[kschachn]

I’m not sure I could pick between HSS and Schaefers without a tried and true wear scar test to supplement the VOA.

Nor would that be of any help. Talk about a worthless test for motor oil, not only isn't it representative for that application it has extremely high variability in results - in fact so high that no oil yields a result that is statistically different than any other.

I daresay you'd be better off with a random spectrographic test.

Nah, I take that back. Both are equally useless to discriminate relative oil quality.

 

[kschachn]

Sure his tests are not ASTM level but that does not make his data wrong. The data he generates is still valid data. How do you thing ASTM became a thing? You think this testing body poped up one day as it is today fully formed with all of it's standards in place? You guys are the same types that would poop on the origanal lathe that built the world if PF presented it. Ignorance is bliss but to outright poop on his show and data is just wrong. Sure his methods are primitive by todays standards but 70 years ago most of you would poop on just about everything and everyone that has got us to where we are today. If your not dong it better than PF is why are you even putting him down?

You guys have no historical footing in science and all need to take a hike back in time to the GIANTS whos backs we stand upon like Hertz, Tesla, Marconi, Bell, Volta, Newton, Nobel, etc........According to the standards of you lot these guys would be laughed at and their ideas and primitive equipment pooped on! If you get your education and science briefs from Youtube the problem is you not the content creators on YT! YT is for entertainment. If you are watching Project Farm channel on Youtube for anything other than entertainment purposes that is on you not him! You know MIT and many other Universities and Colleges have free courses online you can sign up and take. You do not get credit for them but they are educational. It is just like paying $50 to audit a class in real life if that is still a thing. You get no credit for the class but you get the education on the cheap and only take what you are intersted in! Learn the difference between entertainment and education! Next we will be attacking clowns and circuses becaue they make it look like anyone with big feet and bad makeup can ride a unicycle and juggle at the same time.

What a complete lack of even the most basic understanding of what constitutes reliable data and what does not.

 

[johnmyster]

Nor would that be of any help. Talk about a worthless test for motor oil, not only isn't it representative for that application it has extremely high variability in results - in fact so high that no oil yields a result that is statistically different than any other.

I daresay you'd be better off with a random spectrographic test.

Nah, I take that back. Both are equally useless to discriminate relative oil quality.

It was a joke.

 

[kschachn]

It was a joke.

I kinda wondered

 

[CleanSump]

It was a joke.

Amsoil used to put the 4-ball test in all their PDS and website data. I always wondered how many people thought it was meaningful for motor oil.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Basically it's the same test as used oil analysis. If you don't know what the oil has in it to begin with how do you know what the engine or oil are doing

Oil composition won’t tell you a darn thing about what engines & specifications it will be able to protect. Only a tiny fraction of what’s in an oil shows up in an OA, and even then only things that are <~7microns.

 

[OVERKILL]

Amsoil used to put the 4-ball test in all their PDS and website data. I always wondered how many people thought it was meaningful for motor oil.

Yes, and I firmly believe it was pushback from consumers, particularly on forums like this one, that moved them away from that. Mobil also had a note about its use on their site, which probably helped.

And there is a version of the test that can be used for additive screening, and is used early on in product development/testing for that purpose, but it's not an official test sequence for finished lubes like it is for gear oils and greases where EP performance is an area of significant focus.

 

[BHopkins]

Sure his tests are not ASTM level but that does not make his data wrong. The data he generates is still valid data. How do you thing ASTM became a thing? You think this testing body poped up one day as it is today fully formed with all of it's standards in place? You guys are the same types that would poop on the origanal lathe that built the world if PF presented it. Ignorance is bliss but to outright poop on his show and data is just wrong. Sure his methods are primitive by todays standards but 70 years ago most of you would poop on just about everything and everyone that has got us to where we are today. If your not dong it better than PF is why are you even putting him down?

You guys have no historical footing in science and all need to take a hike back in time to the GIANTS whos backs we stand upon like Hertz, Tesla, Marconi, Bell, Volta, Newton, Nobel, etc........According to the standards of you lot these guys would be laughed at and their ideas and primitive equipment pooped on! If you get your education and science briefs from Youtube the problem is you not the content creators on YT! YT is for entertainment. If you are watching Project Farm channel on Youtube for anything other than entertainment purposes that is on you not him! You know MIT and many other Universities and Colleges have free courses online you can sign up and take. You do not get credit for them but they are educational. It is just like paying $50 to audit a class in real life if that is still a thing. You get no credit for the class but you get the education on the cheap and only take what you are intersted in! Learn the difference between entertainment and education! Next we will be attacking clowns and circuses becaue they make it look like anyone with big feet and bad makeup can ride a unicycle and juggle at the same time.

I'm not sure I follow your rant. Just about when I think I understand, but absolutely don't agree, with your line of thought, you swing a different direction. Then you contradict yourself. Are you just trying to cover every base possible in defending PF?

Is his data valid? Or is he nothing more than entertainment? Or his he the next Newton?

There are well established motor oil testing methods, that are recognized by labs. That is what ASTM is for. I've done my fair share of participating in reviewing ASTM standards, to make improvements to them, and I've had my labs do inter-lab studies. These are meaningful tools for giving customers data that can be compared, one lab to another, so I'm a believer in using a standardized test method where they are available, for what you want to know. Standardized motor oil test methods are well established. But even relatively recently, there are methods that have been discarded in the industry, as they have been found to be bad test methods. Some have been found to have absolutely no correlation to motor oil performance in an engine. Others have so much variation that they are meaningless. These are some of the methods PF uses.

Considering that the lubrication industry has discarded these methods, do you still want to stand by your claim that his data is valid? Or is it entertainment?

 

[JackWildfeuer]

I'm not sure I follow your rant. Just about when I think I understand, but absolutely don't agree, with your line of thought, you swing a different direction. Then you contradict yourself. Are you just trying to cover every base possible in defending PF?

Is his data valid? Or is he nothing more than entertainment? Or his he the next Newton?

There are well established motor oil testing methods, that are recognized by labs. That is what ASTM is for. I've done my fair share of participating in reviewing ASTM standards, to make improvements to them, and I've had my labs do inter-lab studies. These are meaningful tools for giving customers data that can be compared, one lab to another, so I'm a believer in using a standardized test method where they are available, for what you want to know. Standardized motor oil test methods are well established. But even relatively recently, there are methods that have been discarded in the industry, as they have been found to be bad test methods. Some have been found to have absolutely no correlation to motor oil performance in an engine. Others have so much variation that they are meaningless. These are some of the methods PF uses.

Considering that the lubrication industry has discarded these methods, do you still want to stand by your claim that his data is valid? Or is it entertainment?

What part of "valid data" do you not understand? I know our modern political correct world likes to play fast and lose with the meaning of words but that is not me. I have not changed the meaning of a word at all in my post.

Do you know what it is to do a simple lab test? If so you should understand what makes data reliable, accurate, and repeatable! I never commented on relavance of his data to anything he might be trying to demonstrate. I said his data was valid. It sounds like you have never even made it through university level lab class vs lecture. Never attempt to pass an FAA writen exam the test will eat you alive and spit you out the way you are reading into my post things I never said!

That is fine though many would crucify Volt, Maxwell, Hertz, Tesla, Bell as cave men and snake oil salesmen if held to modern standards yet we build on the back of their achievments. The Germ model, cell model, atomic model as we know them today where laughed at and rediculed in their time by men just like you so the more things change the more they stay the same. Thank God that the Brooklyn bridge was built before guys like you where able to take over all of acedemic life and industry or it would not be there today!

 

[JackWildfeuer]

What a complete lack of even the most basic understanding of what constitutes reliable data and what does not.

Some how I managed to graduate college multiple times not just once. I managed to work in the automotive industry in engineering since 1998. I am now 53 years old but could never understand data. General Motors might disagree with you that as well as Delphi, Saginaw Steering, Vistion, BFGoodrich Aviation, Lockheed Martin, GM Deffense and small host of other companies.

Now if you wanted to know something I was never good at it is modern double entry accounting! Taxation and auditing was a real weakness of mine as well!