Kirkland's Signature vs Super Tech...
- Thread starter Mikey V.
- Start date
- Status
The TBN is worthless because it can vary from batch to batch of the same oil.
The manufactures can do tricks to make an identical product appear different. Claiming a different viscosity between the two as an example. List one oil as being thicker than the other because there is a spread lets say between 9.4-11.9 and you can say one oil is 10.6 and another is 10.8. It's done with other things such as food. Claim the store brand has higher calories vs the name brand having less since the FDA allows a wide latitude on the food label. Great Value peanut butter at one time was the same exact product as Peter Pan.
The manufactures can do tricks to make an identical product appear different. Claiming a different viscosity between the two as an example. List one oil as being thicker than the other because there is a spread lets say between 9.4-11.9 and you can say one oil is 10.6 and another is 10.8. It's done with other things such as food. Claim the store brand has higher calories vs the name brand having less since the FDA allows a wide latitude on the food label. Great Value peanut butter at one time was the same exact product as Peter Pan.
They had different Dexos license numbers on each bottle, so they are probably not the same even though they come from Warren.
If they were the same, I doubt there would be different Dexos license numbers for each product.
The number on Supertech was D10386HG025 which, interestingly enough, also appears as an AmazonBasics 5W30 and 21 other brands.
However, the number on the AmazonBasics in the video was D130AEAI025 and doesn't appear on the Dexos1 Gen2 license website: https://www.gmdexos.com/brands/dexos1/index.html
[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/l9il_piyuT8?t=103[/video]
If they were the same, I doubt there would be different Dexos license numbers for each product.
The number on Supertech was D10386HG025 which, interestingly enough, also appears as an AmazonBasics 5W30 and 21 other brands.
However, the number on the AmazonBasics in the video was D130AEAI025 and doesn't appear on the Dexos1 Gen2 license website: https://www.gmdexos.com/brands/dexos1/index.html
[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/l9il_piyuT8?t=103[/video]
Last edited:
As usual, meaningless tests from this goofball to try and make a distinction that does not exist.
^ Hating on something that is essentially done for entertainment purposes, not like legislators are going to enact laws requiring you to act upon the results of a video?
I didn't take it seriously when he tested bacon grease, honey, or bananas as an oil replacement, and it would be hilarious if he tested Walmart honey vs Costco vs Amazon vs backyard hive.
I didn't take it seriously when he tested bacon grease, honey, or bananas as an oil replacement, and it would be hilarious if he tested Walmart honey vs Costco vs Amazon vs backyard hive.
Originally Posted by Dave9
^ Hating on something that is essentially done for entertainment purposes, not like legislators are going to enact laws requiring you to act upon the results of a video?
I didn't take it seriously when he tested bacon grease, honey, or bananas as an oil replacement, and it would be hilarious if he tested Walmart honey vs Costco vs Amazon vs backyard hive.
Right! +1..
(Kschachn has a "thing" for PF
)
^ Hating on something that is essentially done for entertainment purposes, not like legislators are going to enact laws requiring you to act upon the results of a video?
I didn't take it seriously when he tested bacon grease, honey, or bananas as an oil replacement, and it would be hilarious if he tested Walmart honey vs Costco vs Amazon vs backyard hive.
Right! +1..
(Kschachn has a "thing" for PF
Originally Posted by Dave9
^ Hating on something that is essentially done for entertainment purposes, not like legislators are going to enact laws requiring you to act upon the results of a video?
I didn't take it seriously when he tested bacon grease, honey, or bananas as an oil replacement, and it would be hilarious if he tested Walmart honey vs Costco vs Amazon vs backyard hive.
If you don't take any of it seriously why criticize me for saying the oil test is worthless too?
The stuff people post just mystifies me sometimes. Say it is entertainment and you don't take it seriously but then make a fuss when I say the same thing.
^ Hating on something that is essentially done for entertainment purposes, not like legislators are going to enact laws requiring you to act upon the results of a video?
I didn't take it seriously when he tested bacon grease, honey, or bananas as an oil replacement, and it would be hilarious if he tested Walmart honey vs Costco vs Amazon vs backyard hive.
If you don't take any of it seriously why criticize me for saying the oil test is worthless too?
The stuff people post just mystifies me sometimes. Say it is entertainment and you don't take it seriously but then make a fuss when I say the same thing.
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
(Kschachn has a "thing" for PF
)
I have a thing for factual and technically relevant information rather than goofy tests that are neither, but posted as if they are.
(Kschachn has a "thing" for PF
I have a thing for factual and technically relevant information rather than goofy tests that are neither, but posted as if they are.
Originally Posted by kschachn
As usual, meaningless tests from this goofball to try and make a distinction that does not exist.
Maybe not the most scientific tests in the world, but I would not call them "meaningless". I think he actually does a pretty good job of comparing them considering he's not working in a lab.
As usual, meaningless tests from this goofball to try and make a distinction that does not exist.
Maybe not the most scientific tests in the world, but I would not call them "meaningless". I think he actually does a pretty good job of comparing them considering he's not working in a lab.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
(Kschachn has a "thing" for PF
)
I have a thing for factual and technically relevant information rather than goofy tests that are neither, but posted as if they are.
What part of the video isn't factual?
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
(Kschachn has a "thing" for PF
I have a thing for factual and technically relevant information rather than goofy tests that are neither, but posted as if they are.
What part of the video isn't factual?
Factual, meaning tests that accurately represent the conditions in an ICE and give (factual) and relevant results. This does neither, since the wear scar test does not apply to any process or mechanism in an ICE nor is it applicable to a finished motor oil.
Also the coffee pot test is completely irrelevant unless your engine is severely overheating and essentially boiling your oil. Similarly the "cold flow freezer test" only tests the ability of that oil to pour out of that tube, not what happens in an engine. The winter rating for an oil accurately represents the performance of an oil in an ICE.
There is so much more that's wrong in terms of test repeatability and statistical validity but that's so far off the path it doesn't even matter with these tests. County Fair hawker demonstrations are no substitute for actual standardized tests that result in approvals, licenses and specifications.
Also the coffee pot test is completely irrelevant unless your engine is severely overheating and essentially boiling your oil. Similarly the "cold flow freezer test" only tests the ability of that oil to pour out of that tube, not what happens in an engine. The winter rating for an oil accurately represents the performance of an oil in an ICE.
There is so much more that's wrong in terms of test repeatability and statistical validity but that's so far off the path it doesn't even matter with these tests. County Fair hawker demonstrations are no substitute for actual standardized tests that result in approvals, licenses and specifications.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Factual, meaning tests that accurately represent the conditions in an ICE and give (factual) and relevant results. This does neither, since the wear scar test does not apply to any process or mechanism in an ICE nor is it applicable to a finished motor oil.
I think you mean 'applicable' when you say 'factual'. His tests are 100% factual.
Does the Noack volatility test represent conditions inside an ICE?
Does the four ball wear scar test represent conditions inside an ICE?
Originally Posted by kschachn
County Fair hawker demonstrations are no substitute for actual standardized tests that result in approvals, licenses and specifications.
I don't think there's anyone who's arguing that they are.
Factual, meaning tests that accurately represent the conditions in an ICE and give (factual) and relevant results. This does neither, since the wear scar test does not apply to any process or mechanism in an ICE nor is it applicable to a finished motor oil.
I think you mean 'applicable' when you say 'factual'. His tests are 100% factual.
Does the Noack volatility test represent conditions inside an ICE?
Does the four ball wear scar test represent conditions inside an ICE?
Originally Posted by kschachn
County Fair hawker demonstrations are no substitute for actual standardized tests that result in approvals, licenses and specifications.
I don't think there's anyone who's arguing that they are.
javacontour said:They had different Dexos license numbers on each bottle, so they are probably not the same even though they come from Warren.
If they were the same, I doubt there would be different Dexos license numbers for each product.
The number on Supertech was D10386HG025 which, interestingly enough, also appears as an AmazonBasics 5W30 and 21 other brands.
However, the number on the AmazonBasics in the video was D130AEAI025 and doesn't appear on the Dexos1 Gen2 license website:The last two numbers, in this case number 25 is the tip-off that they are both from Warren Distribution.
Last edited:
I love how he's doing a blackstone VOA and UOA for every new oil video. Kudos to him simply for that alone. His video's are fine. Good entertainment and good info. If you base your oil decision on his tests alone, nothing whatsoever is going to blow up as he only tests API certified oils.
Last edited by a moderator:
MRV and CCS testing are extremely relevant to what happens inside a motor... ASTM test regarding wear on cam shafts and timing chain are extremely relevant to what happens inside a motor... Noack test are relevant because there is a standard... Used to be 22 percent loss was acceptable... Now it is less than 15 percent for API SN plus... And less than 13 percent for a oil to meet Dexos... And in fact MB 229.5 the noack has to be less than 10%.... Obviously that matters. . .
Originally Posted by jayjr1105
I love how he's doing a blackstone VOA and UOA for every new oil video. Kudos to him simply for that alone. His video's are fine. Good entertainment and good info. If you base your oil decision on his tests alone, nothing whatsoever is going to blow up as he only tests API certified oils.
This ++++. I find him entertaining, if others don't that's OK too.
I love how he's doing a blackstone VOA and UOA for every new oil video. Kudos to him simply for that alone. His video's are fine. Good entertainment and good info. If you base your oil decision on his tests alone, nothing whatsoever is going to blow up as he only tests API certified oils.
This ++++. I find him entertaining, if others don't that's OK too.
- Status
Similar threads
