Lake Speed Junior High Zinc Oil new video

[Sienna dude]

And content geared to be palatable to the vast majority of people is necessarily limited in terms of breadth and depth of technical data, which unfortunately leads to erroneous or flawed "conclusions" as perceived by this audience. Sensationalism drives uptake. That's how you play the algorithm, and I applaud him for being very good at it.

Fame and sensationalism attract a lot of idiots. There's a reason the Kardashians are rich and famous, and it isn't because they have an intellect on par with Hawking. There's a reason you probably didn't have a clue who Dr. Rudnick was before joining this site (assuming you do now), and why people like David Suzuki are famous, while those like Dr. Osami Hanjo aren't.

Being a good communicator is a skill. Being able to make content about a subject which most of your audience isn't likely to ever truly understand while still fostering a desire to consume that content is a gift and illustrates a strong grasp of that skill. I suspect this may be in part due to his educational background, which is a BA in Advertising, but to be able to sell this content, which is pretty dry, to Joe Average in volume? That takes more than just education. That's the proverbial "selling ice to an Eskimo" and that takes a certain kind to be able to pull off.

Challenge his testing method. Do you know a better way? Show us idiots please.
Lake is not some Project Farm. He is a scientist, a highly respected one in the industry.

 

[OVERKILL]

1. UOA's show wear metals. Period. Doesn't matter how or why, if you end up with Fe, Tin or any other metal that goes, it's not all in your head. It's actual wear. It may be small and it may even be from corrosion, but it's wear. It's no coincidence that some of the longest last engines that don't show high wear (Toyota) last long periods of time. Metals don't just magically appear in your oil for no reason.

It can also be chelation, the chemical displacement of atoms due to polar compounds in the lubricant which I definitely wouldn't call "wear".

I don't think the Modular showed exceptionally low metals in UOA's (and we know the venerable SBC didn't), nor do the LSx engines, but all of them have a history of long lives in conditions I'd argue are often considerably more demanding than hauling the kids to T-ball with the Sienna. I think there's a mushy grey area between UOA results and engine longevity, not a firm tether.

 

[kschachn]

Challenge his testing method. Do you know a better way? Show us idiots please.
Lake is not some Project Farm. He is a scientist, a highly respected one in the industry.

Already gone over this with you in a different thread.

 

[OVERKILL]

Challenge his testing method. Do you know a better way? Show us idiots please.
Lake is not some Project Farm. He is a scientist, a highly respected one in the industry.

You missed the point by a country mile because you chose to get offended. This is because you see yourself in that group and that makes you feel attacked.

Look at the Kardashian example again, then set aside your emotions for a minute and then tell me I'm wrong about your average consumer. What drives views and clicks in volume? It certainly isn't boring technical content presented with meticulous detail.

A better way? Sure, run some OE testing sequences. It'll be about as exciting as watching paint dry and takes a massive amount of time, but that's how oils are actually evaluated in terms of performance, to confirm they meet the requirements for the approval. Run the product through the MB 229.5 or Porsche A40 sequences, then compare the results.

 

[buster]

Is the TEOST still relevant? I don't know. I think it has some merit. Look what Amsoil discovered with RL years ago...who would have thought a highly PAO/POE based oil would fail the test.

Does it matter? No idea. But if I spend a good amount of money on a turbo charged engine I'd like to know how good the oil is at protection turbo charger deposits. Show me.....

 

[Sienna dude]

You really do need to grow up a bit if you continue to try and participate in technical discussions here.

Look at the responses you’re getting in the other thread. Or do you think everyone else is the problem?

A test costs $65,000? $65,000/1000 = $65. I will pay double, $130. Find 998 more folks from this board and lets do the test. Lets prove Amsoil OE doesn't lose to the cheapest oil on Walmart Shelf. Come on!

 

[kschachn]

A test costs $65,000? $65,000/1000 = $65. I will pay double, $130. Find 998 more folks from this board and lets do the test. Let’s prove Amsoil OE doesn't lose to the cheapest oil on Walmart Shelf. Come on!

What test are we doing again?

 

[RDY4WAR]

You missed the point by a country mile because you chose to get offended. This is because you see yourself in that group and that makes you feel attacked.

Look at the Kardashian example again, then set aside your emotions for a minute and then tell me I'm wrong about your average consumer. What drives views and clicks in volume? It certainly isn't boring technical content presented with meticulous detail.

A better way? Sure, run some OE testing sequences. It'll be about as exciting as watching paint dry and takes a massive amount of time, but that's how oils are actually evaluated in terms of performance, to confirm they meet the requirements for the approval. Run the product through the MB 229.5 or Porsche A40 sequences, then compare the results.

Don't forget to fork over the 6 figures for those tests. The fuel alone is 5 figures. (Haltermann EEE is ~$22/gal)

 

[OVERKILL]

Is the TEOST still relevant? I don't know. I think it has some merit. Look what Amsoil discovered with RL years ago...who would have thought a highly PAO/POE based oil would fail the test.

Does it matter? No idea. But if I spend a good amount of money on a turbo charged engine I'd like to know how good the oil is at protection turbo charger deposits. Show me.....

View attachment 284249

IIRC, when we discussed this in the past, wasn't it due to the high volumes of additives in the lubricant? I'm not sure if it's still "relevant", but it's certainly still part of the API sequences, or at least was for SP.

 

[Sienna dude]

You missed the point by a country mile because you chose to get offended. This is because you see yourself in that group and that makes you feel attacked.

Look at the Kardashian example again, then set aside your emotions for a minute and then tell me I'm wrong about your average consumer. What drives views and clicks in volume? It certainly isn't boring technical content presented with meticulous detail.

A better way? Sure, run some OE testing sequences. It'll be about as exciting as watching paint dry and takes a massive amount of time, but that's how oils are actually evaluated in terms of performance, to confirm they meet the requirements for the approval. Run the product through the MB 229.5 or Porsche A40 sequences, then compare the results.

I don't get offended by Anonymous internet characters lol.
Seriously though, we need to do a rest to prove Lake is wrong.

 

[buster]

IIRC, when we discussed this in the past, wasn't it due to the high volumes of additives in the lubricant? I'm not sure if it's still "relevant", but it's certainly still part of the API sequences, or at least was for SP.

I can't remember. I think RL dismissed it. I remember asking Dave G about it. He dismissed it as Amsoil's marketing. Ok fair enough but that never answered my question and he never could because he had no data. It was "trust us."

I think turbo testing expanded too and moved to GM Turbo and HTO-06 etc. among other Euro tests.

 

[Sienna dude]

What test are we doing again?

Test to prove Lake is wrong about Amsoil OE's loss lol

 

[kschachn]

I don't get offended by Anonymous internet characters lol.
Seriously though, we need to do a rest to prove Lake is wrong.

Much the same as with anonymous Lyft drivers.

 

[Sienna dude]

Much the same as with anonymous Lyft drivers.

You are right.

 

[buster]

LSJ told me via msg that they were able to correlate UOA engine wear with teardown engine wear. That's enough for me to believe UOA's are valid tools.

Lake is also pretty brand agnostic, which I appreciate.

 

[buster]

Even the ASTM IVB looks at PPM of wear.

 

[Sienna dude]

LSJ told me via msg that they were able to correlate UOA engine wear with teardown engine wear. That's enough for me to believe UOA's are valid tools.

Lake is also pretty brand agnostic, which I appreciate.

Lake and his Aussie pal are legit. Youtube is just their weekend toy.

 

[OVERKILL]

I don't get offended by Anonymous internet characters lol.
Seriously though, we need to do a rest to prove Lake is wrong.

Sure, you jumped on my post like a rattlesnake on a vole with "show us idiots please" because you weren't offended.

I've got a bridge for sale in the Sahara, you interested?

 

[kschachn]

LSJ told me via msg that they were able to correlate UOA engine wear with teardown engine wear. That's enough for me to believe UOA's are valid tools.

Lake is also pretty brand agnostic, which I appreciate.

But that’s not the point. A simple spectrographic analysis is just that, a measure of those (mostly dissolved) metals that can be measured. It is highly influenced by multiple significant variables which highly influence the result - especially in the “real world” examples that are endlessly and breathlessly posted here as some kind of absolute proof. An ASTM test procedure is not the same, nor is any other controlled environment. Even a race is far more controlled than what is posted here. It certainly occurs over a much shorter interval and conditions.

 

[Sienna dude]

Sure, you jumped on my post like a rattlesnake on a vole with "show us idiots please" because you weren't offended.
View attachment 284252
I've got a bridge for sale in the Sahara, you interested?

I love her.