Based on spectrographic analyses?. Again, not the test for comparative wear between oils. Not "close enough", not "a rough look" not a "field test".
This is the problem. There is no DATA here that concludes anything. Yet, it is being offered as some sort of quantitative proof and is then being promoted elsewhere such as here.
If LSJr really thinks differently then he needs to take it up with the ASTM and the SAE.
Well I think the wear metal trending data combined with peak torque data tells us most of what we need to know to make an informed decision on which direction to go or not go. We only blew up 1 space shuttle by launching in cold weather that an engineer warned NASA about repeatedly because of a bad O-Ring design. It had never blown up before so it was fine. If we follow your logic we would need to blow up a bunch more space shuttles with a bunch more astronuagts to have meaningful staticaly significant results. I can not imagine this is truly how you think but just because it is "oil" does not mean we need to sit on the side lines forever until we have a huge sample size before make a change. How much data and time did GM need to suddenly recomend 0W40 when the L87 issues came to light? It was not the right answer but it was not the wrong answer it just failed to address the root causes of the L87's true issues. one never prospers by getting the right answer if one is asking the wrong questions!
The real problem is that neither you nor I have the pocket book to properly prove out points because neither of us can afford $10k to $15K per engine times a few thousand engines to properly produce large data sets. You know who else would never do this even if they could afford to? GM, Ford, Delphi, Vistion and on and on. I worked for those companies and many more in engineering including pre-production captured fleets you did not see the sort of numbers that you and many on this site would like to see to satify their quriosity you could never afford to. I am happy having some facts I do not believe anything in science or engineering is ever absolute or settled unless you stop asking questions. What is true today might not be true tomorrow. Usually it is a combination of testing and real world observations in the wild not just ASTM lab data. Lab data freq. produces less than ideal results once you apply it to the wild how do you think ASTM came up with so many tests and why engines and methods change over time?
So I would ask you to be specific and spell out exactly what data, sample size, ASTM testing it would take to convince you? Then I would ask you how much it would cost? Who is going to fund it? If those that fund it will make the data and the results publicly known to us here on bitog? BITOG did in the past hire SWRI to carry out testing on German Castrol. Initialy only those that donated money to the testing get the results it was not free to all the members of BITOG. If enough people on BITOG really wanted to know maybe we could do another group buy and donate to have SWRI do the very sort of testing you would like to see. I love data as well but I also live in the real world and understand my $$$ limits. Even in industry often decisions are made with out all of the data due to $$$. Think about the it though I am being serious as a group BITOG could rally some $$$ for testing if the interst is there like it was with German Cstrol.
I think about the poem bellow when I think someone is being negative in text form. I often find I can find more than one way to take a thing when I consider the poem bellow!
Read it with sorrow and you will feel hate.
Read it with anger and you will feel vengeful.
Read it with paranoia and you will feel confusion.
Read it with empathy and you will feel compassion.
Read it with love and you will feel flattery.
Read it with hope and you will feel positive.
Read it with humor and you will feel joy.
Read it without bias and you will feel peace.
Do not read it at all and you will not feel a thing.-Shannon L. Alder
