+2
Mechanic recommended MMO
- Thread starter EType
- Start date
- Status
It wasn't any product marketed for use in engines and I'll leave it at that. Test is still ongoing and results are still positive thus far.
I'll be back to post results when I'm done, but the discussion got derailed so far that I simply gave up trying to discuss it, or anything else controversial (which is really anything on this site) here.
I'll be back to post results when I'm done, but the discussion got derailed so far that I simply gave up trying to discuss it, or anything else controversial (which is really anything on this site) here.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
What product were you testing? Were you testing MMO, Kreen, or Auto-RX Plus?
I want you to understand that I was calling into question the compression tests of one individual who likes to promote a product here and had no independent verification of his results. And he called people 'stupid' if they dared to question him.
If you have good compression test results on any product, including Auto-RX Plus, I would love to hear about it.
Canola oil.
I tried it in the beat up 5.0 in my fox. But I've got a slow drip that knocks me down a quart in a week(500+kms or so-ish)
So I can't say that I saw any benefit. I will say that that end week top up was cheap though.
Nice to see you back ken
What product were you testing? Were you testing MMO, Kreen, or Auto-RX Plus?
I want you to understand that I was calling into question the compression tests of one individual who likes to promote a product here and had no independent verification of his results. And he called people 'stupid' if they dared to question him.
If you have good compression test results on any product, including Auto-RX Plus, I would love to hear about it.
Canola oil.
I tried it in the beat up 5.0 in my fox. But I've got a slow drip that knocks me down a quart in a week(500+kms or so-ish)
So I can't say that I saw any benefit. I will say that that end week top up was cheap though.
Nice to see you back ken
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners and oil supplements without being piled on by the guys who demand scientific proof. As if scientific proof would be easy to obtain for most if not all of these products.
Certainly if the promoters of a product again come forth and claim they have scientific proof for their product because of a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
But there will be no stopping a certain member here who wants us all to read our owner's manuals, use high quality motor oil and no oil supplements, and use only engine flushes he says are okay to use.
Certainly if the promoters of a product again come forth and claim they have scientific proof for their product because of a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
But there will be no stopping a certain member here who wants us all to read our owner's manuals, use high quality motor oil and no oil supplements, and use only engine flushes he says are okay to use.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
If you read his posts, Mystic is bringing into question that member's claims that his (unverified) compression testing results are scientific evidence that trumps other members' anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inconsistent with his statements.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
If you read his posts, Mystic is bringing into question that member's claims that his (unverified) compression testing results are scientific evidence that trumps other members' anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inconsistent with his statements.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
If you read his posts, Mystic is bringing into question that member's claims that his (unverified) compression testing results are scientific evidence that trumps other members' anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inconsistent with his statements.
You lost me. Are unverified compression tests scientific? Would they be as scientific as a member posting mpg readings? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of this that's all. Thanks!
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
If you read his posts, Mystic is bringing into question that member's claims that his (unverified) compression testing results are scientific evidence that trumps other members' anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inconsistent with his statements.
You lost me. Are unverified compression tests scientific? Would they be as scientific as a member posting mpg readings? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of this that's all. Thanks!
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
If you read his posts, Mystic is bringing into question that member's claims that his (unverified) compression testing results are scientific evidence that trumps other members' anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inconsistent with his statements.
I'm personally not a fan of Mystic; nothing against him, just the occasional difference of opinion. That's not meant as an insult in any way, but as a qualifying statement. I think you're completely right here and, from that perspective, Mystic is completely right, as well.
As I illustrated in an earlier post, even cheap equipment can be used to produce valid results; it simply has to be proven consistent, whether accurate or not. The problem is that some people (one in particular) do not repeat their tests, or qualify their results in any way, before posting them as definitive. In fact, a side effect of this is that those who have done (or are doing) the extensive testing post their progress, even if they state up front that their testing is not completed and what is being posted is not intended to be viewed as a conclusive result, they get jumped on because they haven't posted enough data to draw any conclusions (which, of course, is because the experiment is still under way, thus the disclaimer). I have firsthand experience with this.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
If you read his posts, Mystic is bringing into question that member's claims that his (unverified) compression testing results are scientific evidence that trumps other members' anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inconsistent with his statements.
I'm personally not a fan of Mystic; nothing against him, just the occasional difference of opinion. That's not meant as an insult in any way, but as a qualifying statement. I think you're completely right here and, from that perspective, Mystic is completely right, as well.
As I illustrated in an earlier post, even cheap equipment can be used to produce valid results; it simply has to be proven consistent, whether accurate or not. The problem is that some people (one in particular) do not repeat their tests, or qualify their results in any way, before posting them as definitive. In fact, a side effect of this is that those who have done (or are doing) the extensive testing post their progress, even if they state up front that their testing is not completed and what is being posted is not intended to be viewed as a conclusive result, they get jumped on because they haven't posted enough data to draw any conclusions (which, of course, is because the experiment is still under way, thus the disclaimer). I have firsthand experience with this.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
You lost me. Are unverified compression tests scientific? Would they be as scientific as a member posting mpg readings? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of this that's all. Thanks!
It becomes scientific when you attempt to repeat it. A compression test is a diagnostic procedure, not a scientific one. Multiple compressions tests wherein you are attempting to replicate the results of a past test are scientific. The advantage to multiple tests is that they remove doubt as to the consistency, and therefor the validity, of the results; even if the results aren't accurately calibrated, you still have a baseline for future tests using the same instrumentation, to detect any changes in future results. If you need accurate, not just consistent, results, you can compare your equipment's readings of a series of known tests to the expected results of those tests and use the variance data to calibrate your results.
Of course, if you can't reproduce the results, you know your equipment and/or test setup is flawed, something you can't determine from a single diagnostic test; scientific analysis is required to make that determination.
You lost me. Are unverified compression tests scientific? Would they be as scientific as a member posting mpg readings? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of this that's all. Thanks!
It becomes scientific when you attempt to repeat it. A compression test is a diagnostic procedure, not a scientific one. Multiple compressions tests wherein you are attempting to replicate the results of a past test are scientific. The advantage to multiple tests is that they remove doubt as to the consistency, and therefor the validity, of the results; even if the results aren't accurately calibrated, you still have a baseline for future tests using the same instrumentation, to detect any changes in future results. If you need accurate, not just consistent, results, you can compare your equipment's readings of a series of known tests to the expected results of those tests and use the variance data to calibrate your results.
Of course, if you can't reproduce the results, you know your equipment and/or test setup is flawed, something you can't determine from a single diagnostic test; scientific analysis is required to make that determination.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
You lost me. Are unverified compression tests scientific? Would they be as scientific as a member posting mpg readings? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of this that's all. Thanks!
It becomes scientific when you attempt to repeat it. A compression test is a diagnostic procedure, not a scientific one. Multiple compressions tests wherein you are attempting to replicate the results of a past test are scientific. The advantage to multiple tests is that they remove doubt as to the consistency, and therefor the validity, of the results; even if the results aren't accurately calibrated, you still have a baseline for future tests using the same instrumentation, to detect any changes in future results. If you need accurate, not just consistent, results, you can compare your equipment's readings of a series of known tests to the expected results of those tests and use the variance data to calibrate your results.
Of course, if you can't reproduce the results, you know your equipment and/or test setup is flawed, something you can't determine from a single diagnostic test; scientific analysis is required to make that determination.
Thanks for the info. So would you have to do several before tests, and several after tests, and then have someone actually witness them? How about mpg tests for the average Joe? It is extremely difficult to convince people, and jotting numbers down on a message board, be it compression results, mpg results, etc., you name it is tough. Especially when there is so much hatred for some of these products.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
You lost me. Are unverified compression tests scientific? Would they be as scientific as a member posting mpg readings? I'm trying to make heads or tails out of this that's all. Thanks!
It becomes scientific when you attempt to repeat it. A compression test is a diagnostic procedure, not a scientific one. Multiple compressions tests wherein you are attempting to replicate the results of a past test are scientific. The advantage to multiple tests is that they remove doubt as to the consistency, and therefor the validity, of the results; even if the results aren't accurately calibrated, you still have a baseline for future tests using the same instrumentation, to detect any changes in future results. If you need accurate, not just consistent, results, you can compare your equipment's readings of a series of known tests to the expected results of those tests and use the variance data to calibrate your results.
Of course, if you can't reproduce the results, you know your equipment and/or test setup is flawed, something you can't determine from a single diagnostic test; scientific analysis is required to make that determination.
Thanks for the info. So would you have to do several before tests, and several after tests, and then have someone actually witness them? How about mpg tests for the average Joe? It is extremely difficult to convince people, and jotting numbers down on a message board, be it compression results, mpg results, etc., you name it is tough. Especially when there is so much hatred for some of these products.
You need to read the posts Trajan. I had a problem with a compression test on a promoted product here. Let me carefully tell you why:
1. We have no knowledge of the quality of the compression tester used. Poor quality compression testers can produce inaccurate results. We need to know if a quality compression tester was used.
2. We do not have independent verification of the results obtained in the compression test. If you are going to demand scientific proof, you should know that verification is required.
Do you understand why I have problems with the compression results obtained for the promoted product?
It would be a different story if several people here were able to improve compression test results on several engines using a given product, say MMO just to use an example. I am using MMO just as an example. If several people here using quality compression testers were able to obtain higher compression results using MMO, that would be important, don't you think?
If all we have is a claim by one individual of higher compression test results, with no knowledge if a quality compression tester was used, is that not just anecdotal testimony like any other anecdotal testimony here? It can't be considered a scientific result if we have no knowledge of the quality or lack of quality of the compression tester, and if there is no verification-correct?
And in the case of anecdotal testimony, if 97% of reporting members report positive results with a product, and 3% report negative or no results, is it possible that might be important?
On the other hand, if 3% of reporting members reported positive results with a product, and 97% report negative or no results, that is important also, correct?
In my opinion, the people who demand scientific proof and put down anecdotal testimony should be able to provide the scientific proof they demand for the product they are promoting. The burden of proof is on them. If all they are able to provide is a compression test with no verification (and no information about the equipment used) THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF!
1. We have no knowledge of the quality of the compression tester used. Poor quality compression testers can produce inaccurate results. We need to know if a quality compression tester was used.
2. We do not have independent verification of the results obtained in the compression test. If you are going to demand scientific proof, you should know that verification is required.
Do you understand why I have problems with the compression results obtained for the promoted product?
It would be a different story if several people here were able to improve compression test results on several engines using a given product, say MMO just to use an example. I am using MMO just as an example. If several people here using quality compression testers were able to obtain higher compression results using MMO, that would be important, don't you think?
If all we have is a claim by one individual of higher compression test results, with no knowledge if a quality compression tester was used, is that not just anecdotal testimony like any other anecdotal testimony here? It can't be considered a scientific result if we have no knowledge of the quality or lack of quality of the compression tester, and if there is no verification-correct?
And in the case of anecdotal testimony, if 97% of reporting members report positive results with a product, and 3% report negative or no results, is it possible that might be important?
On the other hand, if 3% of reporting members reported positive results with a product, and 97% report negative or no results, that is important also, correct?
In my opinion, the people who demand scientific proof and put down anecdotal testimony should be able to provide the scientific proof they demand for the product they are promoting. The burden of proof is on them. If all they are able to provide is a compression test with no verification (and no information about the equipment used) THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF!
It can of course also be argued that a compression tester is not much of a scientific instrument to start out with. But a high quality compression tester, like a recording compression tester that is screwed on, certainly is better than a cheap compression tester that is hand held.
It's not technically necessary for there to be any witnesses, but someone else should be able to replicate your results with an identical test setup. Of course, it's next to impossible to find two identical test setups when you're talking about random peoples' cars. It gets even more interesting when you're talking about gas mileage because there are an insane number of variables: driving style changes with driver, traffic patterns, and mood; traffic patterns have their own direct effect on mileage; temperature and humidity have a direct effect on mileage; the number of passengers, cargo weight, and even fluctuations in the weight of the driver have a direct effect on mileage; if you're calculating based on miles driven divided by gallons burned you're probably getting the divisor from a gas pump when you fill up, and those pumps are calibrated within a given tolerance, they're not all identical; if you're using OBD instrumentation to determine mileage, those readings are always going to be estimates. These factors alone can add up to 5-10% variances, making it all but impossible to form a baseline form which to discern improvement or degradation.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
Firstly, as the OP who was simply trying to get additional information (not demanding and also not denigrating anecdotal information), I am quite amazed by where this thread has gone.
I am not talking about MMO here, as promised. It is clearly an emotional topic for some.
But I do think Trajan has a point. If you trust anecdotal sources, and you consider a compression test anecdotal, then by definition you trust the person who gave that anecdotal report.
But of course I don't have the backstory on this and there appears to be mention of a particular individual whose compression testing cannot be trusted.
Can you name names because for a newb, I don't know what you are talking about. But the fact you talk about it for 3 pages and so many posts indicates that you think it is important to point out that there is someone whose anecdotal information we should not trust.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Anyway, maybe we again can have people at this website be able to talk about their experiences with engine cleaners
a simple compression test with no verification I am going to have something to say about that.
So, you want people to talk about their experience, with no verification.
But if that experience includes a compression test that isn't verified you will *have something to say about that"?
Make up your mind.
Firstly, as the OP who was simply trying to get additional information (not demanding and also not denigrating anecdotal information), I am quite amazed by where this thread has gone.
I am not talking about MMO here, as promised. It is clearly an emotional topic for some.
But I do think Trajan has a point. If you trust anecdotal sources, and you consider a compression test anecdotal, then by definition you trust the person who gave that anecdotal report.
But of course I don't have the backstory on this and there appears to be mention of a particular individual whose compression testing cannot be trusted.
Can you name names because for a newb, I don't know what you are talking about. But the fact you talk about it for 3 pages and so many posts indicates that you think it is important to point out that there is someone whose anecdotal information we should not trust.
Originally Posted By: KeMBro2012
It's not technically necessary for there to be any witnesses, but someone else should be able to replicate your results with an identical test setup. Of course, it's next to impossible to find two identical test setups when you're talking about random peoples' cars. It gets even more interesting when you're talking about gas mileage because there are an insane number of variables: driving style changes with driver, traffic patterns, and mood; traffic patterns have their own direct effect on mileage; temperature and humidity have a direct effect on mileage; the number of passengers, cargo weight, and even fluctuations in the weight of the driver have a direct effect on mileage; if you're calculating based on miles driven divided by gallons burned you're probably getting the divisor from a gas pump when you fill up, and those pumps are calibrated within a given tolerance, they're not all identical; if you're using OBD instrumentation to determine mileage, those readings are always going to be estimates. These factors alone can add up to 5-10% variances, making it all but impossible to form a baseline form which to discern improvement or degradation.
I completely agree. Mpg gains are anecdotal unless you can control all of the variables involved or are able to have consistency among variables you cannot control (temperature, humidity, traffic flow, etc.). As previously stated, it requireds repeatability. I got jumped on for even mentioning that I was thinking of testing a variety of fuel additives because I was unable to control all variables even though I stated that it was not going to be scientific and that I would control as many variables as possible. I was prepared to write a long winded snarky reply, but decided against doing so.
It's not technically necessary for there to be any witnesses, but someone else should be able to replicate your results with an identical test setup. Of course, it's next to impossible to find two identical test setups when you're talking about random peoples' cars. It gets even more interesting when you're talking about gas mileage because there are an insane number of variables: driving style changes with driver, traffic patterns, and mood; traffic patterns have their own direct effect on mileage; temperature and humidity have a direct effect on mileage; the number of passengers, cargo weight, and even fluctuations in the weight of the driver have a direct effect on mileage; if you're calculating based on miles driven divided by gallons burned you're probably getting the divisor from a gas pump when you fill up, and those pumps are calibrated within a given tolerance, they're not all identical; if you're using OBD instrumentation to determine mileage, those readings are always going to be estimates. These factors alone can add up to 5-10% variances, making it all but impossible to form a baseline form which to discern improvement or degradation.
I completely agree. Mpg gains are anecdotal unless you can control all of the variables involved or are able to have consistency among variables you cannot control (temperature, humidity, traffic flow, etc.). As previously stated, it requireds repeatability. I got jumped on for even mentioning that I was thinking of testing a variety of fuel additives because I was unable to control all variables even though I stated that it was not going to be scientific and that I would control as many variables as possible. I was prepared to write a long winded snarky reply, but decided against doing so.
Originally Posted By: EType
Firstly, as the OP who was simply trying to get additional information (not demanding and also not denigrating anecdotal information), I am quite amazed by where this thread has gone.
I am not talking about MMO here, as promised. It is clearly an emotional topic for some.
Welcome to BITOG!
Firstly, as the OP who was simply trying to get additional information (not demanding and also not denigrating anecdotal information), I am quite amazed by where this thread has gone.
I am not talking about MMO here, as promised. It is clearly an emotional topic for some.
Welcome to BITOG!
LOL I'm the king of the long-winded snarky reply, but unfortunately I'm at work right now and can't dedicate a large enough consecutive chunk of time to form a coherent one, so you're all spared, for now.
Trajan and others have demanded scientific proof that these oil cleaners and oil supplements actually work. That is not going to happen very easily. These products do not receive testing like a certified motor oil.
And the person that produced the compression results for the promoted product expected people to just accept his results with no verification and with that member insulting anybody who questioned him-calling them stupid and unable to think outside of the box. As I have stated above, his results, with no verification, are anecdotal testimony the same as any other here.
And I am not saying that any anecdotal testimony should be accepted at face value. What I am saying is that basically without some kind of scientific testing, what we have here when it comes to these products is anecdotal testimony, including the compression test of the one member for the promoted product. Heck, demarpaint has done compression testing for MMO.
I do think we should respect what people say here and not basically accuse anybody who has anecdotal testimony about some product as being a liar. All we mainly have is anecdotal testimony of these products. If anecdotal testimony was not allowed the Oil Additives Section would have to be shut down.
So since anecdotal testimony is basically all we have to go on we have to check and see how many members have positive results with some product compared to how many have negative results.
We do have members here who go out of their way at their own expense to try to find out about products. A good example is Artem who has done so much testing on various products and has produced before and after photographs. These photographs from various members here are some of the best evidence we have to show if a product worked or not.
A compression test using a quality compression tester used before and after certainly would be a better test than somebody just saying that a product seemed to improve performance.
I think all of this is obvious and hardly even needs to be stated over and over again. When people demand scientific proof and are promoting a product here, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THEM! You want scientific proof and you want us to buy the product you are promoting, prove that the product works!
And the person that produced the compression results for the promoted product expected people to just accept his results with no verification and with that member insulting anybody who questioned him-calling them stupid and unable to think outside of the box. As I have stated above, his results, with no verification, are anecdotal testimony the same as any other here.
And I am not saying that any anecdotal testimony should be accepted at face value. What I am saying is that basically without some kind of scientific testing, what we have here when it comes to these products is anecdotal testimony, including the compression test of the one member for the promoted product. Heck, demarpaint has done compression testing for MMO.
I do think we should respect what people say here and not basically accuse anybody who has anecdotal testimony about some product as being a liar. All we mainly have is anecdotal testimony of these products. If anecdotal testimony was not allowed the Oil Additives Section would have to be shut down.
So since anecdotal testimony is basically all we have to go on we have to check and see how many members have positive results with some product compared to how many have negative results.
We do have members here who go out of their way at their own expense to try to find out about products. A good example is Artem who has done so much testing on various products and has produced before and after photographs. These photographs from various members here are some of the best evidence we have to show if a product worked or not.
A compression test using a quality compression tester used before and after certainly would be a better test than somebody just saying that a product seemed to improve performance.
I think all of this is obvious and hardly even needs to be stated over and over again. When people demand scientific proof and are promoting a product here, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THEM! You want scientific proof and you want us to buy the product you are promoting, prove that the product works!
Mystic, I don't think anybody is asking you to state these things over and over.
I did ask you which poster you were talking about, but you did not give the name.
You just said that they were testing a promoted product.
Who is this person, what product are you talking about, and who was promoting it?
Simple questions from my side. No need for you to state other points again and again. I have read them every time. Promise!
I did ask you which poster you were talking about, but you did not give the name.
You just said that they were testing a promoted product.
Who is this person, what product are you talking about, and who was promoting it?
Simple questions from my side. No need for you to state other points again and again. I have read them every time. Promise!
- Status