Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It is all too imprecise. This test there, that test here, confusing. How samples are taken, who did the test, what else is going on in the scene? That's why we have courts, to piece together conflicting statements and try to get to the bottom of what is true.
I don't think wear metals can be 2-5 microns, or even one micron in size. Wear metals should be individual or small groups of atoms/molecules being scraped away. Microns is too large IMO, unless the engine is shot. .
Roll Royce used to not state HP, they would say HP is adequate. You bought the name RR. I am coming around to that idea as well. OE and forget about it. Set it and forget it.
You sure can have 2-5 micron iron or other particles- lots of them.
This test was supposed to be from MG- the 13500K run is out of bounds for their own spec ( they picked that one to send?!?!?)
The 9K run shows an ISO code that is too dirty to match their claim - unless Im reading it wrong. (Im always open to making mistakes)
I just don't think I am.
i do agree the data is a bit strange, but it certainly doesnt make the MG look like it lives up to its promises - if they picked and chose- they picked poorly.
Meanwhile my new ultra boxes show the old 4548-12 number - but list different Ultras than the one in the box ?@?!?!
Both my filter picks are getting wonky.....
UD
It is all too imprecise. This test there, that test here, confusing. How samples are taken, who did the test, what else is going on in the scene? That's why we have courts, to piece together conflicting statements and try to get to the bottom of what is true.
I don't think wear metals can be 2-5 microns, or even one micron in size. Wear metals should be individual or small groups of atoms/molecules being scraped away. Microns is too large IMO, unless the engine is shot. .
Roll Royce used to not state HP, they would say HP is adequate. You bought the name RR. I am coming around to that idea as well. OE and forget about it. Set it and forget it.
You sure can have 2-5 micron iron or other particles- lots of them.
This test was supposed to be from MG- the 13500K run is out of bounds for their own spec ( they picked that one to send?!?!?)
The 9K run shows an ISO code that is too dirty to match their claim - unless Im reading it wrong. (Im always open to making mistakes)
I just don't think I am.
i do agree the data is a bit strange, but it certainly doesnt make the MG look like it lives up to its promises - if they picked and chose- they picked poorly.
Meanwhile my new ultra boxes show the old 4548-12 number - but list different Ultras than the one in the box ?@?!?!
Both my filter picks are getting wonky.....
UD
Last edited: