Originally Posted By: 2012AccentSE
Here is what I don't get, if mixing oils is bad, then optimally, the entire engine should be let to drain bone dry before refilling with another brand of lube. You never get out 100% of the oil inside the engine during a normal change, wouldn't this fall under the "no-no policy"??
Logical fallacy...the fact that you can't 100% drain an engine doesn't make mixing a positive...you just can't cut it that way.
Unavoidable doesn't justify intentional.
The miscibility standard just says that they can be mixed, heated, frozen, heated again, and don't split like salad dressing, nor blow chinks...guarantees absolutely nothing else.
Originally Posted By: 2012AccentSE
Also, the articles listed are over 10 years old. I would think that the oils today are much more robust in handling additive clash.
You would think...do you have a scientific basis for that thinking, or is it just that you would expect, in the absnce of evidence ?
What has changed that would lead you to that position ?
The statements from Pennzoil are in the front page of BITOG and are pretty "fresh" in comparison.
The VOA I linked to is pretty fressh too (weeks) with indeterminate "chunks" suggested by Blackstone as additives in the scheme of things.
Originally Posted By: 2012AccentSE
Lastly, we have all been on that 1 road trip where we check the oil and it's a quart low. The local gas station that you're at doesn't carry the PUP 0w40 that you love to have in your engine, so what do you do?? That's right, you opt for a 10w30 or 40 to "get you down the road". See where I'm going with this?
Same logical fallacy as the first, unable to avoid does not justify the intentional mixing.
Originally Posted By: 2012AccentSE
I'm not saying it's ideal, but I seriously doubt, with today's oils, that there will be any issues in a reasonable ratio. Ie. no 80% Lucas, 20% 20w50
Combined with the above logical fallacies, this is the "nothing will blow up" conclusion...and it's right, nothing blows up...not because of the unavoidable issues that are raised previously making the situation better, just that blow ups are exceedingly rare.
The point is a poster asked for advice...so which advice is more sound ?
* no-one has ever had or posted evidence that there's ever a problem (point there is patently incorect)
* you will never have a problem
* nothing blows up.
or
* there HAVE been problems reported, they are rare, and they typically relate to cold temperature performance (here's a few - which makes point 1 above factually incorrect (I fall short of intentional lie)).
* your mix will lack proof of any of the approvals that are listed on either of the bottles
* When mixing, chemistry interactions can be unpredictable.
* best defence is no be there, and not mix.
If you were an absolute newbie asking advice, on a knowledgeable forum, which advice qould you prefer to recieve ?
advice that lists possible side effects (like one would expect from a medical practitioner for example), or boldaaa statements that aren't based on the truth, and deny the fact that issues have ever occurred ?