MMO is no joke.

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I see we are getting nowhere, and will continue to get nowhere.

Up to you, man. Let me know if you want to pick it back up.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Just remember results can be bought, and tests skewed.

This is exactly why we need to be in the habit of looking at all claims critically, and erring on the side of not believing until we have good reasons.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
You haven't substantiated that MMO didn't give the results the members here or anywhere else claimed to get either. All you did was cast doubt, and that's really quite easy.

Again, this is exactly my point. Especially the bit about how easy it is to cast doubt on a claim like this one.

If the OP had more supporting detail, it'd be harder to cast doubt on the claim. Without that detail, we can't say whether he's right or wrong.

We need higher standards of evidence on this website.

 

[demarpaint]

Doubt can be cast on test results too.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Doubt can be cast on test results too.

Yes, it can. And?

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
We need higher standards of evidence on this website.

Quote of the day. I am with you.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
We need higher standards of evidence on this website.

Quote of the day. I am with you.



Me too.

Anecdotes are useful for stories and tall tales. To make decisions you need data.

Who among us bought into synlube testimonials.

Here's a couple of mine.

The best milage I ever got out of the Z4 was 41mpg. The tires were all at 40psi. Not 33/36 F/R. The fan was on. The top was up. I cruised at 55mph on cruise control. The outside temp was about 75deg F. The tank was full of Shell 93. The shift points were all @2K rpms. Except the one into 6th. (Around 1200 or so.)

The best mpg out of the Mustang, with the tires at factory psi, and the top down. was 26.5. Speed varied between 40-65.
BP 87 was used.

I doubt MMO would improve on that.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Doubt can be cast on test results too.

Yes, it can. And?


And what? Pay for the results, get the results you want. But you already knew that. I know a few compaines that did just that, I won't mention any names that wouldn't be fair.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
We need higher standards of evidence on this website.

Quote of the day. I am with you.



Me too.

Anecdotes are useful for stories and tall tales. To make decisions you need data.



This is true, as long as you know the data to be factual. When it comes to the automotive world a lot of the data out there is garbage, lies, and paid for tainted data that really isn't data at all, its just something from the marketing dept tailored to sell product. Sometimes you have to make decisions, and gather data from your own experiences and from people you trust.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
I doubt MMO would improve on that.

Who said MMO improves mpg in every application? It seems to work best in older vehicles most of which were in need of some kind of repair. That's from my own experiences and testing, others seem to agree.

Seems a lot of people here pick an oil based on UOA reports. Looking at UOA reports and the history of mistakes made in them that might not be such a wise choice for picking an oil brand. Others buy oil based on the sales pitch. That doesn't seem too smart either. You mentioned Synlube, common sense plays in, some people lack that. I don't see that being the case here, the members posting positive experiences are smarter than the Synlube crowd.

For those looking for hard cold proof a UCL increases mpg, don't use a UCL would be my suggestion. No one on this site has the time or money to scientifically prove it, and even if you did casting doubt will be real easy. So "anecdotes" are about all you're going to get. Save your money, the gas compaines have your best interests at heart, so do the companies selling us oil for our cars.

Good night...........

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
And what? Pay for the results, get the results you want. But you already knew that. I know a few compaines that did just that, I won't mention any names that wouldn't be fair.

If someone is paid to fudge a test or the data that comes from it, then by definition, they are doing a poor experiment and/or applying a faulty analysis.

Thus, the point stands: properly conducted experimentation and proper analysis yield more credible results than poorly conducted experimentation or gut feeling. Again, I fail to see exactly where our disagreement lies.

 

[Trajan]

What money has to be spent? What does a pen and paper costs?

You know what it costs me to record all that data? Nothing. I had all that I needed. Even a mini tape recorder to record all of it by voice.

Oh, and I'm sure Turtle Wax has my best interests at heart too

 

[d00df00d]

Here's how to do the experiment such that the results are more credible:


1. Find a vehicle that gets driven regularly, in the same way, on the same roads, year-round.

2. Make sure you always get the same gas from the same gas station every time. If you can't limit yourself to one station, keep the number of stations to a minimum.

3. This is important: find a friend who is willing and able to put the additive in your fuel tank on a regular basis, without your awareness.

4. Pick two consecutive months in winter. Run with the additive for one month, and without the additive for the other month. Let your friend decide which month is which, and apply the additive (or not), without telling you.

5. Repeat step 4 for two months in summer.

6. For every day, note the following:
- Miles driven
- Time driven
- Average ambient temperature and humidity

7. For each fuel fill, note the date and (obviously) the amount filled.

8. At the end of the experiment, collect your numbers and take them to a statistician worth his salt. Bring your friend so that he can tell the statistician which months you ran with the additive added and which months you ran without it. The statistician will be able to tell you whether there seems to be a difference in MPG between the months with the additive and the months without. If there isn't, then it's back to the drawing board. If there is a difference, then the statistician will compare the MPG numbers to the other factors you noted, e.g. miles driven and ambient temperature, to get a better idea of whether it's safe to say that the MPG difference is due to the additive.

9. When you're all done, make EVERYTHING available on the Internet for all to see, so that others can check your numbers, criticize your methods, and replicate your experiment.


Bam. Experimenter's bias eliminated, conditions controlled (or controlled for), analysis applied, and data and methods available for public scrutiny -- all to the extent reasonably possible for an amateur scientist testing in the real world, of course. Whatever the results end up being, they will have weight.

 

[Junior96Stang]

"The people who believe MMO truly is a miracle will use it until they die. The people who think it's a waste of time will think that until they die" - Marin

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Junior96Stang
"The people who believe MMO truly is a miracle will use it until they die. The people who think it's a waste of time will think that until they die" - Marin


Bingo

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Here's how to do the experiment such that the results are more credible:


1. Find a vehicle that gets driven regularly, in the same way, on the same roads, year-round.

2. Make sure you always get the same gas from the same gas station every time. If you can't limit yourself to one station, keep the number of stations to a minimum.

3. This is important: find a friend who is willing and able to put the additive in your fuel tank on a regular basis, without your awareness.

4. Pick two consecutive months in winter. Run with the additive for one month, and without the additive for the other month. Let your friend decide which month is which, and apply the additive (or not), without telling you.

5. Repeat step 4 for two months in summer.

6. For every day, note the following:
- Miles driven
- Time driven
- Average ambient temperature and humidity

7. For each fuel fill, note the date and (obviously) the amount filled.

8. At the end of the experiment, collect your numbers and take them to a statistician worth his salt. Bring your friend so that he can tell the statistician which months you ran with the additive added and which months you ran without it. The statistician will be able to tell you whether there seems to be a difference in MPG between the months with the additive and the months without. If there isn't, then it's back to the drawing board. If there is a difference, then the statistician will compare the MPG numbers to the other factors you noted, e.g. miles driven and ambient temperature, to get a better idea of whether it's safe to say that the MPG difference is due to the additive.

9. When you're all done, make EVERYTHING available on the Internet for all to see, so that others can check your numbers, criticize your methods, and replicate your experiment.


Bam. Experimenter's bias eliminated, conditions controlled (or controlled for), analysis applied, and data and methods available for public scrutiny -- all to the extent reasonably possible for an amateur scientist testing in the real world, of course. Whatever the results end up being, they will have weight.


Cool! The only problem I see is someone will cast doubt, try and find something wrong with the testing and the arguement will continue. Interesting though. Our driving pattern changed again since my FIL got sick, so I can't do it, and I'd be called bias or having an agenda

. Great debate we kept it civil! Over and out.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Cool! The only problem I see is someone will cast doubt, try and find something wrong with the testing and the arguement will continue.

One can only hope. In fact, as you may have noticed, that's exactly the point of posting everything up for everyone to see. It lets anyone and everyone take a whack at discrediting the experiment so that, if there is a flaw, that flaw can be found. Sure, there will be people who will nay-say just to nay-say, but they are always easy to pick out.

If it stands up to that kind of scrutiny, it deserves space in our minds. If it doesn't, we can find a way to do better next time.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Cool! The only problem I see is someone will cast doubt, try and find something wrong with the testing and the arguement will continue.

One can only hope. In fact, as you may have noticed, that's exactly the point of posting everything up for everyone to see. It lets anyone and everyone take a whack at discrediting the experiment so that, if there is a flaw, that flaw can be found. Sure, there will be people who will nay-say just to nay-say, but they are always easy to pick out.

If it stands up to that kind of scrutiny, it deserves space in our minds. If it doesn't, we can find a way to do better next time.

 

[JavierG]

So is MMO a joke or not? I lost track.
BTW, is Amsoil better than Royal Purple better than Mobile 1 better than Pennzoil Ultra better than blah, blah, blah...I guess it depends who you ask, right?

 

[Turk]

Better log the wind speed, including which trips were headwinds or tailwinds....

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Better log the wind speed, including which trips were headwinds or tailwinds....



Don't forget the humidity, temperature, and day of the week. My vehicles always run better on the weekends.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Better log the wind speed, including which trips were headwinds or tailwinds....



Don't forget the humidity, temperature, and day of the week. My vehicles always run better on the weekends.

I seem to remember someone saying something earlier in the thread about "casting doubt" frivolously. What was it...

Eh, it'll come to me.

Anyway, if you test over a large enough number of days, I would think the effect of wind speed and day-to-day variations in driving style would wash out in the final analysis, i.e. they would either average out to nothing or wouldn't affect one test condition (with the additive vs. without) more than the other. Humidity and temperature would be accounted for if you test over enough days in multiple seasons. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[greenjp]

I am involved in testing of marine propulsion systems for my job, including evaluation of specific fuel consumption and emissions for the engines and speed vs powering performance for the ship as a whole. I'm flying out to do one today. Suffice it to say the factors you have to account for, either by control, blocking, or via corrections, are extensive. Ambient temperature, humidity, wind speed, currents, and wave conditions are included, as are a great many engine condition measures. If you don't do it right your results are not valid. It is not nitpicking or naysaying to point out the flaws or oversights when performance claims are made. The cost of testing is also relevant, when a ship burns tens of thousands of dollars of fuel an hour you can easily justify an expensive, comprehensive test. A bit harder to do with your car.

doodfood's test postulated above is OK but would be better performed on a track or test loop where speed, acceleration, distance travelled, etc could be controlled.

jeff

 

[AstroTurf]

Well said GreenJP,
Tough to do for the Common Man.
So suffice it to say that...
No one who is trying MMO or TCW3 in their car can meet the testing parameters of a Lab Enviroment.
What then? Don't test?
Nay Nay... Test on, and let those who doubt the results eat cake.
It is working for me... TCW3 Amsoil HP Injector.
Thanks, Jim