This. How would the test have worked out with NO snake oils?Packaging the same silly and worthless test in a different way doesn’t suddenly make it more relevant or meaningful.
You keep trying though, I’ll give you that.
This. How would the test have worked out with NO snake oils?Packaging the same silly and worthless test in a different way doesn’t suddenly make it more relevant or meaningful.
You keep trying though, I’ll give you that.
This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.I feel like we're being trolled.
Fundamentally, scientific process says you need a baseline without Lucas (for comparison) in order to support your statement.This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.
This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.
This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.
Again, you keep trying. But you have no idea what a used oil analysis shows, and what it does not show. It’s simply is not the tool for saying that some oil mixture is better or worse than another one. Those UOA that you are championing say much more about the engine in than they ever will about the oil.This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.
Yeah, who knows. But considering the test is as relevant as a taste test of the additive, it really doesn’t matter.This. How would the test have worked out with NO snake oils?
Again, you keep trying. But you have no idea what a used oil analysis shows, and what it does not show. It’s simply is not the tool for saying that some oil mixture is better or worse than another one. Those UOA that you are championing say much more about the engine in than they ever will about the oil.
You’re still miles away and not getting any closer. You’re like somebody shooting in the dark and spraying the room with bullets just to see what you might hit. But in this case you’re not hitting anything. I’m starting to agree with those above that think we are just being trolled. The reason I think that is because you’re not listening to anything being said in this thread and responding to the post. You just keep posting more garbage.
If my buddy hands me his .308 and I put a booger on the bullet and it lands where it is supposed to, did the booger make the gun more accurate? Did the booger reduce bore wear, improve the ballistics and generally make the round better?This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.
At least what you have been doing is harmless and freeIf my buddy hands me his .308 and I put a booger on the bullet and it lands where it is supposed to, did the booger make the gun more accurate? Did the booger reduce bore wear, improve the ballistics and generally make the round better?
-
A VOA or UOA doesn't show you organic additives, but it shows you metallics. Just because you have certain additives, it doesn't dictate how the product will perform, that's the crux of that claim. An oil with 130ppm of moly can't be claimed to perform more poorly than one with 600ppm of moly for example, because spectrography doesn't differentiate between different types of moly and it's the performance of the whole formulation that matters.I have a question. If a voa or uoa mean little if anything regarding additives in an oil because as some have said, these tests don't show everything. Then how can people say Lucas is garbage if an analysis means little regarding what is in fact in said product? I am not a Lucas user but I have seen and been told that an analysis means very little regarding additives then how can it be the opposite when it is a Lucas product?
I know and understand everything said .But,how has it been determined that Lucas had no additives? What tests were done or what information was used to make such determination? I have referenced PDS regarding an oils makeup and was told that it was more or less useless.A VOA or UOA doesn't show you organic additives, but it shows you metallics. Just because you have certain additives, it doesn't dictate how the product will perform, that's the crux of that claim. An oil with 130ppm of moly can't be claimed to perform more poorly than one with 600ppm of moly for example, because spectrography doesn't differentiate between different types of moly and it's the performance of the whole formulation that matters.
Performance, in a fully formulated lubricant, is the result of the entire formulation, so obsessing over a single ingredient, doesn't enable you to infer how the product is going to perform. This is why certifications and approvals are valuable, as they do indicate that a minimum mandatory level of performance has been met.
Lucas has no additives, it's just bright stock, tackifier and cheap VII polymer. This is why it dilutes the additive package, because it's displacing base oil that's blended with specific levels of additives to meet the intended performance targets.
Does that help?
There have been several VOA posted here showing the dearth of additives. Lucas is not spending the money for a completely non-metallic additive system, if such a thing even exists. It’s exactly as Overkill has noted, a cheap diluter of formulated oil.I know and understand everything said .But,how has it been determined that Lucas had no additives? What tests were done or what information was used to make such determination? I have referenced PDS regarding an oils makeup and was told that it was more or less useless.
As noted, we can see what metallic additives are in a product via VOA, and we have had several VOA's of Lucas, and they have no metallic additives (no ZDDP, no moly, no detergents...etc). Which means those additives are being diluted in the fully formulated oil by the addition of Lucas.I know and understand everything said .But,how has it been determined that Lucas had no additives? What tests were done or what information was used to make such determination? I have referenced PDS regarding an oils makeup and was told that it was more or less useless.
MolaKule said:As I have stated quite a few times, these aftermarket additives are overstocks of OCP or polybutene lubricant thickeners and are used to increase cash flow. Best used only in smokers as they have no positive attributes over a thicker motor oil.