Patman,
Yes, OK. I'll give you credit for catching my mistake. When I said, "M1 0W-40 has shown to stay in grade...," I was obviously making the same mistake that I've railed against in the past. This is not a satisfactory way to classify an oil's performance. In fact, we've already agreed that 3MP should not use this type of classification during the course of his long-term oil study, right? We decided that the only valid method for judging an oil's viscosity stability is by its percentage of change. This is what I've been saying for the past year, & what everyone agreed is only fair when comparing oils in 3MP's study.
You & I have also discussed how oil "grades" are really no more than marketing tools; a way of making different oil formulations intelligible to uninformed consumers. We say one oil is a "high 30 wt" while another is a "low 40 wt" & we think there's a discernable difference, when in reality they're closer in viscosity than the "high 30 wt" is to a "low 30 wt"! As we've discussed before, viscosity is a continuous scale & "grades" are nothing more than a convenient way to group them.
"Stay in grade" is the biggest lie we can perpetuate at this site!
We need to get away from these simple-minded classifications & start measuring changes in percentages, not gross blocks of meaningless "grades." At the very least, let's track the changes in cSt. It's not as precise as percentage changes, but at least it gives a meaningful picture of what's going on (unlike "stays in grade," which means nothing).
So yes, I used a term I've previously acknowledged as meaningless. So for my earlier statements, when I said "stay in grade," I really meant to say "retains its viscosity better." It wasn't intentional; I'll try to not let it happen again.
As far as my always claiming EC thins: no, I don't. My comment that you quoted above says M1 retains its viscosity better than EC under comparable conditions. My arguments are always geared towards the erroneous belief that M1 takes a huge shear hit in every use. Lately, these spurious claims have been paired with the dubious "proof" of EC's everlasting stability. If everyone's tired of having me bring up this up time & again, then I'd suggest not continuing to hold up invalid data & unusable comparisons as a standard to measure against.
I know we're in agreement that each oil is good (providing it's only for the other person's use!). I've said so about EC at least a half-dozen times, & now you've said so about M1. I'd possibly even give EC a try (in my non-turbo) if it was readily available in my area. But I'm not as zealous as you are, & I'm unwilling to expend inordinate amounts of time & money looking for something which is proving no better than what I'm already using.
-Greg
Yes, OK. I'll give you credit for catching my mistake. When I said, "M1 0W-40 has shown to stay in grade...," I was obviously making the same mistake that I've railed against in the past. This is not a satisfactory way to classify an oil's performance. In fact, we've already agreed that 3MP should not use this type of classification during the course of his long-term oil study, right? We decided that the only valid method for judging an oil's viscosity stability is by its percentage of change. This is what I've been saying for the past year, & what everyone agreed is only fair when comparing oils in 3MP's study.
You & I have also discussed how oil "grades" are really no more than marketing tools; a way of making different oil formulations intelligible to uninformed consumers. We say one oil is a "high 30 wt" while another is a "low 40 wt" & we think there's a discernable difference, when in reality they're closer in viscosity than the "high 30 wt" is to a "low 30 wt"! As we've discussed before, viscosity is a continuous scale & "grades" are nothing more than a convenient way to group them.
"Stay in grade" is the biggest lie we can perpetuate at this site!
We need to get away from these simple-minded classifications & start measuring changes in percentages, not gross blocks of meaningless "grades." At the very least, let's track the changes in cSt. It's not as precise as percentage changes, but at least it gives a meaningful picture of what's going on (unlike "stays in grade," which means nothing).
So yes, I used a term I've previously acknowledged as meaningless. So for my earlier statements, when I said "stay in grade," I really meant to say "retains its viscosity better." It wasn't intentional; I'll try to not let it happen again.
As far as my always claiming EC thins: no, I don't. My comment that you quoted above says M1 retains its viscosity better than EC under comparable conditions. My arguments are always geared towards the erroneous belief that M1 takes a huge shear hit in every use. Lately, these spurious claims have been paired with the dubious "proof" of EC's everlasting stability. If everyone's tired of having me bring up this up time & again, then I'd suggest not continuing to hold up invalid data & unusable comparisons as a standard to measure against.
I know we're in agreement that each oil is good (providing it's only for the other person's use!). I've said so about EC at least a half-dozen times, & now you've said so about M1. I'd possibly even give EC a try (in my non-turbo) if it was readily available in my area. But I'm not as zealous as you are, & I'm unwilling to expend inordinate amounts of time & money looking for something which is proving no better than what I'm already using.
-Greg
