New sheriff in town has arrived

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: wgtoys
What exactly is the big deal? They published a chart showing simple virgin oil analysis results.

None of the data actually tells us much about the relative merits of the oils in question with regard to wear control, fuel economy, deposit control or any other performance criteria.

This is a bunch of noise about nothing, and hardly meets the "new sheriff" billing.


Agreed.
 
What would give us data on wear control, fuel economy and deposit control??? Yes, it does tell of the merits of the oil by telling us what thickness is ,tbn, wear additives noack, etc. It is not just a list, instead an insight on the make up of the select group of oils tested. Whatever you think is important to this make up is right in front of you. Beats the guy in the diner telling you about his uncle Jeb in up state NY with a Caprice with 345,000 miles runs perfect except fpr the dome light.Hopefully
34.gif
we get more of these type of threads and I thank Tom again.
 
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Yes, it does tell of the merits of the oil by telling us what thickness is ,tbn, wear additives noack, etc.


Okay, is 851 ppm zinc better than 791 ppm? Does moly make a difference?

These elemental analyzes tell us nothing about the base stocks, the blend stocks, or much else.

We can get better information here from on used oil analyzes, which actually describe real results in real engines with real oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Yes, it does tell of the merits of the oil by telling us what thickness is ,tbn, wear additives noack, etc.


Okay, is 851 ppm zinc better than 791 ppm? Does moly make a difference?

These elemental analyzes tell us nothing about the base stocks, the blend stocks, or much else.

We can get better information here from on used oil analyzes, which actually describe real results in real engines with real oils.



So the oils they tested were not real?
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D

Okay, is 851 ppm zinc better than 791 ppm? Does moly make a difference?


that is for you to decide. now you have some data to make that choice on. we have a whole VOA section for people who wanted this sort of info and were willing to pay $35 a pop for it, without noack numbers. i find this to be a great service and look forward to the next batch of tests
 
Yes 851 is better than 791 does moly make a difference call Toyota, no you better not as they are very busy, call Honda and ask them is moly important as the new 0-20 oils are loaded with it. The base stocks etc are things even Johnny does not know about as they remain and always will trade secrets. So this is very important to some of us as gives an insight into oils that might not ever show up. Look at Formula Shell who would have thunk that it really so robust at a real good price???
34.gif
 
I didn't read through all the posts, so maybe this has already been said. It shows that all the oils are within the specifications for a 5w30 SM oil. Now if Blackstone had tested the same oils......?????
 
Last edited:
Wow. Mobil Clean 5000 looks good, and that makes it a great value in my area, then. At Walmart, 5qt jug is only $11.00 and the 1 qt is only $2.37.
 
PQIA has added a new page to their website covering engine oil labels:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Labels 101 Article.htm

They give clear and strong warnings to consumers on SA and SB oils for the real damage they can do to a car engine, along with pictures of actual branded labels.

It just burns me when marketers of SA and SB oils position them on store shelves among modern motor oils and use words on the labels like "all season protection", "premium oils', "finest products money can buy", "better than it has to be", and "a supreme mineral oil engine lubricant". In spite of their mildly worded caveats, I believe they have to know that most of their sales of these oils are being used in modern engines by cost conscience consumers, and causing damage to their engines.

In my opinion, this is shameful abuse of consumer ignorance for profit, and I personally would not buy any product from such greedy companies, even their SM oils.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
PQIA has added a new page to their website covering engine oil labels:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Labels 101 Article.htm

They give clear and strong warnings to consumers on SA and SB oils for the real damage they can do to a car engine, along with pictures of actual branded labels.

It just burns me when marketers of SA and SB oils position them on store shelves among modern motor oils and use words on the labels like "all season protection", "premium oils', "finest products money can buy", "better than it has to be", and "a supreme mineral oil engine lubricant". In spite of their mildly worded caveats, I believe they have to know that most of their sales of these oils are being used in modern engines by cost conscience consumers, and causing damage to their engines.

In my opinion, this is shameful abuse of consumer ignorance for profit, and I personally would not buy any product from such greedy companies, even their SM oils.

Tom NJ


This is great work Mr. Glenn is doing with PQIA. I wonder though? Will this knowledge somehow gain the attention of the general consumer, or will consumer ignorance simply continue on unabated?
 
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
This is great work Mr. Glenn is doing with PQIA. I wonder though? Will this knowledge somehow gain the attention of the general consumer, or will consumer ignorance simply continue on unabated?


Reaching the consumer is always the difficult part. PQIA is making the effort to reach out through a press release, such as:

http://www.motorperformance.biz/2010/03/...-press-release/

http://www.prweb.com/releases/pqia/engine-oils/prweb3711124.htm

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/are-you-harming-your-expensive,1200317.shtml

http://www.topix.net/content/prweb/2010/...-in-the-1930s-2


They will also be aiming at multiple consumer automotive magazines and news outlets,

Tom NJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom