This is the fallacy of comparing UOA results and making decisions and/or declarations on the basis of someone else's data. UOA was never intended to determine a 'best' oil or a particular brand the 'works well' in a given engine design. That's what industry standards (API viscosity grades, ACEA ratings, etc) and company standards (GM dexos, Porsche A40, BMW LLwhatever) and ultimately the OEM specifications based on those standards are for. So a UOA is a unique analysis of a unique set of working conditions and nothing more.I agree a uoa would probably be a good idea in the near future. I also agree about all the speculation and guesses on what might be best. I was going on the assumption that someone else on here has the same engine and looking to see what they have been using with good results.
We ran 5w20 or 5w30 in a fleet of 4.6’s and they don’t care … a 40 is going to cost a wee bit of MPG … but no issues otherwise … Rotella might have more cat poison you don’t need in a 4.6 …I'm inclined to agree. My owners manual specs 5w30. Much later Ford changed the spec to 5w20. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't run 5w20 in anything including my wife's 3.0 v6 escape.
Quaker state full synthetic 5w40, mobil 1 5w40 and rotella t6 5w40.What 5w40 do you have laying around? 4.6 2v aren't picky.
True.....but there's also a chance that they were thinking of CAFE....Ya know……There’s a chance that when Ford specified 5w20 they actually knew what they were doing.
True.....but there's also a chance that they were thinking of CAFE....
I both agree and disagree with your statements.This is the fallacy of comparing UOA results and making decisions and/or declarations on the basis of someone else's data. UOA was never intended to determine a 'best' oil or a particular brand the 'works well' in a given engine design. That's what industry standards (API viscosity grades, ACEA ratings, etc) and company standards (GM dexos, Porsche A40, BMW LLwhatever) and ultimately the OEM specifications based on those standards are for. So a UOA is a unique analysis of a unique set of working conditions and nothing more.
Some members here play it like it's a game of having the inside knowledge on what brand works and what brand doesn't and that's just hogwash.
You or I have no insight into the operating conditions, maintenance history, abuse, neglect, or otherwise of an engine that a forum member posts about. Therefore we cannot make a rational decision about our own car based on the UOA results of someone else. There's just too many variables to control for.
Heinz ain't what it used to be. Pretty horrid now actually. Even then. the only the Restaurant Pack was great.I'd go with what makes you feel good and are comfortable with. I "have" to use a "Brand Name" oil. I can't
help it. I ain't using Supertech or Costco, etc. Please understand, those oils are fine oils but I only buy
Heinz Ketchup and Advil.
....
Everyone should read dnewton3's above post umpteen times. He speaks the truth.
But you don't follow it?I'd go with what makes you feel good and are comfortable with. I "have" to use a "Brand Name" oil. I can't
help it. I ain't using Supertech or Costco, etc. Please understand, those oils are fine oils but I only buy
Heinz Ketchup and Advil.
Everyone should read dnewton3's above post umpteen times. He speaks the truth.
No. My emotions overwhelm my objectivity when it comes to oil brand selection. LOLBut you don't follow it?
I am going to get some RED GOLD today. I generally buy ketchup and mustard by the gallon.Heinz ain't what it used to be. Pretty horrid now actually. Even then. the only the Restaurant Pack was great.
I prefer Red Gold. Didn't know about this stuff until a Greek Sub shop gave me some packets
for my fries with my meat pie slice. - Wowza !
I do buy Bayer coated 81mg aspirin BC I tried a few generic and they didn't cut it.
- Ken
In theory you can take a macro level approach, however, the BITOG (or crowdsourced) method confounds the data by definition. In order to complete a valid macro analysis you need to control (or at least account for) operating conditions. BITOG reporting does not do that. Guys forget to mention that their teenage kid ran a sump 3 quarts low, a used car with unknown maintenance history is analyzed but somehow that fact is forgotten in a post, the OCI values are transposed or inaccurate, etc, etc, etc....But we can take the macro data approach; we can compare/contrast our UOA to other folks and make some good conclusions. We can't fairly decide what is "best", but we can easily declare what is "normal" and "abnormal" for a wide variety of applications, thereby assuring ourselves that our lube selection is doing what the others do.
The dirty little secret is that most all lubes perform the same because they are more than capable of doing the job we ask, and therefore there's no condition in the test (our use) that creates enough disparity in the results to discern any distinguishable differences. Most folks run anywhere from 5-10k mile O/FCIs, and those distances simply don't put enough stress into the products to make any disparity of performance come out. If people ran 25k mile OCIs, maybe it would, but I don't have any data to make a solid claim one way or another at that duration of use.
Yes this. And in the specific case of dnewton3's numerous analysis, has it been subjected to a formal statistical analysis by a mathematician? People generally minimize that remark but in my years of working as a research technologist at a large corporation I learned the value of the PhD mathematicians on our staff. Proper analysis doesn't lie, in fact I've seen it turn a "sure thing" into something that in the end wasn't anywhere as significant as it appeared.In theory you can take a macro level approach, however, the BITOG (or crowdsourced) method confounds the data by definition. In order to complete a valid macro analysis you need to control (or at least account for) operating conditions. BITOG reporting does not do that. Guys forget to mention that their teenage kid ran a sump 3 quarts low, a used car with unknown maintenance history is analyzed but somehow that fact is forgotten in a post, the OCI values are transposed or inaccurate, etc, etc, etc....
In industry we refer to this as dirty data and it cannot be used for robust analysis.
So now, the micro approach, per your comments, is too onerous (costly, time constrained, etc) for valid results and the macro approach is invalid because of dirty data.
This gets us right back to my point that a UOA is only valid for analyzing an individual set of operating conditions. Other members can't use someone else's results to draw conclusions about their own circumstances. Unfortunately on BITOG it is a daily occurrence and it should be noted for the lack of validity.
We contract out statistical analysis to 3rd party statisticians when it involves product recalls or high profile quality concerns. This helps to ensure ethical integrity, high quality outcomes and it establishes a wall between our engineering team (and their inherent biases) and the analysis of the data. We've had many occasions where the data analysis looked like a sure thing just to find that our analytical approach was faulty or the quality of our underlying data could not be demonstrated. Its a tough pill to swallow when you have to discard or repeat testing because you weren't diligent at data gathering and documentation.Yes this. And in the specific case of dnewton3's numerous analysis, has it been subjected to a formal statistical analysis by a mathematician? People generally minimize that remark but in my years of working as a research technologist at a large corporation I learned the value of the PhD mathematicians on our staff. Proper analysis doesn't lie, in fact I've seen it turn a "sure thing" into something that in the end wasn't anywhere as significant as it appeared.
^^That^^^^^This^^^
But if the oils have the appropriate rating, then why does it matter?No. My emotions overwhelm my objectivity when it comes to oil brand selection. LOL
It's still true. 100%😘