Oh, no. It is much more complicated than that. You can't quantify emotions. I'm looking atBut if the oils have the appropriate rating, then why does it matter?
Whatever bottle is the prettiest and gives you that fuzzy feeling?
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.
kschachn said: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.
I agree.I agree, and have stated many times, that people here use UOAs as toys because they misunderstand the pros/cons of the process. UOAs are tools, and tools have proper and improper uses, benefits and limitations.
Agreed here also.In macro data, you are not required to "control" the operational conditions; you only need to account for it as an additional variable. It expands the standard deviation response, but that's not necessarily an evil thing, especially if those contributions exhibit the typical operational expectations.
Years in a job is rarely indicative of effectiveness in a position. You have presented BITOG (or crowd sourcing) as an effective means of macro analysis and that is simply not true.I did statistical process/quality control for 10 years for a living. I've written DOEs and understand most every processing methodology and pitfall. I know what I'm doing when it comes to micro and macro data analysis. I have an acquaintance who is a professor of mathematics; I bounce my ideas and theory off of him if I believe I'm at the feathery edge of my knowledge.
I'm honestly not sure what the prior owner used. The oil looked decent, not super dark and no signs of moisture. Motorcraft oil filter is all I know. I think I'll probably just use a jug of the 5w-40 I have in my stash along with the Fram xg2 and call it a day. Seems enough people have said it's not a finicky engine and I trust beefy euro oil or anything thinner.What did the prior owner use and at what OCI? I’d start there and then do the same and get a 5k UOA. A UOA is always a good idea for any older used car purchase.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, so I'm asking not to argue but to understand.You have presented BITOG (or crowd sourcing) as an effective means of macro analysis and that is simply not true.
As very different from this commentBut 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.
As a clarification, I'm not suggesting or implying that BITOG data (in it's raw form from the site) is a means to compare/contrast it as macro data. If it came across this way then I apologize to all because that's not what I meant.
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.
I like to think of myself as a ketchup connoisseur. Red Gold is far from the best. Don't get me started on House Recipe, Hunt's, or dare I even mention Del Monte. I was a die-hard Heinz guy for 25 years. No more.I am going to get some RED GOLD today. I generally buy ketchup and mustard by the gallon.
THANKS for the tip! Will advise after next hot dog/french fry night this week.
This is just about the easiest duty for this car, other then cruising a little slower. If you were talking about a lot of stop/start city traffic, long periods of idling, heavy towing, then you would probably want to look for some better protection. My $0.02The car will spend a lot of time at 75-80 mph for long stretches of highway so I'm just trying to figure out how to best protect it, but I do realize these engines are common and appear to be reliable.
I see your point, but isn't better protection better protection no matter what the driving conditions? I still 5w20 that Ford recommends is a compromise between mpg and engine longevity. A fine balancing act. I ended up going with Mobil 1 5w40 but may go 5w30 for the future. The engine runs so smooth and I've always believed that 5w30 is the best compromise between mpg and a long lasting engine. Kind of right in the middle of old school thick and modern too thin for my taste.This is just about the easiest duty for this car, other then cruising a little slower. If you were talking about a lot of stop/start city traffic, long periods of idling, heavy towing, then you would probably want to look for some better protection. My $0.02