PF RGT vs Mobil 1

[dubber09]

Is there a video of Kirkland/ST vs RGT?

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

I'm a long-time user of Mobil 1 and I think it's time for a change. Is this available at Walmart? Is it cheaper or more expensive?

Excellent. What do you use for a toothbrush? I'm going to run a toothbrush toilet cleaning test later and then you'll be able to know how your brand stacks up, you'll definitely need my data to make an informed decision. I'll even have used samples available so you know 100% that your mouth is getting only the best!

I honestly don't know. My wife makes toothbrush decisions lol. Do you think Project Farm is hogwash? The video left me thinking other brands are catching up to Mobil 1. Which is bound to happen with any product sooner or later, right?

Yes, it's for entertainment purposes only, even he states so. There's no value relative to the product's performance in your vehicle that can be derived from these carnival sideshows.

It's common to use a "entertainment purposes" disclaimer to avoid being sued or held liable. Which is smart. Putting the disclaimer aside, we have to decide who's data, who's information we trust. Is it the manufacturer, who profits from what they say? Or is it an independent source who gains nothing financially? I think its important to hear from both sides when forming an opinion. Anyways, he did produce an independent VOA which backs up the results of his volatility test. The other tests can be argued whether or not they are legitimate. But they are the same for each oil. I was surprised by the cold flow test.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

It's common to use a "entertainment purposes" disclaimer to avoid being sued or held liable. Which is smart.

I've never seen it on anybody else's one-armed-banding tests...

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

Putting the disclaimer aside, we have to decide who's data, who's information we trust.

But this isn't data or information, it's misuse of a product, presenting the results and then folks like yourself trying to derive valuable insight from it.

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

Is it the manufacturer, who profits from what they say?

The manufacturer has to adhere to the standardized testing protocols established by the SAE, API, ACEA and the manufacturers whose approvals they carry, they don't get to just dump garbage in a bottle and put it on a shelf.

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

Or is it an independent source who gains nothing financially?

He gains tremendously financially from these "tests"; he's one of the highest revenue channels on Youtube. Your ilk are making him incredibly wealthy by watching his material.

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

I think its important to hear from both sides when forming an opinion.

There are't two sides here, there's some dude on Youtube creating entertainment. Neither Shell or Mobil partook in any sort of contrary "testing" to establish what could be viewed as the "other side".

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

Anyways, he did produce an independent VOA which backs up the results of his volatility test. The other tests can be argued whether or not they are legitimate. But they are the same for each oil. I was surprised by the cold flow test.

Cold flow is measured via CCS and MRV, there are established tests for a reason. This is yet more buying into crackpot entertainment being perceived as having valid technical value.

 

[tig1]

Overk!ll, maybe Leaky will take your advise and learn.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Giving these videos any sort of platform as a legitimate metric by which to judge oil performance drags down the intellectual and technical value of this board.

Give the members a little more credit. If the board is as savvy as you suggest it is, then the members should be able to see the PF videos for what they're are.. entertainment. Besides, half the posts on this board are anecdotal and do no more harm to it's integrity than a PF video does.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Giving these videos any sort of platform as a legitimate metric by which to judge oil performance drags down the intellectual and technical value of this board.

Give the members a little more credit. If the board is as savvy as you suggest it is, then the members should be able to see the PF videos for what they're are.. entertainment. Besides, half the posts on this board are anecdotal and do no more harm to it's integrity than a PF video does.

But that's not really the case as is seen here most of the time. I see lots of members either falling outright for the whole video or at least trying to salvage some legitimacy from parts of them. I'd say the members pointing out how they are not legitimate are in the minority.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by GON

One thing- he did not compare RGT to M1 GT. He compared to regular M1.

Ew, I just calculated the estimated base-oil viscosity and VII content of Mobil 1 Truck & SUV 5W-30, and it's nothing but VII. Mobil 1 usually has a thinner base oil and more VII than other oils, but Mobil 1 Truck & SUV really sits rock bottom, only thicker than a few 0W-20s and a 0W-16. Note that the calculation is an estimate only, and it can be affected by the VII type, but if you look at the specs, high VI, high KV100, and low HTHS are all pointing toward Mobil 1 Truck & SUV 5W-30 having a very thin base oil and a lot of VII. I personally wouldn't put it in any engine. Estimated base-oil viscosity (BO DV150) and VII content of select oils

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted by tig1

Overk!ll, maybe Leaky will take your advise and learn.

Thats what I'm trying to do. If I planned on using the same oil and filter for life, there would be no point in replying..

 

[Luftmasse]

Originally Posted by buster

Using RGT the last 4K miles. No complaints at all. Engine is very quiet on cold starts. (4.0 is known to be a bit loud). RGT is GTL. As far as this testing video, I don't put much in it at all.

Its not 100% GTL though right? How can a Group III be better than GTL?

 

[D1dad]

I don't know Jack squat about oil outside of how to change it and to buy a quality brand but would have mobil1 truck and suv have been a better test here?

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by painfx

Originally Posted by buster

Using RGT the last 4K miles. No complaints at all. Engine is very quiet on cold starts. (4.0 is known to be a bit loud). RGT is GTL. As far as this testing video, I don't put much in it at all.

Its not 100% GTL though right? How can a Group III be better than GTL?

I'm not entirely sure. I talked to a guy today at Shell that was very upfront. RGT, QSUD and PP are all GTL according to him. The rest is marketing. As to exact percentages, I don't know.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by buster

I'm not entirely sure. I talked to a guy today at Shell that was very upfront. RGT, QSUD and PP are all GTL according to him. The rest is marketing. As to exact percentages, I don't know.

That's been my thinking for a long time. Most, if not all, synthetic Shell oils are GTL-based. The PurePlus label is marketing as you said.

 

[sgtrockjoe]

Well said.

 

[JLTD]

PF's testing is valid - insofar as making a comparison of oils in the tests performed. His methods are standardized, consistent, fair, and repeatable; therefore decent science. Where PF's tests may be good science, there is no evidence or proof of any kind that shows the tests' results transfer to engines. Sure, the cold pour test may have some relevance to cold start viscosity. Sure, the evaporative test may have some relevance to Noack. Sure, the lubricity test may have some relevance to engine wear. But without millions of dollars' worth of testing we will never know if there is a direct correlation between PF testing and real world applications. What we do know is there is entertainment value there, and that the PF testing could have some bearing (engine reference intended) on real world performance. Further, simply dismissing the testing as completely worthless is as much an error as saying the testing definitely correlates to real world. And as far as putting money in his pocket? I say well done by Mr PF. He's found a niche market for his projects and gotten people interested in watching what he puts out. Applause for a successful entrepreneur. (I also happen to think he is a member here, or has at least done a bunch of reading. We probably won't find out for sure.)

 

[GMguy84]

Originally Posted by ZebRuaj

.... I've got 90 qts lol

NA NA, Have over 100 qts of RGT started back in September, all way up until last week(AZ backroom stash left overs) Dave

 

[GMguy84]

Using 5W20 in my daily driver police vic and 5W30 in my 01 6.0 HD silverado Both run awesome !!! Happy that I have a 5ish year stash of this of the oil Dave

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by painfx

How can a Group III be better than GTL?

GTL is a Group III base stock.

 

[kschachn]

Your post below is quite likely the most devoid of technical knowledge that I've ever seen on this subject. First off, the test itself is not applicable to an ICE. No reputable blender or manufacturer states that it is, and ExxonMobil explicitly explains on their website that it is not an appropriate test for motor oils. Second, even if you suspend reality and say that it does apply to an ICE the test PF does is not performed properly. The equipment is not a standard wear scar test machine. Therefore no repeatability and reproducibility data is available for this equipment. PF has zero knowledge as to what constitutes a statistically significant number of trials on any one test. Third - and most damaging - the results are not analyzed properly, in fact they are not analyzed at all. The proper ASTM test for gear oils prescribes proper statistical analysis for results from a wear scar test, and PF (as well as that other well known website) perform no analysis of the data whatsoever. This in and of itself completely invalidates any consideration of this test. When the results of that other website's tests are properly analyzed it shows that there is no statistical difference between any of the test results. This means the test cannot discriminate between any of the oils. Each oil tests statistically the same as every other oil. No researcher in their right mind would promulgate a test that is indiscriminate in the results like this one is. As a result, yes Virginia the test is completely worthless and there is zero value. His tests are not standardized (they are exactly the opposite), they are not consistent, they are not repeatable, and they are dismal science. Precisely the opposite of everything you have claimed in your post.

Originally Posted by JLTD

PF's testing is valid - insofar as making a comparison of oils in the tests performed. His methods are standardized, consistent, fair, and repeatable; therefore decent science. Where PF's tests may be good science, there is no evidence or proof of any kind that shows the tests' results transfer to engines. Sure, the cold pour test may have some relevance to cold start viscosity. Sure, the evaporative test may have some relevance to Noack. Sure, the lubricity test may have some relevance to engine wear. But without millions of dollars' worth of testing we will never know if there is a direct correlation between PF testing and real world applications. What we do know is there is entertainment value there, and that the PF testing could have some bearing (engine reference intended) on real world performance. Further, simply dismissing the testing as completely worthless is as much an error as saying the testing definitely correlates to real world. And as far as putting money in his pocket? I say well done by Mr PF. He's found a niche market for his projects and gotten people interested in watching what he puts out. Applause for a successful entrepreneur. (I also happen to think he is a member here, or has at least done a bunch of reading. We probably won't find out for sure.)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Giving these videos any sort of platform as a legitimate metric by which to judge oil performance drags down the intellectual and technical value of this board.

Give the members a little more credit. If the board is as savvy as you suggest it is, then the members should be able to see the PF videos for what they're are.. entertainment. Besides, half the posts on this board are anecdotal and do no more harm to it's integrity than a PF video does.

Given my tenure here, I've seen quite a few fall head-over-heels for meaningless bench tests and there are examples of folks in this very thread, which I've already pointed out. The technical knowledge and expertise shared by folks like Molakule shouldn't need being risked to be overshadowed by some dude with a one-armed bandit and a video camera, yet here we are.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by kschachn

Your post below is quite likely the most devoid of technical knowledge that I've ever seen on this subject. First off, the test itself is not applicable to an ICE. No reputable blender or manufacturer states that it is and ExxonMobil explicitly explains on their website that it is not an appropriate test for motor oils. Second, even if you suspend reality and say that it does apply to an ICE the test PF does is not performed properly. The equipment is not a standard wear scar test machine. Therefore no repeatability and reproducibility data is available for this equipment. PF has zero knowledge as to what constitutes a statistically significant number of trials on any one test. Third - and most damaging - the results are not analyzed properly, in fact they are not analyzed at all. The proper ASTM test for gear oils prescribes proper statistical analysis for results from a wear scar test, and PF (as well as that other well known website) perform no analysis of the data whatsoever. This in and of itself completely invalidates any consideration of this test. When the results of that other website's tests are properly analyzed it shows that there is no statistical difference between any of the test results. This means the test cannot discriminate between any of the oils. Each oil tests statistically the same as every other oil. No researcher in their right mind would promulgate a test that is indiscriminate in the results like this one is. As a result, yes Virginia the test is completely worthless and there is zero value. His tests are not standardized (they are exactly the opposite), they are not consistent, they are not repeatable, and they are dismal science. Precisely the opposite of everything you have claimed in your post.

Originally Posted by JLTD

PF's testing is valid - insofar as making a comparison of oils in the tests performed. His methods are standardized, consistent, fair, and repeatable; therefore decent science. Where PF's tests may be good science, there is no evidence or proof of any kind that shows the tests' results transfer to engines. Sure, the cold pour test may have some relevance to cold start viscosity. Sure, the evaporative test may have some relevance to Noack. Sure, the lubricity test may have some relevance to engine wear. But without millions of dollars' worth of testing we will never know if there is a direct correlation between PF testing and real world applications. What we do know is there is entertainment value there, and that the PF testing could have some bearing (engine reference intended) on real world performance. Further, simply dismissing the testing as completely worthless is as much an error as saying the testing definitely correlates to real world. And as far as putting money in his pocket? I say well done by Mr PF. He's found a niche market for his projects and gotten people interested in watching what he puts out. Applause for a successful entrepreneur. (I also happen to think he is a member here, or has at least done a bunch of reading. We probably won't find out for sure.)

Couldn't have said it better