I don't think that I have ever been ridiculed so much by such a group of arrogant people. Ridiculed for my lack of post count, and said I'm either well restrained or don't visit much. On the contrary, I do read a bit on here, I could offer my .02 worth an then be called a troll cause I'm uneducated in these fields. Basically ridiculed for asking questions for the sake of learning. Ridiculed for wanting to save money, never stating that I want to sacrifice quality for the sake of saving money, yet that's apparently all I'm worried about, saving money. Reminds me a lot of the practical machinist forum, they are extremely arrogant over there as well.
This page is apparently pro Schaeffer's oil, I never said it was bad, I never said it was junk. I simply stated what I was told and give 6 responses, none of which touch on why it is so great and none of which have answered any of my questions.
Asked several questions, none of which were even touched on except the fact that there is a Schaeffer's rep on the board and it's a great oil. Nothing else.
I'm a one truck, 3rd generation operation, my bottom line is important, yet sacrificing my engine or equipment is not an option for the sake of saving money.
Thanks for nothing BITOG!!
I will offer the olive branch; I didn't mean to offend you. Allow me to address your grievances ...
It was not ridicule, but a tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor regarding your low post count. When your post count is nearly the same magnitude as your years of membership, that's a RARE thing. Like it or not, you'll need to thicken your skin if you intend to hang around here; we can be a tough lot to reside in. It is also indicative that many folks with such low counts don't come around much, and so they are often out of touch with the current lube info. However, as you claim, you are here often; you state
"I do read a bit on here". That being the case, then there's really no reason for me to believe you should not understand the other points I made, either. You cannot have it both ways; you're either not here often enough to be current in many topics, or you're lurking in the shadows (not posting) and well versed in the HDEO topics, and therefore are just adding fodder to a fire.
I was in no way ridiculing you about saving money; I'm a penny-pinch'er myself. I was merely pointing out that if you really want to know what's "best", it costs oodles of cash and time; something that NONE of us have. Therefore, suspecting you didn't want to run many, many UOAs to find out the answer to your question regarding the two lubes, I offered advice on how to save money and still get a good results (low wear rates). I assume that, like many of us here on BITOG, you're looking for good wear control AND would not turn down a good bargain. Some folks here like to spend top money on very expensive products; there's nothing wrong with that because it's their money to spend. But it is often wasteful if they don't use the products to a full magnitude of value. Paying 2x or 3x for a syn should return you 2x or 3x worth of something, right? If you don't measure the base conditions, and then measure the alternative outputs, you'll have ZERO idea if you choice is a good choice. But, there is a whopping truck-load of evidence that most every lube (especially those that are API licensed) will return a very good result (maybe not affirmed as the best, but darn good enough) for a great value. I'm not poking at your for saving money. I'm trying to help you save money by offering advice that is bolstered by facts and data.
Kendall is good oil. Schaeffers is good oil. So are a LOT of other brands. You asked some generic questions ... yet another variation of "hey - what's the best ..." This is covered a bazillion times on BITOG. There is no "best" lube for every condition. There are many, many good ones. If you've been actively reading on this site in the manner in which you claim, you'd already know that by now.
My point about the lube rep that gave you some advice is still salient, and I stick by it. Any guy that tells you that "good oil is also snake oil" regarding Schaeffers (or any other premium brand for that matter) is a salesman first and foremost, and a very uninformed one at that. Further, you can become a better consumer by asking him to explain those kinds of statements. Don't come here to BITOG and ask us to second-guess his moronic comments; go challenge the info at the source! You claim to "read a bit on here"; OK - fine. Then you should know better than to accept a statement like that from a lube rep. If he were a truck salesman, and he said "Peterbuilt trucks are a good truck, but they're junk" would that stand firm in your mind? Or, if he said "Remington makes a fine rifle, but they're all garbage" would that reconcile in your mind? So when he says "Schaeffers is great oil, but a snake oil", did that not have a sour tone to your ear? Why didn't you ask him to explain that stupid comment, not us?
I am not pro or anti for any product. I am, however, pro-value and very much pro-data-driven proof. If you thought I was pro Schaeffers and against some other brand, you greatly misunderstood my mindset.
Further, when it comes to judging lube performance at it's core, that being how a lube controls wear, have you read this?
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
This is a great place to start basic understanding of the most important part of lubes; that of outputs. Too many folks worry about what's in the bottle, but it's what comes out of the crankcase that is THE most important topic. And to this end, I can say we've come full circle here. Over 15,000 UOAs can prove that brand/grade matter not at all. There are many, many roads (different lube choices) to the same desired destination (low wear and good longevity). Don't get hung up on this. You have control over one variable, and little-to-none over another. You can choose a lube that has as much or little cost as you wish, but the wear rates associated with those lube choices will actually show very little differential. Conceptually, you can spend 2x or 3x more money on a lube, but unless you GREATLY extend the OCIs with the more expensive choices, you'll not see the ROI pay you back. You are in control of your costs and your OCI duration, but you have very little control over the wear rates (presuming you don't abuse or neglect your equipment; I assume you don't).
The great misunderstanding you (and many other BITOGers) are under is that changing lubes will greatly alter your equipment wear-rates. Data actually proves quite the opposite. Despite changing lubes and grades, wear rates are often quite steady and very predictable. Even changes in severity factors has little effect on wear rates, and I linked one very fine example in dusty's UOAs as proof.
The point is that your engine will not really care what lube you use; it's going to have a fairly consistent wear rate not matter what you put into the crankcase. So the only way to really have a positive effect on the overall experience is to choose a lube that allows you control the costs, and then manipulate the OCI to a duration that gets the greatest "bang for the buck". It is just that simple. However, to maximize ANY product usage, you will need to do UOAs. So if you are adverse to that, and intend to stick with OEM limits, then the "best" lube is the cheapest lube you can find on sale that meets your API criteria. In normal OEM OCIs, your engine will NEVER EVER know the difference between any two lubes, but your wallet surely will.
You claim you asked two questions and didn't get an asnwer. I disagree with you, sir.
- You asked first about Kendall vs Chevron. They are both good brands and will do a fine job. I made a point to tell you that none of us can tell you which is "best" because that entails hundreds of thousands of miles of testing that would be needed, all at your cost for the lubes, UOAs and time. Question answered
- You asked if Schaeffers is good oil, and made a specific note about the "snake oil" reference. You also queried about the rep's comments regarding moly will be stripped out by the filter. I told you that the person whom said that is a moron because he clearly does not understand additive solubility. Question answered.
Maybe it's not that I didn't answer your questions, but that you didn't like the answers?
I am sorry if I offended you, but I made fair, accurate, unbiased comments. I'm sorry you took offense to them.
