Originally Posted By: Clevy
Fair enough however no one watches those commercials and thinks that in reality they have anything to do with the performance of the oil.
These one armed bandit and 4 ball tests are used to fool the consumer into thinking because a particular product performs well in this test that it means the product will perform well in an engine.
No one watches the cartoon sludge,or the frying pan oil and thinks to themselves that the oil will perform fantastically because of these commercials.
Oh really? Then how come so many people have duplicated the "frying pan test" as a demonstration that Mobil 1 indeed does perform better in engines than conventional oils?
I've seen that stupid test duplicated and used to lead people to all sorts of petroleum products 10:1 over the one-armed-bandit at trade shows and the like since Mobil first started hawking that comparison in the 80's.
Quote:
I think I've gotta agree with Nate here. These machines are used in a way that the consumer is told directly correlates to engine wear,and because of these devices showing how one oil leaves a smaller wear scar or more wear on a ball bearing that it means the oil will do the same thing in their engine.
Because let's get real here. Most people don't know that a one armed bandit or a 4 ball test really has no common reference in an engine. A modern engine might as well be the space shuttle to most people,so they take these gimmick tests as truth and buy accordingly.
Heck I've torn apart and put together the 350 target that was in my cutlass and various 5.0 engines in different mustangs and when I was drinking the a,soil koolaid even I believed that the 4 ball test had some similarity to a bearing,so for a person who doesn't even know where to find the dipstick they can easily believe there is some similarity.
So I agree. It's deceptive and meant to convince a consumer one product is superior to another when in fact they have nothing to do with each other.
It's a scam.
For example. At the fair. A representative puts their rig together and starts testing oils. The crowd doesn't know that test represents nothing in common with an engine.
So the reps oil leaves the smallest wear profile and voila people buy the oil.
Now would they have bought this oil if not for this ploy?
Likely not. However now they have learned whatever the rep told them,and they saw for themselves there was a marked difference. So they tell their friends what they've learned and seen.
Then they join a forum and talk up this product,and of course they're used it and it cured cancer in their steering column but they run into someone with a clue who tries to set them straight buy because they are now invested in their story they dig in their heels and end up worse off than if they'd never seen the demo in the first place.
Better example an employee at a busy little bike shop.He's invested in using a 0w-30 in a shared sump bike. So he then recommends a 0w-30 to everyone with a shared sump bike even though the manufacturer specifies something different.
Now in busy little bike shops bike the 0w-30 works because he is employed in a bike shop so he gets cheap parts and cheap labour however the person he's recommended the 0w-30 too doesn't know this and takes his advice. The bike is also a low torque engine and only makes power at very high rpm,so in a low rev high torque bike the clutch gets glazed over with moly ruining the clutch whereas in his bike it's a non issue because at high rpm the clutch doesn't slip.
Then busy little bike shop finds a webpage where someone used a 3 ball test to measure an oils film strength so Larry now uses this useless info as gospel to back up his claims.
So busy little bike shop is being deceptive because he hasn't told the whole story and because he has found some data to support his nonsense some people decide to try out a 0w-30 in their bikes and in 10000 miles the bike is consuming oil and the clutch slips.
In essence it's the same thing. Using useless data to back up an assertion so you can sell product,or in his case have people believe his ideas are sound and the manufacturer doesn't know what they are talking about.
The above example is only an example. Any resemblance to people's living or dead is purely coincidence.
I understand you have to agree with Nate, but that doesn't mean that your feelings are accurate.
All of the oil companies have come up with some very stupid tests and demonstrations to show how an oil performs that has little or nothing to do with reality.
Sure thing. Mobil spent hundreds of millions of dollars assaulting TV sets with the frying pan test in several different varieties for more than 10 years because nobody was believing the test had any relevancy.
Or do you just feel that a scam is OK so long as it's not as believable as other scams?
