TBN Depletion Graph for MC Syn Blend and PU
- Thread starter kam327
- Start date
- Status
kam, I appreciate your information. For those who "poke holes", remember it was not claimed to be all inclusive in scope. It was an effort based on what was available to him at that point.
Again kam, thanks. I bet its a pretty good approximation on relative TBN depletion between two oil, especially considering the top off on the PU.
Again kam, thanks. I bet its a pretty good approximation on relative TBN depletion between two oil, especially considering the top off on the PU.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
kam, I appreciate your information. For those who "poke holes", remember it was not claimed to be all inclusive in scope. It was an effort based on what was available to him at that point.
Again kam, thanks. I bet its a pretty good approximation on relative TBN depletion between two oil, especially considering the top off on the PU.
+1. Thanks kam. As you know, obviously there are limitations to what can be interpreted from what's shown but it is still of value. In the real world, both measurements and estimates have errors associated with them, yet we still (rightly) use them to make decisions. The fact that TBN depletion is not linear causes errors in the estimated TBN=1 mileages. But it doesn't make the estimates erroneous enough to be useless. This source of error is one of many, but that's ok. It still gave you estimates that are better than no estimate at all. I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
An additional factor in the cost per mile calculation should be oil filter cost. For me personally, I am willing to pay more per mile if it extends my OCI enough, due to disliking the process of changing oil.
kam, I appreciate your information. For those who "poke holes", remember it was not claimed to be all inclusive in scope. It was an effort based on what was available to him at that point.
Again kam, thanks. I bet its a pretty good approximation on relative TBN depletion between two oil, especially considering the top off on the PU.
+1. Thanks kam. As you know, obviously there are limitations to what can be interpreted from what's shown but it is still of value. In the real world, both measurements and estimates have errors associated with them, yet we still (rightly) use them to make decisions. The fact that TBN depletion is not linear causes errors in the estimated TBN=1 mileages. But it doesn't make the estimates erroneous enough to be useless. This source of error is one of many, but that's ok. It still gave you estimates that are better than no estimate at all. I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
An additional factor in the cost per mile calculation should be oil filter cost. For me personally, I am willing to pay more per mile if it extends my OCI enough, due to disliking the process of changing oil.
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
.
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
Here is a revised graph better depicting the non-linear nature of TBN depletion.
The result is basically the same though. PU should last a few thousand miles more than the MC. Worth it for those who hate changing their oil or getting it changed. But on a cost to own basis not worth the 50% price premium.
To clarify, the curve is through 2 points, the known VOAs and UOAs. And the shape of the curve matches several TBN curves on the internet, some cartoons, but some based on real data collection.
The result is basically the same though. PU should last a few thousand miles more than the MC. Worth it for those who hate changing their oil or getting it changed. But on a cost to own basis not worth the 50% price premium.
To clarify, the curve is through 2 points, the known VOAs and UOAs. And the shape of the curve matches several TBN curves on the internet, some cartoons, but some based on real data collection.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
.
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
kam, I appreciate your information. For those who "poke holes", remember it was not claimed to be all inclusive in scope. It was an effort based on what was available to him at that point.
Again kam, thanks. I bet its a pretty good approximation on relative TBN depletion between two oil, especially considering the top off on the PU.
+1. Thanks kam. As you know, obviously there are limitations to what can be interpreted from what's shown but it is still of value. In the real world, both measurements and estimates have errors associated with them, yet we still (rightly) use them to make decisions. The fact that TBN depletion is not linear causes errors in the estimated TBN=1 mileages. But it doesn't make the estimates erroneous enough to be useless. This source of error is one of many, but that's ok. It still gave you estimates that are better than no estimate at all. I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
An additional factor in the cost per mile calculation should be oil filter cost. For me personally, I am willing to pay more per mile if it extends my OCI enough, due to disliking the process of changing oil.
Thanks jag and gfh for seeing something maybe half way worthwhile in the cartoon.
Another factor is that this cost analysis is based in DIY oil changes. Given that shops often charge more than double for a synthetic oil change, the advantage is even more to the Motorcraft Synthetic Blend.
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
kam, I appreciate your information. For those who "poke holes", remember it was not claimed to be all inclusive in scope. It was an effort based on what was available to him at that point.
Again kam, thanks. I bet its a pretty good approximation on relative TBN depletion between two oil, especially considering the top off on the PU.
+1. Thanks kam. As you know, obviously there are limitations to what can be interpreted from what's shown but it is still of value. In the real world, both measurements and estimates have errors associated with them, yet we still (rightly) use them to make decisions. The fact that TBN depletion is not linear causes errors in the estimated TBN=1 mileages. But it doesn't make the estimates erroneous enough to be useless. This source of error is one of many, but that's ok. It still gave you estimates that are better than no estimate at all. I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
An additional factor in the cost per mile calculation should be oil filter cost. For me personally, I am willing to pay more per mile if it extends my OCI enough, due to disliking the process of changing oil.
Thanks jag and gfh for seeing something maybe half way worthwhile in the cartoon.
Another factor is that this cost analysis is based in DIY oil changes. Given that shops often charge more than double for a synthetic oil change, the advantage is even more to the Motorcraft Synthetic Blend.
This is why I hate graphs but love arguments. Check out theoretical TBN of Ford @ its 2.5 value, and pennzoil has double that at the same mileage. Double acid protection! This is based on the trend of actual hard data when members post UOA and their TBN's are not yet 1.0, but still in the 2-3 range.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kam327
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Do you want to bet on the odds of some noob, in not too distant future, pointing to this graph as "proof" of whatever?
Things can become "gospel" pretty quickly around here
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Do you want to bet on the odds of some noob, in not too distant future, pointing to this graph as "proof" of whatever?
Things can become "gospel" pretty quickly around here
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: kam327
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Do you want to bet on the odds of some noob, in not too distant future, pointing to this graph as "proof" of whatever?
Things can become "gospel" pretty quickly around here
Ha ha, well that's the noob's problem not mine!
Originally Posted By: kam327
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Do you want to bet on the odds of some noob, in not too distant future, pointing to this graph as "proof" of whatever?
Things can become "gospel" pretty quickly around here
Ha ha, well that's the noob's problem not mine!
Just to add another data point and show how difficult this whole concept is, in December I posted a UOA on a 2012 Focus using SN 5w/20 Ultra. After 4,350 mostly highway miles the TBN was 3.7, or way below these trend lines.
Wear metals were very low, so the oil performed well, but it does suggest the TBN curve may be much less linear than predicted here. On the other hand, different cars, different driving conditions and styles make this a tough issue to conclude with confidence.
The basic conclusion that synthetic blends may be a better TBN value than a full syn may certainly be valid. It does ignore situations where synthetics may have other value, like low Noack in a DI engine, cold start-up protection, etc. Good discussion in any event.
Wear metals were very low, so the oil performed well, but it does suggest the TBN curve may be much less linear than predicted here. On the other hand, different cars, different driving conditions and styles make this a tough issue to conclude with confidence.
The basic conclusion that synthetic blends may be a better TBN value than a full syn may certainly be valid. It does ignore situations where synthetics may have other value, like low Noack in a DI engine, cold start-up protection, etc. Good discussion in any event.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
.
That is true for 1 data point per curve but fortunately each of the curves he made are based on 2 samples, as the OP stated.
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
That is true for 1 data point per curve but fortunately each of the curves he made are based on 2 samples, as the OP stated.
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
.
That is true for 1 data point per curve but fortunately each of the curves he made are based on 2 samples, as the OP stated.
Unless you're including the starting TBN as a data point, which it isn't since the starting TBN will be the same, each line has only one data point to it. One for MC and one for PU.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
That is true for 1 data point per curve but fortunately each of the curves he made are based on 2 samples, as the OP stated.
Unless you're including the starting TBN as a data point, which it isn't since the starting TBN will be the same, each line has only one data point to it. One for MC and one for PU.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
.
That is true for 1 data point per curve but fortunately each of the curves he made are based on 2 samples, as the OP stated.
Unless you're including the starting TBN as a data point, which it isn't since the starting TBN will be the same, each line has only one data point to it. One for MC and one for PU.
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
That is true for 1 data point per curve but fortunately each of the curves he made are based on 2 samples, as the OP stated.
Unless you're including the starting TBN as a data point, which it isn't since the starting TBN will be the same, each line has only one data point to it. One for MC and one for PU.
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
Originally Posted By: kam327
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
You misundersttod. What I meant is that the satrting TBN value will be the same for each and every batch of that oil, not that the starting TBN is the same for all oils.
So starting TBN value is not really a data point, it's just a starting point. To me a data point is something that is measured at specific intervals or time throughout the experiment and you only had one for each oil sample.
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
You misundersttod. What I meant is that the satrting TBN value will be the same for each and every batch of that oil, not that the starting TBN is the same for all oils.
So starting TBN value is not really a data point, it's just a starting point. To me a data point is something that is measured at specific intervals or time throughout the experiment and you only had one for each oil sample.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I don't get the price argument for MC. Every way I look at it, running PU is cheaper per mile than using MC.
PU would have to last 50% longer than MC every time in order to be the same cost per mile. Can you guarantee that?
I don't get the price argument for MC. Every way I look at it, running PU is cheaper per mile than using MC.
PU would have to last 50% longer than MC every time in order to be the same cost per mile. Can you guarantee that?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: kam327
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
You misundersttod. What I meant is that the satrting TBN value will be the same for each and every batch of that oil, not that the starting TBN is the same for all oils.
So starting TBN value is not really a data point, it's just a starting point. To me a data point is something that is measured at specific intervals or time throughout the experiment and you only had one for each oil sample.
The virgin TBN values are valid measurements, assuming the same TBN test standard was used as was used in the UOAs, and should be included in the data that the trend lines were fitted to. When fitting data with trend lines, there are always first (starting) and last data points that a person is trying to fit trend lines to. It doesn't matter if the starting point starts at mile 0 or any other mile. It's a valid data point regardless of what its associated x-axis value is. This may be just a difference of semantics.
Originally Posted By: kam327
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
You misundersttod. What I meant is that the satrting TBN value will be the same for each and every batch of that oil, not that the starting TBN is the same for all oils.
So starting TBN value is not really a data point, it's just a starting point. To me a data point is something that is measured at specific intervals or time throughout the experiment and you only had one for each oil sample.
The virgin TBN values are valid measurements, assuming the same TBN test standard was used as was used in the UOAs, and should be included in the data that the trend lines were fitted to. When fitting data with trend lines, there are always first (starting) and last data points that a person is trying to fit trend lines to. It doesn't matter if the starting point starts at mile 0 or any other mile. It's a valid data point regardless of what its associated x-axis value is. This may be just a difference of semantics.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: kam327
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
You misundersttod. What I meant is that the satrting TBN value will be the same for each and every batch of that oil, not that the starting TBN is the same for all oils.
So starting TBN value is not really a data point, it's just a starting point. To me a data point is something that is measured at specific intervals or time throughout the experiment and you only had one for each oil sample.
Ah. No, I think the known starting point is a valid data point.
Originally Posted By: kam327
Huh? Both curves start with the published virgin TBN (7.4 for Motorcraft and 9.4 for PU) and goes through the posted UOA. So the starting TBNs for each curve are quite different.
You misundersttod. What I meant is that the satrting TBN value will be the same for each and every batch of that oil, not that the starting TBN is the same for all oils.
So starting TBN value is not really a data point, it's just a starting point. To me a data point is something that is measured at specific intervals or time throughout the experiment and you only had one for each oil sample.
Ah. No, I think the known starting point is a valid data point.
Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
.
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Then why post it??
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: JAG
I think the people who only see faults in what you show are more likely to not have a good scientific background, which is ironic to me.
Kudos to the OP just for trying, but you don't have to have a scientific degree or background to know that a sample of 1 will not make a graph or even an estimate.
I would really like to know what scientific background accepts an estimate based on 1 sample and 1 data point. I could see a proposal or a business case for further sdudies, most likely on government dime, get approved, but then we know that people approving such things have no scientific background at all
Guys, guys, you're taking this way too seriously. I'm not trying to pass these graphs off as gospel.
Then why post it??
- Status