Hi guys, I don’t post much, but I can assure you I’ve done quite a bit of reading on many of the topics that are discussed here. With the exception of a few topics, bitog seems to have a general philosophy that most people follow regarding everything with varying levels of acceptance. I also find it curious how people that allegedly know quite a bit about chemistry and petroleum can say something on the board and everyone seems to take it as gospel. The entire Mobil 1 debate is a prime example. I’d like to see these lab reports and spectral analyses. I’d like to see some actual evidence instead of speculation. A patent for something means nothing. It’s like making a diner reservation, it doesn’t mean you will show up.
Regardless, anyone that is familiar with this site knows that many people look a little too hard at these used oil analysis. I’ll give you an example. Many people have obtained a car with no history or have their own car that has been run mostly on conventional with moderate intervals. The individual decides to try synthetic for the first time and subsequently does a used oil analysis. He discovers that his wear metals are alarmingly high. He freaks out and goes back to conventional. The next used oil analysis shows things are normal.
There is this thing called a lurking variable. I’ll give you an example from the Wikipedia that is a little easier to understand than the one I had in mind.
Ice cream consumption and murder rates are highly correlated. Now, does ice cream incite murder or does murder increase the demand for ice cream? Neither: they are joint effects of a common cause or lurking variable, namely, hot weather. Another look at the sample shows that it failed to account for the time of year, including the fact that both rates rise in the summertime.
Now, did the used oil analysis show higher wear numbers because of the alleged poor performance of the synthetic or did the synthetic simply clean out quite a bit of the deposits left from the previous oils. There are many examples of people on here that continue to utilized the synthetics after this and the wear levels off. Perhaps this is because things are now clean. Perhaps things went back to normal when the conventional was once used again because of the lesser amount of detergents.
Some people have had better used oil analysis on a new engine with conventional versus synthetic when it would be quite apparent that there are no deposits to clean. Perhaps this is because any wear metals that would normally be suspended in the oil are instead becoming trapped in a deposit somewhere. Or perhaps the wear metals from the conventional oil are so large that a majority are caught in the oil filter.
A used oil analysis can not determine things of this nature and many people on this board can barely read a lab book, let alone a lab report. A used oil analysis in situations like this can only give you the result, and not necessarily the cause.
It would be like a report to tell you that there is a dead body. However the report can’t tell you the cause. Someone can speculate, but it doesn't mean that it is true.
Doesn’t anyone feel the same way? Does this board have too many armchair scientists?
You decide. I’d like to hear any comments.
Regardless, anyone that is familiar with this site knows that many people look a little too hard at these used oil analysis. I’ll give you an example. Many people have obtained a car with no history or have their own car that has been run mostly on conventional with moderate intervals. The individual decides to try synthetic for the first time and subsequently does a used oil analysis. He discovers that his wear metals are alarmingly high. He freaks out and goes back to conventional. The next used oil analysis shows things are normal.
There is this thing called a lurking variable. I’ll give you an example from the Wikipedia that is a little easier to understand than the one I had in mind.
Ice cream consumption and murder rates are highly correlated. Now, does ice cream incite murder or does murder increase the demand for ice cream? Neither: they are joint effects of a common cause or lurking variable, namely, hot weather. Another look at the sample shows that it failed to account for the time of year, including the fact that both rates rise in the summertime.
Now, did the used oil analysis show higher wear numbers because of the alleged poor performance of the synthetic or did the synthetic simply clean out quite a bit of the deposits left from the previous oils. There are many examples of people on here that continue to utilized the synthetics after this and the wear levels off. Perhaps this is because things are now clean. Perhaps things went back to normal when the conventional was once used again because of the lesser amount of detergents.
Some people have had better used oil analysis on a new engine with conventional versus synthetic when it would be quite apparent that there are no deposits to clean. Perhaps this is because any wear metals that would normally be suspended in the oil are instead becoming trapped in a deposit somewhere. Or perhaps the wear metals from the conventional oil are so large that a majority are caught in the oil filter.
A used oil analysis can not determine things of this nature and many people on this board can barely read a lab book, let alone a lab report. A used oil analysis in situations like this can only give you the result, and not necessarily the cause.
It would be like a report to tell you that there is a dead body. However the report can’t tell you the cause. Someone can speculate, but it doesn't mean that it is true.
Doesn’t anyone feel the same way? Does this board have too many armchair scientists?
You decide. I’d like to hear any comments.
