Exactly what makes this and all similar “tests” useless.Do a compelete teardown and measurements after a pretty good break-in (10,000 miles) and use that as the starting baseline.
It would almost be impossible for you to make a more incorrect post.My feeling is the best that we can do is to use multiple methods of analysis as best we can and go from there, never knowing exactly where are stand with any certainty. All I can say is that I am comfortable with all the various methods of testing at my disposal allowing me to use thinner oils for my applications, with confidence.
Exactly what “progress” are you leading to? I guess I’m a bit unsure of what the ultimate goal is here. Other than marginally increased fuel economy what do you hope to ascertain?PS: Experimentation leads to progress. Somebody has to do it. Otherwise we might all still be chucking spears... There are those who lead and those that follow. Which one are you?
How to ruin an engine (or cause accelerated wear) by using an oil that does not meet design or operating conditions while obtaining zero objective and third party verified data using anecdotal and uncontrolled/unvalidated testing processes and procedures.Exactly what “progress” are you leading to? I guess I’m a bit unsure of what the ultimate goal is here. Other than marginally increased fuel economy what do you hope to ascertain?
Oh i see now. 0w0 is kinda funny.Yeah but 0w0 sounds funnier. Don’t take the vinegar out of it.
Not much different than automaker 'Hail Mary' R&D!How to ruin an engine by using an oil that does not meet design or operating conditions while obtaining zero objective and third party verified data using anecdotal and uncontrolled/unvalidated testing processes and procedures.
Which automaker uses that process/procedure in their R&D? For all of the complaining that we do about automakers and vehicles in general, they all have decent processes and do use ASTM and SAE as baselines and develop additional procedures along the way and have them verified/validated by third parties. For the Ecoboost in particular, Ford did a tremendous amount of testing/R&D before it went to market and shared a large amount of it with the public.Not much different than automaker 'Hail Mary' R&D!
Exactly. Anyone that wishes to generate statistically valid data will not screw around with expensive equipment and equally expensive labor to obtain something that the PhD mathematicians will laughably (and correctly) throw out their office window.Which automaker uses that process/procedure in their R&D? For all of the complaining that we do about automakers and vehicles in general, they all have decent processes and do use ASTM and SAE as baselines and develop additional procedures along the way and have them verified/validated by third parties. For the Ecoboost in particular, Ford did a tremendous amount of testing/R&D before it went to market and shared a large amount of it with the public.
Exactly. Anyone that wishes to generate statistically valid data will not screw around with expensive equipment and equally expensive labor to obtain something that the PhD mathematicians will laughably (and correctly) throw out their office window.
Is that sarcasm? Because it could seize a rod bearing, window the block and pan while becoming a powerless rolling hazard on the freeway while creating a dangerous oil slick that could cause a pile-up and significant loss of life.So… Imagine the worst thing that could happen. Really…. no big deal.
Is this a legitimate comparison for an engine that must be preheated to operating temperature before starting because the pistons are seized in the cylinders when cold?Formula 1 cars are required to use the same engine for 2 or 3 races and still be able to win without any rebuild or modification between uses.
"I now wonder how low the oil pressure was. Probably just barely enough to keep the locking pins in the vct phasers engaged."
The front end of the engine with timing chains et al was replaced early on due to some issue with the manufacture of the parts. The truck was bathing in the factory provided oil changes at the time and never in severe service. Thick oils have been advocated when manufacturing defects occurred but only delayed the eventual proper fix of corrected parts.
Remember that one of the things I am testing on this round is comparing the testing labs. Often people say oil testing is almost useless. That may be true for lesser quality testing. It is my belief that top end, quality testing does have useful information. Shall we see?
Ali
PS: Experimentation leads to progress. Somebody has to do it. Otherwise we might all still be chucking spears... There are those who lead and those that follow. Which one are you?
Did this question ever get answered?You only ran the oil ~1k miles?
And, yet, in one of your previous threads when you ran a very thin oil you told us how one of your Ferrari motors was torn apart by the dealer and they said it was in near perfect condition. You provided no actual measurements, just an anecdotal statement on your part."Do you plan to do an engine teardown before and after running this oil?"
So many people refer to engine tear downs in error. Sure, they are useful for major, catastrophic issues. But unless you measure all parts before going into the build you cannot conmment on wear. Even then, wear may be large during the break in period then settle down to nothing-ish. Unless you do a tear down every 250-500 miles or so it may be very misleading.
My feeling is the best that we can do is to use multiple methods of analysis as best we can and go from there, never knowing exactly where are stand with any certainty. All I can say is that I am comfortable with all the various methods of testing at my disposal allowing me to use thinner oils for my applications, with confidence.
Ali
See next post: I saw that 160F thing. As my Ferrari is at 170F with its oil I figured I would be OK. We shall see...
Wow… You have a vivid imagination. Ridiculous from my view. Or nothing will happen at all.Is that sarcasm? Because it could seize a rod bearing, window the block and pan while becoming a powerless rolling hazard on the freeway while creating a dangerous oil slick that could cause a pile-up and significant loss of life.
Actually those who think this is any semblance of a valid test are the ones with the vivid imagination.Wow… You have a vivid imagination.
What's concerning is that you think this requires a vivid imagination. You ever see a block get window'd Bill? Because I have. Sometimes the rod goes out the side, sometimes it goes out the pan, sometimes it goes out both. Spinning a rod bearing isn't some uber-rare event, and the results are often very messy.Wow… You have a vivid imagination.