Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Clevy
This entire post is hogwash with the exception of the Mobil comments.
What dismal castrol used oil analysis?
Lest we forget that pennzoil actually states on everything I've seen since the re-launch that pennzoil 5w-30 scores best in whatever sequence testing they use in relation to wear.
And the fact it's in writing,and not one single solitary competitor has called the, on it definitely tells me something.
Especially when you consider that royal purple got hauled in for their claims and had to make adjustments as well as the infamous castrol Mobil debacle where the word synthetic was re-defined.
So to try to imply that pennzoil is in some way inferior because of whatever tripe you've chosen to focus on today is complete and utter nonsense.
Read the fine print on the pennzoil bottles. It's clear that they claim to score the best for wear prevention.
And the competitions silence is deafening.
No marketing claim of any manufacturer should be trusted. Take them with a grain of salt to say the least.
Pennzoil's sequence IVA results beat all other oils' results? Really?? They have discovered the magic antiwear ingredient that no other company is allowed to use? By the way, ExxonMobil and Shell coown Infineum additive company. Even more importantly, they went through the trouble of having all oils in the market to be tested? Do you have any idea how much those controlled engine runs and teardowns would cost?
Let me explain you their sequence IVA fine print. They claim that no other oil performs better.
They don't claim that their oil performs better than all other oils. There is a huge difference between the two statements. If they made the second claim, they would be in huge legal trouble because it would be false.
So, how can they get away with the first claim, which is by the way, nothing but a marketing gimmick? It's simple. Sequence IVA has a wide statistical range and basically more or less all halfway-decent oils fall within that range. Therefore, all oils, not just Pennzoil, automatically satisfy the sequence IVA statement by Pennzoil, which is again nothing but a marketing gimmick that doesn't mean anything at all.
Bahahahaha.
You can't be serious.
You know you can't measure wear via a uoa right.
Not only that but what's with that absolutely Mickey Mouse graph. My 8 year old would have done neater work.
And exactly what engines were these samples taken from. When were these engines torn down,so wear could be actually measured and not assumed.
And I assume these test engines were all clean inside,were run with identical duty cycles in identical environments.
If not the data is less than useless.
But it's a neat little picture.
And for what it's worth I'm not saying that there is less wear using pennzoil. All I was pointing out is what is written on the advertising.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Here's the actual context of the chart he posted:
"First it was Valvoline. In July of 2008, it claimed the company's SynPower motor oil provides 4X better wear protection than Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Then Castrol literally jumped into the game with an advertising campaign rolled out during the SuperBowl saying that Castrol EDGE offers 8X Better Wear Protection Than Mobil 1 in the same test.
With Valvoline and Castrol making such bold claims, one of the big questions asked is, "How much better its Pennzoil Platinum when compared to Valvoline, Castrol and Mobil 1? To get answers, JobbersWorld decided to put this question directly to Shell. Here is what we found.
According to Selda Gunsel, Manager, Lubricants Technology Group, Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., "Although Pennzoil Platinum performs exceedingly well in the Sequence IVA wear test, the battle of the "Xs" comparing oil against oil rather than oil against spec is one we are staying out of." And Gunsel says, the reason they are is because it's "bad science" and could be misleading.
To understand what Gunsel means starts with an understanding of the Sequence IVA wear test.
The Sequence IVA is an engine test designed to evaluate the performance of engine oils in preventing camshaft lobe wear in an overhead camshaft engine. It's a 100-hour test of 100 hourly cycles. When completed, each of the 12 cam lobes in the test engine is measured for wear at 7 points. An average is calculated based on the total wear from the 12 cam lobes. In short, test results with a higher number means higher wear.
For an engine oil to qualify for API SM/ ILSAC GF-4 rating it must pass the Sequence IVA with an average wear of 90 micron maximum.
Now for the part about "bad science."
According to Gunsel, "considering that one standard deviation from the mean in the test is 12.5, there is no statistically significant difference for test results within 35 microns of each other."
Based on data published by Valvoline, whereas Valvoline SynPower showed an average of 20 microns in the Sequence IVA wear test, Mobil 1 5W-30 averaged 180 microns. If Valvoline's data is correct, Gunsel says, "This is certainly a statistically significant difference." Moreover, it speaks to the basic pass/fail threshold of 90 microns or less required to meet SM/GF-4.
But moving beyond the issue of does it or doesn't it when it comes to Valvoline's claim about Mobil 1's score in the Sequence IVA, Troy Chapman, Marketing Management Team Leader Pennzoil Brands with Shell says the comparisons move to another level when you look at the Sequence IVA tests results for Shell, Valvoline and Castrol in the Sequence IVA. Troy notes, "you are no longer comparing a result of 180 microns with 20 microns. Instead, the comparison is being made between three brands each with less than 20 microns of wear in the test." This moves the comparison into and area where differences are "statistically indistinguishable." (See Graphic that follows)
Chapman adds, "This is why it would be bad science for Shell to add its bar to a chart, or say X times better when comparing Pennzoil Platinum with Mobil 1, SynPower and Castrol EDGE." Not because their average in the Sequence IVA (which Gunsel says is less than 20 microns) would not comparable very favorably with what Valvoline claims is Mobil 1's average. "Instead," Troy says, "it's because consumers may get the message that the comparison is also between Pennzoil Platinum, SynPower, and Castrol EDGE. And that would be a mistake." First, it would be misleading since there is no statistical difference for test results below 35 in Sequence IVA. Secondly, by spending time with statistically insignificant and misleading comparison, consumers may lose focus on such issues as cleanliness and others where there are true performance differences in engine oils."
http://www.jobbersworld.com/March%2020,%202009.htm
Interesting article.
Thanks for that ramblejam
You didn't read it and understand it at all. That chart is not a UOA. It's a sequence IVA engine-teardown chart. It's the same statistical argument in the article you quoted by the other poster that says that sequence IVA claims such as by Pennzoil are nothing but marketing gimmicks.
