lol!
Where to find PUP or Castrol Edge Extended??
- Thread starter Polarisdude94
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You didn't read it and understand it at all.
I truly question whether or not you understand what you're reading (via the chart you posted), or are just playing dumb.
I have no idea what you are talking about as you don't make any sense at all. You dismissed the chart as a UOA chart. It's not a UOA chart. It's a sequence IVA chart. In fact, it's from the same article you praised:
Jobbers World article on sequence IVA wear claims
Your whole point was that Pennzoil's sequence IVA claims are valid. They are invalid as explained in the article. Therefore, I have no idea what you are still arguing about.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You didn't read it and understand it at all.
I truly question whether or not you understand what you're reading (via the chart you posted), or are just playing dumb.
I have no idea what you are talking about as you don't make any sense at all. You dismissed the chart as a UOA chart. It's not a UOA chart. It's a sequence IVA chart. In fact, it's from the same article you praised:
Jobbers World article on sequence IVA wear claims
Your whole point was that Pennzoil's sequence IVA claims are valid. They are invalid as explained in the article. Therefore, I have no idea what you are still arguing about.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You dismissed the chart as a UOA chart.
Talk about someone not making any sense -- please show where I said that.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They are invalid as explained in the article.
That's patently false.
You dismissed the chart as a UOA chart.
Talk about someone not making any sense -- please show where I said that.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They are invalid as explained in the article.
That's patently false.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You dismissed the chart as a UOA chart.
Talk about someone not making any sense -- please show where I said that.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They are invalid as explained in the article.
That's patently false.
OK, my bad, it was Clevy who said that.
The article exactly says that such sequence IVA claims are invalid and/or trivial as anyone can make those claims because of the large statistical variations. I have explained this greatly already and the article also explains it very well. There is no point in trying to explain the same thing over and over again explained by both me and the article.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You dismissed the chart as a UOA chart.
Talk about someone not making any sense -- please show where I said that.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They are invalid as explained in the article.
That's patently false.
OK, my bad, it was Clevy who said that.
The article exactly says that such sequence IVA claims are invalid and/or trivial as anyone can make those claims because of the large statistical variations. I have explained this greatly already and the article also explains it very well. There is no point in trying to explain the same thing over and over again explained by both me and the article.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The article exactly says that such sequence IVA claims are invalid and/or trivial
First, you didn't even bother to post the article. I did. You put up an out of context chart.
Secondly, at no point in said article do either Dr. Gunsel or Mr. Chapman state that the claims are "invalid and/or trivial".
Those are your words. Those are your conclusions. Do not falsely attribute them to other individuals.
The article exactly says that such sequence IVA claims are invalid and/or trivial
First, you didn't even bother to post the article. I did. You put up an out of context chart.
Secondly, at no point in said article do either Dr. Gunsel or Mr. Chapman state that the claims are "invalid and/or trivial".
Those are your words. Those are your conclusions. Do not falsely attribute them to other individuals.
It's just semantics. They called it bad science and misleading among other things. Those are pretty harsh words, even harsher than mine. For me seeing the chart alone was enough to reach their conclusions. At the end of the day, both the article and I said that you can't make meaningful claims on better or worse wear protection based on sequence IVA because of large statistical uncertainty. Pennzoil knows this and is taking advantage of it, as for any halfway-decent oil, it's legally fine to say that no other oil can beat ours in sequence IVA (because of the statistical limitations of the test). That's why it's a marketing gimmick.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's just semantics. They called it bad science and misleading among other things.
It's not semantics. It's you falsely attributing statements to other individuals.
You pulled a chart from an article that was published in March 2009, and have tried to re-purpose that information.
Current language from Pennzoil is "unsurpassed wear protection - no other leading motor oil provides better protection from friction." This is not the same as marketing statements/challenges that were being thrown around six years ago, and what this article is discussing.
Do you think that Dr. Gunsel (VP Technology at Shell) would agree that you've correctly represented her position in regards to Pennzoil Ultra Platinum (a Shell product)?
It's just semantics. They called it bad science and misleading among other things.
It's not semantics. It's you falsely attributing statements to other individuals.
You pulled a chart from an article that was published in March 2009, and have tried to re-purpose that information.
Current language from Pennzoil is "unsurpassed wear protection - no other leading motor oil provides better protection from friction." This is not the same as marketing statements/challenges that were being thrown around six years ago, and what this article is discussing.
Do you think that Dr. Gunsel (VP Technology at Shell) would agree that you've correctly represented her position in regards to Pennzoil Ultra Platinum (a Shell product)?
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Current language from Pennzoil is "unsurpassed wear protection - no other leading motor oil provides better protection from friction." This is not the same as marketing statements/challenges that were being thrown around six years ago, and what this article is discussing.
Ah, the fine print says based on sequence IVA.
So, it's exactly the same claim and argument made in 2009.
Current language from Pennzoil is "unsurpassed wear protection - no other leading motor oil provides better protection from friction." This is not the same as marketing statements/challenges that were being thrown around six years ago, and what this article is discussing.
Ah, the fine print says based on sequence IVA.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, it's exactly the same claim and argument made in 2009.
Having an opinion is perfectly fine. Misrepresenting the statements of others made six years ago to disparage the Pennzoil product is not.
Continuing down this path though displays a serious lack of ethics, and no individual should place any merit whatsoever in anything you state in regards to this product.
So, it's exactly the same claim and argument made in 2009.
Having an opinion is perfectly fine. Misrepresenting the statements of others made six years ago to disparage the Pennzoil product is not.
Continuing down this path though displays a serious lack of ethics, and no individual should place any merit whatsoever in anything you state in regards to this product.
I personally am torn between using PUP 10w30 & PP 10w30. I don't know if the PUP is that much better than the PP.
In that case, agree to disagree without getting personal. I strongly stand by my comments as well as ethics.
In this modern day, there is really no point in using a synthetic 10W-30 instead of a synthetic 5W-30. You sacrifice a lot in viscosimetric properties without seeing any benefit in oil-film thickness or strength. Lower NOACK won't help much with your oil consumption as synthetic 5W-30 already has a low NOACK.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
As for Castrol, I used a lot of Castrol GTX 10W-40 and 10W-30 in the past, back when it was SJ, SL, etc. Back then, I mostly based my oil selection on whoever switched to the newest API category first and it was usually Castrol or Valvoline.
For me, I'm mostly peeved as Castrol over the synthetic business years ago, but that limited how often I'd use Syntec, not GTX. And yes, their specification sheets are a mess. However, back when I was actually using a lot of GTX, the only way I could even think of, in retrospect, to get a data sheet, would be to use postal mail and write the company.
As for magnesium detergents, you do know that's the wave of the future, right?
As for Castrol, I used a lot of Castrol GTX 10W-40 and 10W-30 in the past, back when it was SJ, SL, etc. Back then, I mostly based my oil selection on whoever switched to the newest API category first and it was usually Castrol or Valvoline.
For me, I'm mostly peeved as Castrol over the synthetic business years ago, but that limited how often I'd use Syntec, not GTX. And yes, their specification sheets are a mess. However, back when I was actually using a lot of GTX, the only way I could even think of, in retrospect, to get a data sheet, would be to use postal mail and write the company.
As for magnesium detergents, you do know that's the wave of the future, right?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In this modern day, there is really no point in using a synthetic 10W-30 instead of a synthetic 5W-30. You sacrifice a lot in viscosimetric properties without seeing any benefit in oil-film thickness or strength. Lower NOACK won't help much with your oil consumption as synthetic 5W-30 already has a low NOACK.
Again, don't be mislead about judging the base-oil quality by NOACK alone. You can judge the base-oil quality if you consider both the NOACK and low-temperature viscosity at the same time -- an oil thin at low temperatures (like 0W-xx) and has a low NOACK has a high-quality base oil. However, a 10W-30 or 20W-50 having low NOACK doesn't imply that much on its base-oil quality.
Also, if you have an old vehicle that specifies 10W-30 but not 5W-30, don't be afraid of a modern synthetic 5W-30. Modern synthetic 5W-30 has better viscosimetric properties than modern synthetic 10W-30 and it has very little concentration of viscosity-index improver (VII).
In this modern day, there is really no point in using a synthetic 10W-30 instead of a synthetic 5W-30. You sacrifice a lot in viscosimetric properties without seeing any benefit in oil-film thickness or strength. Lower NOACK won't help much with your oil consumption as synthetic 5W-30 already has a low NOACK.
Again, don't be mislead about judging the base-oil quality by NOACK alone. You can judge the base-oil quality if you consider both the NOACK and low-temperature viscosity at the same time -- an oil thin at low temperatures (like 0W-xx) and has a low NOACK has a high-quality base oil. However, a 10W-30 or 20W-50 having low NOACK doesn't imply that much on its base-oil quality.
Also, if you have an old vehicle that specifies 10W-30 but not 5W-30, don't be afraid of a modern synthetic 5W-30. Modern synthetic 5W-30 has better viscosimetric properties than modern synthetic 10W-30 and it has very little concentration of viscosity-index improver (VII).
Originally Posted By: Garak
As for magnesium detergents, you do know that's the wave of the future, right?
I think they were very popular in the past but then corrosion and wear concerns lead to oil companies ditching magnesium for calcium. I am not sure why they are coming back.
I had posted this thread quite a while ago:
TBN, TAN, Ca, Mg, base-oil quality, oil life
As for magnesium detergents, you do know that's the wave of the future, right?
I think they were very popular in the past but then corrosion and wear concerns lead to oil companies ditching magnesium for calcium. I am not sure why they are coming back.
I had posted this thread quite a while ago:
TBN, TAN, Ca, Mg, base-oil quality, oil life
Well, M1 has moved to them, and so has Castrol. HDEOs have pretty much across the board, at least those with E7, E9 approval. I suggested that it ends up helping with keeping SA low, while keeping starting TBN at required levels, and a couple of the heavy hitters here confirmed the likelihood of that.
I didn't want to offend the Castrol and Pennzoil fans here. Here on BITOG, we like to nitpick on oil. The thing is that the oils we nitpick satisfy the same certifications and therefore fall into the same general quality range. Most won't see much difference using one or the other. The oil best for your engine is whatever oil that makes you happy.
The thread was useful though because we did review the NOACK numbers, remembered that claims based on sequence IVA wear test are not meaningful because of large statistical measurement error (I almost fell for Pennzoil's latest sequence IVA claims), and remembered that Castrol Edge is more than likely a Group III oil (thanks to PQIA tests).
Coming back to the OP's question: Become an Amazon Prime member and get it from there. You also get their Netflix-like movie-streaming service. Also use the available online rebate ($2 per quart). Discover card members get a 5% cashback on Amazon through the end of the year. I am not advertising Amazon but it looks like it's one of the very few places you can find rare oils like PUP.
The thread was useful though because we did review the NOACK numbers, remembered that claims based on sequence IVA wear test are not meaningful because of large statistical measurement error (I almost fell for Pennzoil's latest sequence IVA claims), and remembered that Castrol Edge is more than likely a Group III oil (thanks to PQIA tests).
Coming back to the OP's question: Become an Amazon Prime member and get it from there. You also get their Netflix-like movie-streaming service. Also use the available online rebate ($2 per quart). Discover card members get a 5% cashback on Amazon through the end of the year. I am not advertising Amazon but it looks like it's one of the very few places you can find rare oils like PUP.
I would agree with that comment about statistics. In fact, if the error bar is bigger than the data point's magnitude, there really isn't a data point at all.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In this modern day, there is really no point in using a synthetic 10W-30 instead of a synthetic 5W-30. You sacrifice a lot in viscosimetric properties without seeing any benefit in oil-film thickness or strength. Lower NOACK won't help much with your oil consumption as synthetic 5W-30 already has a low NOACK.
PUP 5w30 NOACK is 11.5 vs PUP 10w30 NOACK is 5.7, I wouldn't consider 11.5 a low NOACK for a 5w30 at all.
In this modern day, there is really no point in using a synthetic 10W-30 instead of a synthetic 5W-30. You sacrifice a lot in viscosimetric properties without seeing any benefit in oil-film thickness or strength. Lower NOACK won't help much with your oil consumption as synthetic 5W-30 already has a low NOACK.
PUP 5w30 NOACK is 11.5 vs PUP 10w30 NOACK is 5.7, I wouldn't consider 11.5 a low NOACK for a 5w30 at all.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I would agree with that comment about statistics. In fact, if the error bar is bigger than the data point's magnitude, there really isn't a data point at all.
Yup, Shell said in the Jobbers World article six years ago that is linked above that the standard deviation, which is the standard error of the sequence IVA measurement, is 12.5 µm. Therefore, any sequence IVA result less than 12.5 µm is indistinguishable from zero (0 µm) or no wear at all due to statistical error. Therefore, any oil that scores 12.5 µm or less can safely claim that no other oil performs better than theirs in sequence IVA. They cannot claim the reverse though, which is that our oil performs better than all other oils, which would be wrong. For example, Castrol Edge is shown to have scored 10 µm in the article and they can also claim that no other oil performs better than theirs.
In fact, in the article, Shell went very far and said that results within three standard errors, which is 37.5 µm, are indistinguishable. I think this is overkill though, as this is not like looking for a new particle in a particle accelerator.
We don't know whether Pennzoil's current result is 12.5 µm or less or 37.5 µm, but their claim is a marketing gimmick that relies on either the one-standard-error or three-standard-error argument, and there are many other conventional and synthetic oils which score similar in sequence IVA, and they can all claim the same.
I would agree with that comment about statistics. In fact, if the error bar is bigger than the data point's magnitude, there really isn't a data point at all.
Yup, Shell said in the Jobbers World article six years ago that is linked above that the standard deviation, which is the standard error of the sequence IVA measurement, is 12.5 µm. Therefore, any sequence IVA result less than 12.5 µm is indistinguishable from zero (0 µm) or no wear at all due to statistical error. Therefore, any oil that scores 12.5 µm or less can safely claim that no other oil performs better than theirs in sequence IVA. They cannot claim the reverse though, which is that our oil performs better than all other oils, which would be wrong. For example, Castrol Edge is shown to have scored 10 µm in the article and they can also claim that no other oil performs better than theirs.
In fact, in the article, Shell went very far and said that results within three standard errors, which is 37.5 µm, are indistinguishable. I think this is overkill though, as this is not like looking for a new particle in a particle accelerator.
We don't know whether Pennzoil's current result is 12.5 µm or less or 37.5 µm, but their claim is a marketing gimmick that relies on either the one-standard-error or three-standard-error argument, and there are many other conventional and synthetic oils which score similar in sequence IVA, and they can all claim the same.
- Status
Similar threads
