Why does Valvoline say...

[geo]

BOBISTHEOILGUY said:
> The analysis section is one of my
> favorite areas as it takes all the
> engineers comments and theroy's,
> all the salesman's comments and BS,
> and all the company propaganda comments
> and BS, and shucks them out the window and
> really lets you see just exactly what it
> really is about. That in my opinion is
> conclusive evidence that is not biased
> by me or anyone else on this board unless
> they post incorrect #'s, which is why I
> like many different ones as you can see
> actual #'s over a viraitaty of things.

Bob. Your analysis section is far from being conclusive. Individual oil results pertain to that individual and to his/her engine only.

Assuming that the oil analysis data is real and that all the test labs are competent and consistant, many variables exist that most likely influence the results more than the oil itself.

These variables include engine/vehicle design (low-friction rings, loose tolerances, gear mesh), engine condition (how old, sludge, water, PCV), driving habits (rpms, warmup, lugging), filter type, climate (temp, dew points), high sulphur or contaminated fuel, gas additives, oil topoff (how much and when), etc, etc.

Anyone with working experience or knowledge in statistical or comparative analysis would tell you that almost nothing of specific importance can be extracted from all that _unnormalized_ data. Only the individual may extract useful information from his/hers analysis _as long as_ the variables mentioned (and others, I'm sure) are kept constant. This is difficult to do since at a minimum, seasons change and engines age... My belief is that minor variations in any or all of these variables can alter results.

People could be better off using any OTS dino SL oil and changing it every 3000 miles, or using any synthetic SL oil and changing it every 6000 miles, than to use the "data" in the analysis section to extrapolate a personal change interval.

Bob, thank you for letting me express my educated opinion. I do appreciate this forum, and your hard work. Thank you!

 

[Terry]

geo, I appreciate your opinion and you are correct that trend analysis is not on it's own pure science. Nothing in the real world is.

We live in a world of uncontrolled imperfection, the universe of automobile lubrication trend analysis is the most cost effective,accurate,and repeatable field test available that can be catalogued and verified without having to teardown a engine before and after a time period.

It is a snapshot into the engine and the lubricant. The ideas you promote really miss the boat on it's effectiveness.

I can and do provide the kind of testing you speak about but no average Joe or Jane can afford it. Based on my experience interpreting ASTM, SAE,controlled testing verses common sense trend analysis the field trend testing is much more meaningful and less costly.

As far as the idea of changing your SL rated oil every 3000 to 6000 miles; you step back to the way we trusted lube manufactorers for the last 100 years and will not know even with a small snapshot window view how your engine and oil combo are doing.

In other words I would rather know a little in realtime than guess alot in the theoretical.

Welcome to our universe

.

[ August 03, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Terry ]

 

[Patman]

Good points about the analysis section! I got into an argument with a die hard Royal Purple fan this week because he swears this stuff is better than the other synthetic oils he's tried because he sees less grey sludge on his drain plug magnet! No oil analysis results, just this little tidbit. I told him that until he shows me oil analysis results on Royal Purple, I just don't believe the hype on that product. It hasn't shown any spectacular results to me. I found the 29% oxidation in 1250 miles in the one RP analysis recently quite scary. Especially since it was on a new car with just 9k on it. If RP was so good, why did it oxidize so fast? It also had thinned out quite a bit in 1250mi too. So that's where the marketing stops, when we see the oil analysis results.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Anyone with working experience or knowledge in statistical or comparative analysis would tell you that almost nothing of specific importance can be extracted from all that _unnormalized_ data.

EXACTLY what I would expect a cubical engineer would say.

There is more valuable information on those analysis than you give credit. Just by looking at analysis, you can see many aspect of an oil. One point I want to bring to your attention is how so many people can look at all the statistical information on TD sheets and FAIL MISERABLY at understanding how each of those numbers interact. Who would have guessed that Schaeffers Blend could do as much in extended drains without falling apart, especially when compared on the same engine, same driver, same area, against another oil that has SUPERIOR #'s on the TD sheet?

Point is, so many people, ESPECIALLY Those that have such knowledge on things, Over look the most basics of lubrication principle when deciding that this full synth base oil with such high flash-point and low Ppoint is better than this blend could ever be. THEORY>> plain and simple,
Analysis, REAL WORLD application, real world results, real world torture, not a test bench.

Many bench tests are just that. Take a specific issue on an oil, create a test to see how it does (flash point for example) then qualify that oil at that point to be better than one with a slightly lower one. BUT in real world applications, how many oils ever get to that temp?, Under the bench test, did it take into account that if an engine has an extremely good barrier lube that it will reduce the temp on the base oil therefore the base oil's flash-point is not pushed, unlike maybe the one that has a high flash-point is that way because it doesn't have that FM there fore you do push that oils limits harder. Bench tests are very mis leading in a lot of cases, This is why I have always stated, You must look at the whole blend to develop a better understanding on how one aspect would effect the other, and just because one is higher than another in one test may not be a valid test of the superiority of that oil based on the other elements that are not looked at and taken into account of its interaction.


Only the individual may extract useful information from his/hers analysis _as long as_ the variables mentioned (and others, I'm sure) are kept constant. This is difficult to do since at a minimum, seasons change and engines age... My belief is that minor variations in any or all of these variables can alter results.



I totally agree, and with that, there is no constants in engines,drivers,and external forces, therefore any trend analysis posted, given it is true, will provide a better over all picture of how that oil will do than some simple little bench tests.

I have to state though, these TD sheets do provide some starting points and help establish some qualifications but in no way will it tell the whole story like a real life application.

Sorry, It appears Terry got to that before I got done. oh well, Nicely put Mr. Terry.

[ August 02, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]

 

[jjbula]

I think Valvoline is still trying to figure out how to market Maxlife.

They don't want it to compete with Durablend.

IMHO, Maxlife is a better product than Durblend but costs less.

I distrust oil companies and think they may have taken out Moly
to keep maxlife from competing with Synpower.
Just my paranoid hunch.

[ August 02, 2002, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: jjbula ]

 

[satterfi]

JTC

I can do Bob one better. I have doubts about everything.

The proof is in the data, provided the data is valid. See, I can even doubt the data.

 

[Bror Jace]

Geo, they were saying this to people who called their customer service number a year or more ago. I got this info from two independent sources who called their support line ... 1-800 Team Val. I called this line myself and they told me Synpower was 100% PAO ... which hasn't been true in a while. I don't know if it ever was.

JTC, I'm aware what's going on and am already a skeptic ... but thanks for the advice. I stand by my current (low) opinion of the latest version of Max-Life.

jjbula, Johhny works for Pennzoil, not Valvoline.

--- Bror Jace

"I was a patriot before being a patriot was cool."

[ August 03, 2002, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Bror Jace ]

 

[Bror Jace]

Bob: "There is more valuable information on those analysis than you give credit. Just by looking at analysis, you can see many aspect of an oil."

Yes. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

See, no testing is considered 'proof' unless it's in a tightly controlled lab environment. But, if you do a lab test with all the variables controlled, it's hardly reflective of real-world conditions, now is it?

Lab testing of oil samples provides useful and important info. Don't dismiss it so quickly.

--- Bror Jace

“I was a patriot before being a patriot was cool.”

 

[Bror Jace]

Patman: "I got into an argument with a die hard Royal Purple fan this week because he swears this stuff is better than the other synthetic oils he's tried because he sees less grey sludge on his drain plug magnet! No oil analysis results, just this little tidbit."'

An on-line argument with a Royal Purple diehard? I've never heard of such a thing!

" ... I just don't believe the hype on (Royal Purple). It hasn't shown any spectacular results to me. I found the 29% oxidation in 1250 miles in the one RP analysis recently quite scary. Especially since it was on a new car with just 9k on it. If RP was so good, why did it oxidize so fast? It also had thinned out quite a bit in 1250mi, too."

I thought of this when watching the 3 Rivers SCCA Trans-Am race this afternoon. #77 (Paul?) Fix was still in his Royal Purple-sposored Jaguar in his usual place ... at the very end of the pack.

It's nice to know he's consistent and his competitiveness hasn't changed much since the race I attended at Limerock on Memorial Day.

--- Bror Jace

PS: Oh, and who won the race?

Why, it was none other than the 'Vette driven by Butch Leitzenger ... a Red Line man.

 

[widman]

JonS
That is a great claim from Purepower. They have a blending plant here. Their oils lose viscosity in 1000 miles and precipitate the additives (whatever they are) in the container.
They put API SJ energy conserving II in the donut of their 15w40 and 40 wt without API registration for the plant, nor can energy conserving II be applied to a 15w40, much less a monograde(API had to make them remove it).
I consider it one of the snake oil gangsters of the industry.
As I think Johnny said in a post: It's marketing!