Probably notIs he really new?
Probably notIs he really new?
It’s always so entertaining when a new guy shows up with articles and graphs and tries to teach established experts a thing or two.
Actually no that was the exact problem, it was black and white. Under certain environmental conditions the oil would gel under shear at the pump pickup tube and could not be pumped.It is not black - zero oil pumps - and white - the oil flows like God's grace upon the place beneath.
Viscosity and temperature of a 0W-40 motor oil
Yes but that is what illustrated the problem with using pour point as the indicator of cold-weather performance.I did find this summary on the February 1987 Consumer Reports article which is not on-line:
Comments on the 1987 Consumer Reports oil test
“... Most oils also passed all the low-temperature tests required in the SAE viscosity grade system, although there were sample-to-sample differences in some products. ...”
“... Four oils -- Kendall Superb 100 10W-40, Kendall GT-1 Turbo 10W-30, Sears Spectrum 5W-30 and Texaco Havoline 5W-30 -- failed low-temperature tests even when more than one sample was evaluated. Consumer Reports' auto engineers suggest you avoid those oils in extremely cold weather. ...”
“... Castrol GTX 10W-40 and 10W-30 and Exxon Uniflo 10W-30 would have been as impressive had all test samples met their viscosity-grade requirements. ...”
Actually no that was the exact problem, it was black and white. Under certain environmental conditions the oil would gel under shear at the pump pickup tube and could not be pumped.
I'm no expert here, but doesn't longevity of things that need each other to define kind of make this a dumb argument?
I mean the spectrum of possibilities includes considering that a terrible engine could still be terrible with any oil, and a great engine could be great with any oil based on how it is designed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the statistics that show which cars have survived the most miles over the years and what engine properties oil properties were recommended to speculate about what the best combination is?
And no one claimed it did.The OA does not and can not identify a specific source of any detected wear ...
Also, the OA is purely dependent of the sample, where, when and how it was taken as to whether it is even relevant.
established experts
And no one claimed it did. What was stated was that it points to potential sources of the abnormal reading. If the iron is high, it's not likely a bearing. If it's babbit metals, it's not likely cylinder wear. Terry Dyson, who lived here 2002-09 and did oil analyses for a living would have taken that apart. Millions of fleet vehicles make it clear that UOAs are relevant.
No, wrong again
You tried to claim it did (inferring) but got called as a fail ( which it is)
You have never seen "millions" of anything-
'laughter, for a few moments, distracts the villain from fear'
^^^ Won't ever see any xW-20 specified for Corvettes. The new C8 specifies 0W-40 (Mobil 1 factory fill).
In your opinion.
Also in your opinion, supported by .... your opinion.
In your opinion....
That's interesting. Two winters ago, I ran a certain Castrol 5W-30 in Wisconsin's -20 degree weather and found it performed terribly. As much as I like the oil in warmer weather, it didn't impress me in the cold.I recall the problem quite clearly.
The oils in question did NOT meet their pour point specs.
GM noted a large number of engine failures in the northern USA and Canada. They ran their own tests and found that several oils did not meet their pour point specs.
Consumer Reports, a major US testing magazine, ran their own tests and failed - among others - one of the Castrol oils for not meeting its pour point specification.
They also tested for shearing by running the oils through diesel injectors.
The specification change came a decade later.