Originally Posted by goodtimes
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
It means it was probably an out flyer data point that someone (you know who) always latched on to. But there was more PC test data compiled that showed that particular no name filter was coming in with PC data where other filters rated at 50% @ 20μ and 99% @ 40μ were typically coming in at. And there were other Ultra PCs showing much better/cleaner PC results.
So yeah, PC data can get skewed and the only way to try and control the skewing is to run different filters on the same car, take samples the same way, use the same lab or even sent same samples to 2 labs to cross check lab results.
I thought Subie was about done with his "Frantz" type test of swapping filters 1/2 way through a long OCI to compare PCs.
You are the one latched on to your Ultra and the sae test. I'm not latched onto anything here. It was more than one post about filters beating the Ultra . You're very good at searching, I'm not. You can't just say data you disagree with is an outlier. That's an assumption you don't know. You can say it, but it isn't a fact. I can say it wasn't just as easily. It was a very well referenced test, the one.
The part in red is connected to why I said what I did. Go glean all the PC data out of the UOA forum, plot it all out and you might also see where the likely outliers are - which includes your cheap no-name super filter. Do you even know where that filter sits on the PC graph? ... in the same range as the 99% @ 40u filters do. I've posted it a few times in these discussions. If you don't believe it, then go dig up all the data, compare it all and see for yourself. There's no better leaning than self leaning.
Ultra lost the particle count test according to Blackstone. I don't have the no name filter it was someone else's testing result.There were other cleanliness tests. More particles in the Ultra sample. More is more. When one filter leaves more particles it can't be changed to it left less because it is against someone's opinion.
Go collect the PC data like I suggested ... you have no idea what you're concluding with only two data points without seeing the whole picture. That Ultra was an outlier because there were other Ultras that had a much better PC. The no-name filter you keep latching onto was no better on the PC graphed data from filters rated at 99% @ 40u and 50% @ 20u. You were like this as goodtimes with this same discussion, lol.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
It means it was probably an out flyer data point that someone (you know who) always latched on to. But there was more PC test data compiled that showed that particular no name filter was coming in with PC data where other filters rated at 50% @ 20μ and 99% @ 40μ were typically coming in at. And there were other Ultra PCs showing much better/cleaner PC results.
So yeah, PC data can get skewed and the only way to try and control the skewing is to run different filters on the same car, take samples the same way, use the same lab or even sent same samples to 2 labs to cross check lab results.
I thought Subie was about done with his "Frantz" type test of swapping filters 1/2 way through a long OCI to compare PCs.
You are the one latched on to your Ultra and the sae test. I'm not latched onto anything here. It was more than one post about filters beating the Ultra . You're very good at searching, I'm not. You can't just say data you disagree with is an outlier. That's an assumption you don't know. You can say it, but it isn't a fact. I can say it wasn't just as easily. It was a very well referenced test, the one.
The part in red is connected to why I said what I did. Go glean all the PC data out of the UOA forum, plot it all out and you might also see where the likely outliers are - which includes your cheap no-name super filter. Do you even know where that filter sits on the PC graph? ... in the same range as the 99% @ 40u filters do. I've posted it a few times in these discussions. If you don't believe it, then go dig up all the data, compare it all and see for yourself. There's no better leaning than self leaning.
Ultra lost the particle count test according to Blackstone. I don't have the no name filter it was someone else's testing result.There were other cleanliness tests. More particles in the Ultra sample. More is more. When one filter leaves more particles it can't be changed to it left less because it is against someone's opinion.
Go collect the PC data like I suggested ... you have no idea what you're concluding with only two data points without seeing the whole picture. That Ultra was an outlier because there were other Ultras that had a much better PC. The no-name filter you keep latching onto was no better on the PC graphed data from filters rated at 99% @ 40u and 50% @ 20u. You were like this as goodtimes with this same discussion, lol.