Originally Posted By: Artem
Having read the whole study, i've come to the conclusion that the test is severally flawed with many reasons...
- two different trucks
- two different drivers
- too many variables in driver error to accurately calculate fuel consumption
- test truck received a SECOND FLUSH
- A dyno with controlled weather conditions was NOT USED
Looking at the baseline and test results, the before / after numbers of the test truck using Amsoil are so small that i'm shocked how any actual and TRUE numbers were pulled from this.
The fact that the test truck received a SECOND flush of all the fluids alone could account for the 6% difference. I feel that it could have gotten the same results with a SECOND flush of conventional lube, since the second flush would help to further remove / clean the internals, helping everything run more efficiently, resulting in improvements.
I feel that a dyno and lab controlled testing is the only way to truly spot the difference. Old engines with 750,000 miles of wear should not be used as the testing equipment. A new block that is fully broken in should be used.
It's the same with Royal Purple and their silly oil tests.
They take a car with old synthetic oil of another brand and run it on a dyno, taking HP readings. They then change the oil to RP and run another dyno which results in more power, claiming that it's their oil which is the cause.
^The same can be had by simply changing the used oil with new oil OF THE SAME BRAND!!
How can you conclude that the test was severely flawed when they followed the standard SAE J1321 test procedure? This is the procedure defined by the SAE to test fuel economy of in-service vehicles.