Amsoil's December Magazine - Fuel Economy Study

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: buster
Yep. And they still use misleading marketing to this day.


LOL
36.gif
Waiting for the ADT [Amsoil Defense Team] to arrive. LOL Just kill'in time on a rainy day.
 
They are better than they used to be.

Still use the 4-ball wear test. Haven't seen any new product comparison tests latley. Hopefully they won't try to mislead with the TFOUT again.
 
Originally Posted By: Artem
It's called math, bud.
lol.gif



It's called "fuzzy math" LOL
 
It'll be that 0.9346 is 1.07...

Learned that one years ago when a contract site manager who was allowed "cost +10%" for goods and services that he needed to by tried 10% gross margin on me, or 11.1%
 
When your underlying data does not have the 3 digit precision, showing your results with 3 digit precision tells me all I need to know about the underlying research.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Come on, it's a "study" in the AMSOIL rag, not an SAE/Lancet publication, but a fluff piece for the already interested/initiated/converted.

Don't know how that detracts from what anyone thinks of the company, when any company is free to pay money to put their statements in the middle of your evening news without your participating in their koolaid.


Can't say it any better. It's called advertising!
 
Originally Posted By: carwreck

Notice the arrows where it is says "acceptable 2 percent range". That means that they ignore values that they don't like when they do the "increased mileage" calculations. If I do my own calculations without this fuzzy math, the "test vehicle" with Amsoil actually got worse mileage (5.771 gal.fuel consumed) than the control vehicle ( 5.629 gal consumed) with Texaco.


I noticed the same thing, they plainly cheated. How shameful.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: carwreck

Notice the arrows where it is says "acceptable 2 percent range". That means that they ignore values that they don't like when they do the "increased mileage" calculations. If I do my own calculations without this fuzzy math, the "test vehicle" with Amsoil actually got worse mileage (5.771 gal.fuel consumed) than the control vehicle ( 5.629 gal consumed) with Texaco.


I noticed the same thing, they plainly cheated. How shameful.


You guys don't even understand the test. How can you criticize it? Take your Amsoil hate hat off and read the text, nice and slow.

You call something cheating and a company shameful because you jump to conclusions? Wow.
 
I fail to see why so many posters don't understand two simple things:

1) How the test was run.
2) A 6.5% improvement could easily come from the fluid changes to synthetic, just going to from a 15W-40 to 5W-40 will help, but a lower vis tranny fluid and diff fluid helped as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo

You guys don't even understand the test. How can you criticize it? Take your Amsoil hate hat off and read the text, nice and slow.

You call something cheating and a company shameful because you jump to conclusions? Wow.


OK my friend. I will walk you through the reading. Look at the page 3 of the "study". There are 7 test measurements. The highest 3 are discarded and the lowest 3 (1.00) were used to calculate the 6% "improvement".

Is this the way to do an objective study?

There is no hate on my part, just science.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek


OK my friend. I will walk you through the reading. Look at the page 3 of the "study". There are 7 test measurements. The highest 3 are discarded and the lowest 3 (1.00) were used to calculate the 6% "improvement".

Is this the way to do an objective study?

There is no hate on my part, just science.


No - that's not how it worked at all. You don't understand the test. Please, re-read the text. It's a little hard to read the scanned docs. But you WILL understand it if you take the time to read it, word for word.
 
I did read it. Even if you insist on following the standard and remove the outsiders over 2%, the table 2 shows how data was cherry picked. If you didn't remove the run 1 (for a lame reason of flush), the 2% range values should be 1.04-1.05 and that would produce only marginal difference over control. Instead the test was continued to get a string of favorable numbers that were used for calculation.

Besides, for the test to be scientific, the drivers and statisticians should be blinded to which truck is test vs control.

I'm not saying that there couldn't be a real difference in the range of 1-2%, but Amsoil did the study to produce a bigger difference.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I did read it.


How can you say that and agree with a guy who is just comparing the test vehicle with the control vehicle. It makes no sense to do that, yet you 100% sided with him. Why?

So we aren't supposed to follow the SAE standard? It's almost as if you don't understand why the outliers are removed.

I do agree a double blind study would be the best way to go. But you and others wrote that Amsoil cheated, and you are not correct on that count. The numbers are the numbers. It bugs you, maybe file a claim or something.
 
You do not understand how the J1321 (type II) standard works. Even if the run 1 was rejected on legitimate ground (I doubt), the testing should have been stopped at the run 6 as you have 3 results already within 2% (1.04-1.05), instead, run 7 was added and the lowest readings of 1.00 were selected. This is in clear violation of the J1321 protocol.

If you use the proper calculation, the fuel saving is in the 2% range, as expected.

How can you argue when the facts are obvious?
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
You do not understand how the J1321 (type II) standard works. Even if the run 1 was rejected on legitimate ground (I doubt), the testing should have been stopped at the run 6 as you have 3 results already within 2% (1.04-1.05), instead, run 7 was added and the lowest readings of 1.00 were selected. This is in clear violation of the J1321 protocol.

If you use the proper calculation, the fuel saving is in the 2% range, as expected.

How can you argue when the facts are obvious?


Wait, you said the Amsoil test vehicle got worse MPG. Now you are changing your tune?

You can choose the readings from the test to get the numbers you do and Amsoil chooses the most consistent under 2% numbers. I don't think that's cheating or a violation of protocol.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo

Wait, you said the Amsoil test vehicle got worse MPG. Now you are changing your tune?


Why do you put words in my mouth? I never said that.

Originally Posted By: Pablo

You can choose the readings from the test to get the numbers you do and Amsoil chooses the most consistent under 2% numbers.


No, this is not in the J1321 standard.
 
Jack it just might be Amsoil's version of the J1321 standard. LOL Anytime I see numbers in print in an ad I take them with a grain of salt, it goes for any company. 99% of all advertising IMO is pure [censored]. After all the Amsoil paper is advertising Amsoil isn't it?
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

Why do you put words in my mouth? I never said that.


OK YOU didn't say it. But you agreed with it. You didn't challenge it.

Originally Posted By: carwreck
If I do my own calculations without this fuzzy math, the "test vehicle" with Amsoil actually got worse mileage (5.771 gal.fuel consumed) than the control vehicle ( 5.629 gal consumed) with Texaco.


Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I noticed the same thing, they plainly cheated. How shameful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top