Tech Facts, Not Myths

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know about the validity of his conclusions, nor do I care. His qualifications are at least on par with most people who post here, and his conclusions seem no more incredible than some of those reached in other areas by some of our most prolific posters.

I guess the best thing is to consider the information you read on the internet might come from someone who knows just enough about the topic at hand to be dangerous, whether the topic is calcium, oil grades, or OCI's.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Quote:
those who know me personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by posting data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear...


Yes I can see that 540RAT would not want to jeopardize his reputation or integrity!
lol.gif


Tom NJ

01.gif
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
One (of many) red flags in the article for me is that he is ranking oil quality based on one single parameter. That's as foolish as ranking oils according to just TBN level, pour point, or whatever.

His number 10 oil, Motorcraft 5W50 has a very well established reputation of shearing to 40 grade or lower in very few miles of use. While the shearing may not reflect use results, it's still not a good trait for a "best oil".

I do give him credit for crafting a very good sales pitch (for the uninformed).

Another of the many reg flags is that he spends so much time upfront defending his testing methods and conclusions before providing any data. Name drop much?
 
Yay! He referenced Ed Hackett's 15(?) year old university research paper.

Quote:

...My data has also been validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:
...
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection...

Hey Ed! Where are you? I miss that old paper. Although, I don't recall whether or not you had an issue with a sticking CAPS LOCK key at the time.
lol.gif


Comments?
35.gif


-Dennis
 
As the owner of an older car I frequent lots of forums. I have seen this article linked many times. The test this guy came up with is to (very)roughly simulate the conditions of a flat tappet valve train and that's it. The conclusions he reached seem to favor newer style oils which actually makes sense...duh.

If people on here can honestly tell me that if someone hopped into doc's delorean and took a case of any SN rated 5-30 oil back to 1965 then ran it in their chevelle that it would cause ANY part of the engine to wear out faster than normal(for the 60's) then you are one bullheaded individual.

We have seen voa's of some of the old school oils and none of them seem particularity impressive in any way with most having zddp levels that are not insanely higher than the levels today.
The manufactures themselves have said that zddp is old tech. There are other ways to improve wear protection (titanium "new" zddp etc..)
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
/Rant On

Far be it for me to make the claim that I am "perfect" in this aspect and I will not contest his results (though they seem more of a sales pitch than a scientific test routine). However, for a supposedly "working Professional Degreed Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder, who deals with Engineering technical matters for a living", his sentence structure and vocabulary make him appear far less educated than he is touting to be.

I realize an Internet posting can lead one to be casual, but most engineers that I know (especially those attempting to prove an argument) would not describe themselves using the text above and would not make a point worded in a manner like this:

Quote:
For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost.

Some of his points are interesting, but would likely be shredded in a peer review (which is what he should do if he truly wants to "validate" his paper and have it be credible).

/Rant Off



I agree, why give all that info if you are really an engineer or tribologist comfortable with your own credentials?

Makes me wonder if this is the same guy who not long ago was claiming to to be able to analyze the molecular structure of oils and giving out a lot of false information.

What really matters is the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) under various loads. That is one of the methods commercial engine builders in R&D use to determine oil suitability.

In other words, how does this PSI figure correlate to MOFT?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top