But no one really runs high HTHS oils without additive packages.
Infineum - Striking the right balance
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Exactly, which is the point of Infineum's testing here, to see if they can retain the engine life while going thinner. I'm quite interested to see what they end up figuring out as this article is a couple of years old now, they state it has been in the works for six years, and they have yet to post an update.
Yeah where is the update!?
Even without it, it's pretty compelling that they have a 2.2 HTHSv oil achieving less wear than a 3.5 one.
What's that? xw12 vs xw40?
But I'm sure for some that will still not be enough.
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Exactly, which is the point of Infineum's testing here, to see if they can retain the engine life while going thinner. I'm quite interested to see what they end up figuring out as this article is a couple of years old now, they state it has been in the works for six years, and they have yet to post an update.
Yeah where is the update!?
Even without it, it's pretty compelling that they have a 2.2 HTHSv oil achieving less wear than a 3.5 one.
What's that? xw12 vs xw40?
But I'm sure for some that will still not be enough.
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
Likewise.
One small graph and some marketing fluff does not compel me to do anything. I'll be the first to endorse it if it works long term in fleet duty...
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
Likewise.
One small graph and some marketing fluff does not compel me to do anything. I'll be the first to endorse it if it works long term in fleet duty...
Originally Posted By: Garak
But no one really runs high HTHS oils without additive packages.
I didn't say / mean without an additive package at all, I was specifically referring to the tested additive package
"with that additive package instead of a high viscosity oil without it"
But no one really runs high HTHS oils without additive packages.
I didn't say / mean without an additive package at all, I was specifically referring to the tested additive package
"with that additive package instead of a high viscosity oil without it"
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/march-2015/ultra-low-viscosity-challenges
Good article, but still talking about passenger car oil instead of heavy duty oil.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/march-2015/ultra-low-viscosity-challenges
Good article, but still talking about passenger car oil instead of heavy duty oil.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
I would say that there are 8 data points in that graph. 4 with the new additive pack, 4 with a standard additive pack.
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
I would say that there are 8 data points in that graph. 4 with the new additive pack, 4 with a standard additive pack.
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
I would say that there are 8 data points in that graph. 4 with the new additive pack, 4 with a standard additive pack.
That's what I would say. But I thought we were debating if each of those 8 points represented an average of multiple tests at each HTHS, or just one. I think it's just one test per point.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
On the basis of 1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out.
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
I would say that there are 8 data points in that graph. 4 with the new additive pack, 4 with a standard additive pack.
That's what I would say. But I thought we were debating if each of those 8 points represented an average of multiple tests at each HTHS, or just one. I think it's just one test per point.
Don't wish to nitpick, but originally you said:
"1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out"
Now you agree there are 8 data points ie 4 with the new package, 4 with a standard package.
So at least there are 4 with the new additive package, and the line is a statistical best fit. So not exactly 6-8 with an average but closer than being just "1 or 2 data points" and statistically much more significant.
"1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out"
Now you agree there are 8 data points ie 4 with the new package, 4 with a standard package.
So at least there are 4 with the new additive package, and the line is a statistical best fit. So not exactly 6-8 with an average but closer than being just "1 or 2 data points" and statistically much more significant.
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Garak
But no one really runs high HTHS oils without additive packages.
I didn't say / mean without an additive package at all, I was specifically referring to the tested additive package
"with that additive package instead of a high viscosity oil without it"
And the higher viscosity oil provides lower wear for EITHER tested additive pack...
It's a compelling case for using the better additive package, not a "compelling" case for the lower viscosity lube
Originally Posted By: Garak
But no one really runs high HTHS oils without additive packages.
I didn't say / mean without an additive package at all, I was specifically referring to the tested additive package
"with that additive package instead of a high viscosity oil without it"
And the higher viscosity oil provides lower wear for EITHER tested additive pack...
It's a compelling case for using the better additive package, not a "compelling" case for the lower viscosity lube
Gawd, we know! That's what the blue curve vs the red curve tells us.
The blue curve is so flat with the new additive package, it's compelling to consider a lower viscosity oil (with the new additive package - there, said for your clarification).
Wear at such low levels is statistically insignificant, just like the Ravenol 0w16 seq IVA result vs 5w30, you know your favorite test where it's the perfect storm and all that.
Or we could state that the HTHSv of 2.4 does as good as the HTHSv of 3.5 with the new package.
Or we could even state that the HTHS of 2.1 does better than the 2.6 with the standard package.
The blue curve is so flat with the new additive package, it's compelling to consider a lower viscosity oil (with the new additive package - there, said for your clarification).
Wear at such low levels is statistically insignificant, just like the Ravenol 0w16 seq IVA result vs 5w30, you know your favorite test where it's the perfect storm and all that.
Or we could state that the HTHSv of 2.4 does as good as the HTHSv of 3.5 with the new package.
Or we could even state that the HTHS of 2.1 does better than the 2.6 with the standard package.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Benito
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
I would say that there are 8 data points in that graph. 4 with the new additive pack, 4 with a standard additive pack.
That's what I would say. But I thought we were debating if each of those 8 points represented an average of multiple tests at each HTHS, or just one. I think it's just one test per point.
or they chose the test results which helped their case the most...
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Benito
How do you know it is 1 or 2 data points? Just your interpretation from the graph?
Yes, from my interpretation of the graph. I'm keying in on the two points at 3.5 HTHS on the red plot. One is right above the other, indicating two different wear rates at one HTHS value. If the points on the graph were averages of many readings, there would only be one at each level of HTHS at which they ran their tests.
Now I'm wondering why there is no datapoint at 2.3 HTHS on the red plot.
I would say that there are 8 data points in that graph. 4 with the new additive pack, 4 with a standard additive pack.
That's what I would say. But I thought we were debating if each of those 8 points represented an average of multiple tests at each HTHS, or just one. I think it's just one test per point.
or they chose the test results which helped their case the most...
it'll pass certification, both packs will.
But which pack lined the infineum pockets more?
But which pack lined the infineum pockets more?
Originally Posted By: Benito
Don't wish to nitpick, but originally you said:
"1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out"
Now you agree there are 8 data points ie 4 with the new package, 4 with a standard package.
So at least there are 4 with the new additive package, and the line is a statistical best fit. So not exactly 6-8 with an average but closer than being just "1 or 2 data points" and statistically much more significant.
You seem to be working hard at missing my point. Yes, they ran 8 tests, but only one test with each oil blend at each level of HTHS. I was saying I wouldn't be convinced until they show a spread of data running 6 or 8 tests with each oil blend at each level of HTHS. There is no such thing as "a statistical best fit" until they have done replicated tests with each oil blend at each level of HTHS. Then let them plot their curves.
Don't wish to nitpick, but originally you said:
"1 or 2 data points? I'm not convinced yet. Let them run 6 or 8 test replications so they can show where the average settles out"
Now you agree there are 8 data points ie 4 with the new package, 4 with a standard package.
So at least there are 4 with the new additive package, and the line is a statistical best fit. So not exactly 6-8 with an average but closer than being just "1 or 2 data points" and statistically much more significant.
You seem to be working hard at missing my point. Yes, they ran 8 tests, but only one test with each oil blend at each level of HTHS. I was saying I wouldn't be convinced until they show a spread of data running 6 or 8 tests with each oil blend at each level of HTHS. There is no such thing as "a statistical best fit" until they have done replicated tests with each oil blend at each level of HTHS. Then let them plot their curves.
- Status
