Toyota 5w20, 1996 Civic 1.6L UOA

[Garak]

My questions remain basically unanswered, though. No one gets kicked for mentioning an oil by name. They get banned for shilling non-sponsor products or for bashing products baselessly. If you're talking about RLI, no one's getting kicked for mentioning RLI. Now, you try to sell it here without being a sponsor, you're going to have issues. I know posters who have used it over the years here and who have used Terry's services, to boot.

I stand by my statement that there are people here who do quite well at interpreting UOAs. I would agree, however, that there is enough variability and uncertainty in a lot of the data we see. That's why I always get concerned when people are trying to grab something from one UOA. As you well know, most of these are consumer grade UOAs, and difficult enough to deal with with respect to trended analysis, much less grabbing one isolated UOA and trying to say something useful. Additionally, I've always maintained that it's best to stick to lubricant condemnation rather than trying to divine something about an engine's condition. The latter is far more problematic.

I wasn't asking you to name drop, at all. If you have something to offer, help out, that's all. Telling us you know better than us but can't share that information isn't useful.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Because it's the same oil that got someone kicked off this board 10 years ago. I've basically been told where I "can" go and where I "can't". So long as I stay within these limits, I can't be banned.


By whom? A moderator or someone in administration on this board?

If so then you are a reincarnated poster unlike what you said. How would you know all this stuff if you really are new?

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You haven't been here before, have you?

Nope, I have never been a forum kind of guy, especially with some of the stuff I've read on here. Terry warned me a long time ago to stay away but I figured too many people on here hungry for information. If the forum mods ban me, I'll keep feeding the hungry until I am, LOL.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: danielLD
Because it's the same oil that got someone kicked off this board 10 years ago.

I forgot to ask something else. What's the benefit for this oil for the average user? You can't just say it's better than everything else and "spanks" everything else without saying how or why. Is it $1 a litre or something? That would spank everything on price, for instance. Is it available at every corner store, parts store, and big box? That would spank everyone on availability. Somehow, I don't think it's one of those two, though.

 

[danielLD]

I was essentially told by Terry Dyson and a few others a few months back to stay off this board. After browsing and replying to some on here I see why. You state things like Viscosity Index and you get others that respond how can a 30 weight be better than a 40. Lots of bad information. Garak, formulators are not analysts or vice versa.

It's fuel economy, power and an oil that can actually go a long distance.

It becomes hard to respond to the overwhelming amount of misinformation. I'd have to honestly start quoting basic STLE literature at that point. While Blackstone pegs itself as the consumer UOA company to go to, what is it doing for the average user? If you have to trend what's the point? The reason some guys don't have to trend is we've seen enough UOA to be able to "mentally" trend. If you've done thousands of UOA because you're a UOA analyst, you're going to see things guys that aren't can't. I have never seen Blackstone make a suggestion that has ever helped a customer. What's the point of UOA if you can't interpret it or make suggestions that work?

 

[danielLD]

I do understand the view point of on a less expensive vehicle some oils are not going to provide the equal amount of ROI or the person might not just care much.

 

[Garak]

And that's fair enough, and that goes to analyses, too. There isn't a lot of point taking a generic vehicle that has a fairly generic oil specification (and we're assuming that the OEM didn't flub things up with OCI or specification or engine design in the first place) and running RLI for 3,000 mile intervals and/or running to the mailbox with a bottle for Blackstone (or anyone else). It's just not worth it. If someone isn't bothering to extend OCIs, there's a good chance he doesn't need M1 EP or Amsoil SS coupled with UOAs, not to say that BITOGers don't mind reading the reports.

The taxis ran hundreds of thousands of miles on ordinary spec oil, without finding a boutique, without trying to find the best filter on the market, without running a synthetic, or trying to optimise grade, or throwing in additives, or running to a lab every month. That's also the experience of most people in the world, including BITOG users and the general public.

People here generally tinker with oils and specs and filters and UOAs as something to do. There are people who have genuine problems, but most of us are simply OCD or bored or both.

As for misinformation, welcome to the internet. Trade publications have misinformation in them, let alone an enthusiast website. To be blunt to Terry, you, and every other oil analyst or lab personnel out there, and formulators, too, UOAs, particularly as they are generally used, are hardly scientific.

First off, if I give a report of raw numbers to three different analysts, I'll get three different opinions. That's problematic already. If I ask three physicists how quickly something will accelerate in a vacuum due to gravity at sea level, I'll get one answer, and one answer only. That's science.

Secondly, hardly anyone here gets a VOA of the particular lot number before a series of OCIs, gets the UOAs done consistently and sticks with the same oil, and sticks with the same lab, which will help eliminate variables. That's why we have feces flinging contests about nitration and TAN with products like Red Line, when someone simply sees it on the shelf, throws it in for one OCI, runs a UOA, and then wants an opinion about how things went.

Doug has posted some good articles here, and I'm sure you've read them. Hardly anyone follows them. I've had no problems reading what Terry's posted and done over the years, either.

However, if you think you're going to come in here and fix the problem of people misusing UOAs here, I've got news for you. It won't work. I've said time and time again that people read too much into UOAs here, or read the wrong things into them. I still do on occasion.

However, I've never found a way yet to prevent people from seeing a few PPM of iron on someone's UOA and then proclaiming that a rod is going through the block in the next few minutes, or that they must jump two grades in one direction or the other and/or immediately switch brands. Look at the PQIA threads, with the pontification of how much better PYB is over QS, of all things, or how 5 more ppm of calcium makes a better formulation between functionally equivalent products.

 

[researcher]

Excellent post Garak, just excellent! That summed it up 100% ENTIRELY! Perfectly!

 

[danielLD]

Well we're entering a new age now! With direct injections and all the after treatment units oil & fuel selection has become more critical than ever. I do agree with most of your point however.

Take the 2011 6.7 Powerstoke by Ford, all others after 2007EPA, have serious issues. Remove the DPF and EGR, I've seen them run convention rotella up to 10,000 miles without needing a change. I have other Powerstrokes that are choking and they're resorting to expensive oils, filters to get by. Lot's of engine's popping today due to DI and other things.

Well, hardly scientific would be true to some extent. It's like scouting I suppose.

Yeah the internet I suppose. I too think too many people read into them. Especially considering their UOA is limited from the start.

 

[Garak]

Certainly, things are getting more complex and more critical with the advancements were seeing. No one can doubt that. In the end though, we have to rely on what OEMs specify and what formulators can bring to the table, be they the big companies or the boutiques. People buying new vehicles have to rely on OEM recommendations and products available on the shelf or in shops. They're not, as a general rule, going to run out and buy a boutique or seek out UOAs (consumer grade or better). If OEMs recommended that, people would be livid.

What you mention about some of the newer diesels isn't new and really isn't surprising. There are all kinds of businesses out there that yank this equipment, and this is done by people who have never heard of a UOA. Further, it doesn't take someone who's got 35 years of UOA interpretation under his belt or the best labs in the country to see fuel dilution through the roof and bizarre soot levels, nor to put two and two together to realize that it might be the emissions treatments.

I maintain that there is nothing wrong with a high end UOA service and professional analysis, along with high end product. Some people have found very good success with that.

Remember, though, you mentioned what would happen in another thread if an OEM required the highest end products. You can't very well recommend RLI and Terry's or your services and some high end UOA for a 1996 Civic and then simultaneously complain that people buying a Ford GT350 won't tolerate paying for a high end lube from RLI, Red Line, Motul, and so forth.

 

[danielLD]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Certainly, things are getting more complex and more critical with the advancements were seeing. No one can doubt that. In the end though, we have to rely on what OEMs specify and what formulators can bring to the table, be they the big companies or the boutiques. People buying new vehicles have to rely on OEM recommendations and products available on the shelf or in shops. They're not, as a general rule, going to run out and buy a boutique or seek out UOAs (consumer grade or better). If OEMs recommended that, people would be livid.

What you mention about some of the newer diesels isn't new and really isn't surprising. There are all kinds of businesses out there that yank this equipment, and this is done by people who have never heard of a UOA. Further, it doesn't take someone who's got 35 years of UOA interpretation under his belt or the best labs in the country to see fuel dilution through the roof and bizarre soot levels, nor to put two and two together to realize that it might be the emissions treatments.

I maintain that there is nothing wrong with a high end UOA service and professional analysis, along with high end product. Some people have found very good success with that.

Remember, though, you mentioned what would happen in another thread if an OEM required the highest end products. You can't very well recommend RLI and Terry's or your services and some high end UOA for a 1996 Civic and then simultaneously complain that people buying a Ford GT350 won't tolerate paying for a high end lube from RLI, Red Line, Motul, and so forth.


Well he's already spending $$ with different labs, just none of them have given him any useful or insightful meaning. M1EP for a civic may be just $3-4 extra and Amsoil is only $10. If he can go even half the distance longer, clean, then it pays for itself.

I'm trying to see if I can get cheap enough testing that will really be useful without breaking the bank, we'll see what Helen says. I'm thinking ICP + FTIR + Vis40 + GC for $25~ or so. Problem is at $25, it's not really sustainable $ wise. Alas why Blackstone doesn't do FTIR or GC and why I left UOA, little money left in what isn't turbines or rail roads.

 

[Garak]

Certainly, but you have to watch your returns. $3 or $4 more for M1 EP, an extra $2 for better filtration, it all begins to add up. Nonetheless, realistically speaking, with any ordinary synthetic on the market, he could very easily double his OCIs on the Civic, if not triple them, particularly when you start talking M1 EP or Amsoil SS. None of that requires UOAs or going overboard on oil pricing. Of course, ROI from extending like that also depends on it not deciding to drink a litre every 1000 km all of a sudden, too.

I don't envy labs at all. Equipment isn't cheap. Expertise isn't cheap. Running a business requires sustainable cash flow, and we all know how difficult it is to balance such things. We all would like to see every test under the sun, but want it to cost virtually nothing.