Mobil 1 5W-20
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>> quickly
>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry
>> worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the
>> market are not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like
>> Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an
>> additive package and resell them to companies that put their label on
>> them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from
>> the same source and is likely identical to some name brands, but it's
>> sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't pass through as
>> many hands in the supply chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil
>> and/or Quaker State.
>
>
> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
> vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
> the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>> quickly
>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry
>> worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the
>> market are not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like
>> Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an
>> additive package and resell them to companies that put their label on
>> them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from
>> the same source and is likely identical to some name brands, but it's
>> sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't pass through as
>> many hands in the supply chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil
>> and/or Quaker State.
>
>
> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
> vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
> the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.
It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:05:06 -0500, "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
>
>>from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
>
>>vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
>>what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
>>Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
>>http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html
>>
>>Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/
>
>
> Ah! So I WAS right!
If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
the MSDS's overlap.
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:05:06 -0500, "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
>
>>from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
>
>>vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
>>what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
>>Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
>>http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html
>>
>>Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/
>
>
> Ah! So I WAS right!
If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
the MSDS's overlap.
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:05:06 -0500, "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
>
>>from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
>
>>vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
>>what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
>>Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
>>http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html
>>
>>Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/
>
>
> Ah! So I WAS right!
If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
the MSDS's overlap.
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:05:06 -0500, "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
>
>>from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
>
>>vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
>>what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
>>Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
>>http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html
>>
>>Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/
>
>
> Ah! So I WAS right!
If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
the MSDS's overlap.
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:05:06 -0500, "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
>
>>from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
>
>>vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
>>what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
>>Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
>>http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html
>>
>>Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/
>
>
> Ah! So I WAS right!
If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
the MSDS's overlap.
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:05:06 -0500, "Bob" <bobsjunkmail@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
>
>>from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
>
>>vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
>>what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
>>Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
>>http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html
>>
>>Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/
>
>
> Ah! So I WAS right!
If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
the MSDS's overlap.
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.
>
> I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
> to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
> yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
> then that is all that matters, right?
>> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
>> without context.
>
>
> Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
> assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.
I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.
>>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
>> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.
> How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
> many miles driven.
I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
the certification.
>>> If the engine wears twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil,
>>> then it will run half as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate
>>> will let the engine last 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the
>>> cheap oil can be expected to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't
>>> rocket science.
>> You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
>> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
>> differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
>> order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
>> reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>> would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be
>> clammoring for it.
>
> Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
> miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.
> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
No kidding.
> And often engines
> don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
> to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
> etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
> keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
That I can agree with.
>>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but
>>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For
>>> example, the airplanes that are started most often and flown the
>>> least hours at a time are single-engine trainers, yet their engines
>>> often last much longer than large singles that are flown 2-3 hours at
>>> a time.
>>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
> inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
> engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
> Continental).
Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless.
>> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
>> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.
>
> Test data is an empirical result.
Sorry, I meant anecdotal.
> You may wish to refresh your memory
> on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
> believe that to even be a word.
OK, it was a typo. So shoot me.
>>> I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne
>>> is more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However,
>>> I've seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal
>>> information and observations.
Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.
>
> I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
> to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
> yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
> then that is all that matters, right?
>> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
>> without context.
>
>
> Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
> assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.
I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.
>>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
>> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.
> How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
> many miles driven.
I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
the certification.
>>> If the engine wears twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil,
>>> then it will run half as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate
>>> will let the engine last 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the
>>> cheap oil can be expected to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't
>>> rocket science.
>> You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
>> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
>> differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
>> order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
>> reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>> would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be
>> clammoring for it.
>
> Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
> miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.
> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
No kidding.
> And often engines
> don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
> to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
> etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
> keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
That I can agree with.
>>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but
>>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For
>>> example, the airplanes that are started most often and flown the
>>> least hours at a time are single-engine trainers, yet their engines
>>> often last much longer than large singles that are flown 2-3 hours at
>>> a time.
>>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
> inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
> engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
> Continental).
Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless.
>> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
>> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.
>
> Test data is an empirical result.
Sorry, I meant anecdotal.
> You may wish to refresh your memory
> on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
> believe that to even be a word.
OK, it was a typo. So shoot me.
>>> I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne
>>> is more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However,
>>> I've seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal
>>> information and observations.
Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be.
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.
>
> I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
> to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
> yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
> then that is all that matters, right?
>> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
>> without context.
>
>
> Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
> assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.
I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.
>>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
>> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.
> How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
> many miles driven.
I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
the certification.
>>> If the engine wears twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil,
>>> then it will run half as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate
>>> will let the engine last 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the
>>> cheap oil can be expected to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't
>>> rocket science.
>> You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
>> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
>> differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
>> order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
>> reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>> would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be
>> clammoring for it.
>
> Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
> miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.
> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
No kidding.
> And often engines
> don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
> to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
> etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
> keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
That I can agree with.
>>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but
>>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For
>>> example, the airplanes that are started most often and flown the
>>> least hours at a time are single-engine trainers, yet their engines
>>> often last much longer than large singles that are flown 2-3 hours at
>>> a time.
>>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
> inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
> engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
> Continental).
Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless.
>> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
>> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.
>
> Test data is an empirical result.
Sorry, I meant anecdotal.
> You may wish to refresh your memory
> on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
> believe that to even be a word.
OK, it was a typo. So shoot me.
>>> I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne
>>> is more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However,
>>> I've seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal
>>> information and observations.
Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.
>
> I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
> to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
> yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
> then that is all that matters, right?
>> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
>> without context.
>
>
> Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
> assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.
I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.
>>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
>> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.
> How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
> many miles driven.
I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
the certification.
>>> If the engine wears twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil,
>>> then it will run half as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate
>>> will let the engine last 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the
>>> cheap oil can be expected to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't
>>> rocket science.
>> You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
>> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
>> differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
>> order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
>> reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>> would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be
>> clammoring for it.
>
> Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
> miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.
> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
No kidding.
> And often engines
> don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
> to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
> etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
> keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
That I can agree with.
>>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but
>>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For
>>> example, the airplanes that are started most often and flown the
>>> least hours at a time are single-engine trainers, yet their engines
>>> often last much longer than large singles that are flown 2-3 hours at
>>> a time.
>>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
> inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
> engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
> Continental).
Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless.
>> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
>> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.
>
> Test data is an empirical result.
Sorry, I meant anecdotal.
> You may wish to refresh your memory
> on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
> believe that to even be a word.
OK, it was a typo. So shoot me.
>>> I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne
>>> is more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However,
>>> I've seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal
>>> information and observations.
Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be.
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.
>
> I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
> to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
> yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
> then that is all that matters, right?
>> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
>> without context.
>
>
> Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
> assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.
I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.
>>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
>> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.
> How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
> many miles driven.
I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
the certification.
>>> If the engine wears twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil,
>>> then it will run half as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate
>>> will let the engine last 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the
>>> cheap oil can be expected to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't
>>> rocket science.
>> You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
>> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
>> differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
>> order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
>> reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>> would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be
>> clammoring for it.
>
> Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
> miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.
> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
No kidding.
> And often engines
> don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
> to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
> etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
> keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
That I can agree with.
>>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but
>>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For
>>> example, the airplanes that are started most often and flown the
>>> least hours at a time are single-engine trainers, yet their engines
>>> often last much longer than large singles that are flown 2-3 hours at
>>> a time.
>>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
> inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
> engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
> Continental).
Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless.
>> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
>> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.
>
> Test data is an empirical result.
Sorry, I meant anecdotal.
> You may wish to refresh your memory
> on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
> believe that to even be a word.
OK, it was a typo. So shoot me.
>>> I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne
>>> is more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However,
>>> I've seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal
>>> information and observations.
Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.
>
> I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
> to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
> yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
> then that is all that matters, right?
>> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
>> without context.
>
>
> Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
> assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.
I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.
>>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
>> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.
> How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
> many miles driven.
I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
the certification.
>>> If the engine wears twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil,
>>> then it will run half as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate
>>> will let the engine last 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the
>>> cheap oil can be expected to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't
>>> rocket science.
>> You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
>> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
>> differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
>> order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
>> reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
>> would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be
>> clammoring for it.
>
> Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
> miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.
> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
No kidding.
> And often engines
> don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
> to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
> etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
> keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
That I can agree with.
>>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but
>>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For
>>> example, the airplanes that are started most often and flown the
>>> least hours at a time are single-engine trainers, yet their engines
>>> often last much longer than large singles that are flown 2-3 hours at
>>> a time.
>>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
> inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
> engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
> Continental).
Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless.
>> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
>> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.
>
> Test data is an empirical result.
Sorry, I meant anecdotal.
> You may wish to refresh your memory
> on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
> believe that to even be a word.
OK, it was a typo. So shoot me.
>>> I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne
>>> is more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However,
>>> I've seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal
>>> information and observations.
Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be.
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
> Taguchi for more information.
Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
> Taguchi for more information.
Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
> Taguchi for more information.
Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
> Taguchi for more information.
Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
> Taguchi for more information.
Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>
> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
> Taguchi for more information.
Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
> that.
The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
will be half the size of the bar for 12.
Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
statistics.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
> that.
The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
will be half the size of the bar for 12.
Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
statistics.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
> that.
The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
will be half the size of the bar for 12.
Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
statistics.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
> that.
The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
will be half the size of the bar for 12.
Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
statistics.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
> that.
The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
will be half the size of the bar for 12.
Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
statistics.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
> that.
The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
will be half the size of the bar for 12.
Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
statistics.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:VHJQf.7154$lb.624742@news1.epix.net:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:19:47 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
>>>enormous.
>>
>>
>> Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year.
>> Setting up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV
>> ad.
>
> Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know
> what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance,
> but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested.
If the engines are otherwise identical, you would not need a lot more
than, say, 15 tested with each kind of oil to detect a difference that
is practically as well as statistically significant.
On the other hand, if we are setting up a test of engine lifetimes on
different oils, the experiment may have to be run for a long time.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
news:VHJQf.7154$lb.624742@news1.epix.net:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:19:47 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
>>>enormous.
>>
>>
>> Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year.
>> Setting up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV
>> ad.
>
> Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know
> what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance,
> but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested.
If the engines are otherwise identical, you would not need a lot more
than, say, 15 tested with each kind of oil to detect a difference that
is practically as well as statistically significant.
On the other hand, if we are setting up a test of engine lifetimes on
different oils, the experiment may have to be run for a long time.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:VHJQf.7154$lb.624742@news1.epix.net:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:19:47 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
>>>enormous.
>>
>>
>> Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year.
>> Setting up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV
>> ad.
>
> Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know
> what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance,
> but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested.
If the engines are otherwise identical, you would not need a lot more
than, say, 15 tested with each kind of oil to detect a difference that
is practically as well as statistically significant.
On the other hand, if we are setting up a test of engine lifetimes on
different oils, the experiment may have to be run for a long time.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
news:VHJQf.7154$lb.624742@news1.epix.net:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:19:47 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
>>>enormous.
>>
>>
>> Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year.
>> Setting up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV
>> ad.
>
> Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know
> what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance,
> but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested.
If the engines are otherwise identical, you would not need a lot more
than, say, 15 tested with each kind of oil to detect a difference that
is practically as well as statistically significant.
On the other hand, if we are setting up a test of engine lifetimes on
different oils, the experiment may have to be run for a long time.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)