Mobil 1 5W-20
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:17:00 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>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.
Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!
No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.
--
Bob
>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.
Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!
No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.
--
Bob
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
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.
You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
> year on average.
Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
--
Bob
>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.
You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
> year on average.
Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
--
Bob
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
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.
You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
> year on average.
Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
--
Bob
>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.
You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
> year on average.
Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
--
Bob
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
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.
You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
> year on average.
Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
--
Bob
>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.
You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
> year on average.
Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
--
Bob
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.
If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.
--
Bob
>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.
You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.
If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.
--
Bob
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.
If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.
--
Bob
>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.
You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.
If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.
--
Bob
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.
If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.
--
Bob
>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.
You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.
If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.
--
Bob
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:nn2612t4tg9053el0cu4qile2ag6nlohiv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom
> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
>
>
> There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
>
> Thanks for the heads up Brian.
>
>
> --
> Bob
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/
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:nn2612t4tg9053el0cu4qile2ag6nlohiv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom
> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
>
>
> There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
>
> Thanks for the heads up Brian.
>
>
> --
> Bob
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/
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:nn2612t4tg9053el0cu4qile2ag6nlohiv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom
> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
>
>
> There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!
>
> Thanks for the heads up Brian.
>
>
> --
> Bob
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/
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
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.
> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
> unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.
The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.
However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.
>>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
>> year on average.
>
>
> Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!
Matt
> 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.
> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
> unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.
The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.
However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.
>>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
>> year on average.
>
>
> Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!
Matt
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
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.
> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
> unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.
The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.
However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.
>>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
>> year on average.
>
>
> Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!
Matt
> 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.
> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
> unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.
The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.
However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.
>>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
>> year on average.
>
>
> Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!
Matt
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
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.
> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
> unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.
The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.
However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.
>>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
>> year on average.
>
>
> Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!
Matt
> 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.
> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
> unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!
But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.
The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.
However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.
>>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
>> year on average.
>
>
> Gah! You can have that cold weather man!
I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!
Matt
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
>
>
>
> You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
> empirical route with many samples.
Testing/experimentation IS the empirical route! Look up the meaning of
empirical...
> If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
> 100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
> all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
> with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
> variation between oil types.
I'd do something similar, but I'd run at least 200K miles and preferably
longer. Almost anything will last 100K these days and I'm not even
intested in engines that won't go at least 200K!
You'd also have to put extensive data recorders on each car to find out
the driving conditions each experienced so you could try to normalize
the data.
This would be a great experiment. When do you plan to start it? :-)
Matt
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
>
>
>
> You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
> empirical route with many samples.
Testing/experimentation IS the empirical route! Look up the meaning of
empirical...
> If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
> 100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
> all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
> with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
> variation between oil types.
I'd do something similar, but I'd run at least 200K miles and preferably
longer. Almost anything will last 100K these days and I'm not even
intested in engines that won't go at least 200K!
You'd also have to put extensive data recorders on each car to find out
the driving conditions each experienced so you could try to normalize
the data.
This would be a great experiment. When do you plan to start it? :-)
Matt
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
>
>
>
> You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
> empirical route with many samples.
Testing/experimentation IS the empirical route! Look up the meaning of
empirical...
> If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
> 100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
> all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
> with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
> variation between oil types.
I'd do something similar, but I'd run at least 200K miles and preferably
longer. Almost anything will last 100K these days and I'm not even
intested in engines that won't go at least 200K!
You'd also have to put extensive data recorders on each car to find out
the driving conditions each experienced so you could try to normalize
the data.
This would be a great experiment. When do you plan to start it? :-)
Matt
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:23:46 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> 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.
>
>
>
> You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
> empirical route with many samples.
Testing/experimentation IS the empirical route! Look up the meaning of
empirical...
> If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
> 100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
> all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
> with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
> variation between oil types.
I'd do something similar, but I'd run at least 200K miles and preferably
longer. Almost anything will last 100K these days and I'm not even
intested in engines that won't go at least 200K!
You'd also have to put extensive data recorders on each car to find out
the driving conditions each experienced so you could try to normalize
the data.
This would be a great experiment. When do you plan to start it? :-)
Matt