Doktor-Freud

Again, you speak for all and can read minds. Isn't there a time where you check yourself and pull back a bit. The oil debate is over. The demonstration of ignorance is in full swing.

Doktor-Freud

The guy is trying to inject a bit of humor into a thread gone painfully wrong. I'm calling you out as out of line. Please pull it together and recognize that not everyone has to think like you. We are a community here.

Doktor-Freud

Actually my understanding is that XViper is less present not because the lack of technical info but because of the same type of inappropriate, hostile behavior that I am calling you out for.

You are not a martyr for truth here. Amsoil is fine oil. Their marketing and your behavior is less so.

2007 Zx-10

oh, I know, you're at such a higher level

It's an engine test, do you get it? You're so blinded by your own rhetroic and self-illusionary genius that you can't seem to grasp the fact that your little bench tests don't mean much when compared to an real world engine stress tests...ANY IC engine test is going to be more representative of actual stresses the oil is exposed to, compared to the bench scale simulations, that's the most accurate measure of an oil's performance http://www.petro-canada.com.ua/api_sj it just costs too much for little Amway, oops, Amsoil, to be doing it

2007 Zx-10

I didn't post that pic, get your accusations right

slipstream444

The premise of the test contradicts it's validity - on one hand your tribologist says there's no way that one single test can replicate the conditions in all the different types of motors because of the different metals, different types of bearings, cylinder configurations, load geometries, operating RPMs etc - and then states that a SINGLE engine test will. Once again
That is a self-contradictory statement. The test will only be representative of the engine class used, with the metalurgy, load geometries, operating RPMs of the engine in question. It isn't any more reliable at predicting an oil's performance than the tests currently being used - for the precisely the same reason your tribologist refutes the other tests. In fact, the more specific the test you design, the less applicable the results are over a broader range of applications. The test is only more accurate at measuring conditions in the type of engine being tested.

I have done lab work (in college) that was specifically designed to demonstrate the statistical relationship of standardized tests to develop statistical data that reliably predicts results in a much broaded variety of applications. These types of tests are specifically developed to reduce the costs to industry. This is demonstration of the law of diminishing returns (as it applies to product testing).
That is the broader point here - you develop a simple test (or battery of tests) that can be easily and cheaply repeated, that provides statistically valid data that predicts the performance of the product being evaluated.
IOW: you don't have to build an engine that has to be continually rebuilt, broken-in, flushed out and so on, to test the qualities of an oil.
How do you measure the wear in such a system? First you would have to exactly model all the forces at play in your engine. Have thousands of custom components built to very exacting specifications with almost no variability - designing and building an engine that's built to much tighter standards than the industry builds. All those components have to be x-rayed, laser measured, so on and so forth to the n-th degree (which costs TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars to do EVERY TIME you run a new set of tests), then run your tests, tear down that engine, re-measure all the components for wear, then try to develop a wear model theory based on assumed loads demonstrated by the wear patterns, discard the worn components and rebuild the motor to the exact specifications used before - and start all over again. On top of all the extreme costs associated with such a testing system - it would take literally months to test all the oils in question.
Ya - that sounds reasonable.
You and I could not afford to buy motor oil if this was the kind of testing that was required. Would it be more accurate? Only if you use the exact same motor built to the exact specifications used in the test. You can draw exactly the same predictions with remarkably exacting precision using the simple tests being currently used in the industry.
THIS IS WHY THEY USE THEM.
All of the oil companies have teams of tribologists working for them, that have determined the current battery of tests are more than accurate and applicable enough to provide statistically predictive data that applies across a very broad range of applications.

slipstream444

I see the problem here - your reading comprehension is low. Let me help you out: there was no accusation made or implied. An "accusation" would have actually "acused" you of the act. That's how it works. Nowwhere did I say "post a picture of feces, like YOU did before". That would be an accusation - it would include a direct connection with YOU. There was none made.
My implication was simple: you previously reacted to something you didn't like by name calling. Which is what happens when you can't provide a reasonable argument, take the situation out of context, let your ego rule your actions (instead of your mind), loose your sense of humor, and resort to petty attacks. The same was demonstrated by feces boy. He just took it to a much lower lever by finding or taking that nasty picture - which wan't necessary (what kind of creap does that anyway?).
So stop being so sensitive.

2007 Zx-10

Wrong. An engine test is more representative of actual stresses in the engine then ANY bench scale simulation, PERIOD, that's straight from a lubrication engineer/consultant, not an internet pundit who ran a few lab tests in school years ago.

Bingo...why is why Amsoil pushes it in their sales hype.

2007 Zx-10

No, the problem is you're a pompous, condescending ass, that's becoming progressively more clear with every post you make here. I read your indirect accusation just fine, the problem is you had me confused with another member, so just admit you screwed up, instead of talking in circles with yet another long winded post. Your attempts at psych analysis are laughable, who do you think you are? You have issues....

ECale3

Just to interject a point...Industry standard tests don't necessarily make for a better product. That's the same logic as a kid thinking they should be able to smoke cigarettes because "everyone's doing it". Just because it's common practice, or standardized (standardized school testing is a great example) doesn't make it good.

The fuel efficiency standards that toyota manipulated to get the Prius's original mileage estimates of 65mpg were standardized, industry wide tests too. Yet once the car got out into the real world it simple couldn't perform to that level (not even close, after the efficiency revision it's rated at what? 45mpg now?). You didn't see the Honda Civic's rated mileage drop 20mpg after the revision did you?