OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Since you posted this in two threads, I'm posting my response to it here as well.
Just a few points:
Originally Posted By: Capa
I think that it is sad that this thread, along with several others in this vast forum, has been derailed by this witch hunt.
I wouldn't call it a witch hunt. It is simply a call for recognition that you create an unknown when you blend products together without testing the end result in the same way each of the contributing products are tested.
Quote:
Believe it or not, people were mixing oils in this forum way before Caterham joined, in fact people have been doing this for decades with no ill effects. The fact that I can run an oil with sodium and then two OCI's later some sodium shows up even though the previous two oils didn't contain any shows that everyone mixes oils, whether they are for it and against it.
Having trace amounts of a previous product showing up in a UOA is not the same as blending specific quantities of two or more formulated lubricants together in hopes of achieving a superior end-product. A product whose cited superiority rests fully on its VI and no other trait.
Quote:
The fact that even oil manufacturers state that it is ok to mix should be an eye opener to some.
And those same oil manufacturers state that in order to get the full benefits of a given product, it is best to use it by itself. Is that an opposing eye opener or are we going to continue to reach? Nobody is arguing that mixing oils is going to result in catastrophic engine failure. But simply because oils CAN be mixed without noted ill-effect in no way implies that oils SHOULD be mixed in hopes that you'll somehow end up with a product that is somehow greater than the products that were mixed to make it.
Quote:
It wouldn't make any sense for an oil company to make an oil that it's not compatible with other oils. People keep on saying how oils are carefully balanced and yet we have all seen the variance within batches. What about those variances my fellow wannabe chemists?
And we are basing these variances on what, VOA's and UOA's, which we know to be imprecise measuring tools for these sorts of things in the first place? Come on, this is as bad as thinking a UOA is going to tell you the exact rate at which your engine is wearing. They are a tool to measure contamination and oil life, nothing more. They are not a wear divining rod and they aren't meant to provide you with the exact composition of a lubricant either.
And even WITH batch variances, you are dealing with slight changes in the quantity of components that have already been tested to a given standard together. You aren't introducing foreign substances like sodium for example into an oil that didn't have sodium in it, or adding tri-nuclear moly to an oil that doesn't have it...etc.
Quote:
If you have a major problem with mixing oils and then the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Those of us that have mixed oils have provided UOA's, VOA's, and the butt dyno as evidence and you have provided nothing but the theoretical possibility that it may not be feasible even though for decades people have been mixing. Moreover, calling people trolls adds nothing to the discussion.
Quite the opposite dear sir. We have the manufacturer certifications and approvals as well as the data provided by the API and ACEA that shows that a formulated lubricant performs to a given standard. We have MOUNTAINS of this evidence. The fact that you'd cite UOA's, VOA's and the bloody "butt dyno" as proof that you haven't compromised some trait of a properly formulated product is beyond laughable.
Do you think your VOA, UOA and butt dyno replicates the test used by Porsche to obtain their approval? Grueling hours of simulated Nurburgring lapping? How about the Sequence IVA test? Honda's deposit control test? Name ONE OEM, API or ACEA testing protocol that your butt-dyno/VOA/UOA "testing" replicates. There isn't one.
You can mix to your hearts content, I've got nothing against your experimentation. Just don't tell me you've created a better end-product. Because until you actually test it in the manner in which a properly formulated lubricant is tested, you are just peddling unsubstantiated tripe.
Just a few points:
Originally Posted By: Capa
I think that it is sad that this thread, along with several others in this vast forum, has been derailed by this witch hunt.
I wouldn't call it a witch hunt. It is simply a call for recognition that you create an unknown when you blend products together without testing the end result in the same way each of the contributing products are tested.
Quote:
Believe it or not, people were mixing oils in this forum way before Caterham joined, in fact people have been doing this for decades with no ill effects. The fact that I can run an oil with sodium and then two OCI's later some sodium shows up even though the previous two oils didn't contain any shows that everyone mixes oils, whether they are for it and against it.
Having trace amounts of a previous product showing up in a UOA is not the same as blending specific quantities of two or more formulated lubricants together in hopes of achieving a superior end-product. A product whose cited superiority rests fully on its VI and no other trait.
Quote:
The fact that even oil manufacturers state that it is ok to mix should be an eye opener to some.
And those same oil manufacturers state that in order to get the full benefits of a given product, it is best to use it by itself. Is that an opposing eye opener or are we going to continue to reach? Nobody is arguing that mixing oils is going to result in catastrophic engine failure. But simply because oils CAN be mixed without noted ill-effect in no way implies that oils SHOULD be mixed in hopes that you'll somehow end up with a product that is somehow greater than the products that were mixed to make it.
Quote:
It wouldn't make any sense for an oil company to make an oil that it's not compatible with other oils. People keep on saying how oils are carefully balanced and yet we have all seen the variance within batches. What about those variances my fellow wannabe chemists?
And we are basing these variances on what, VOA's and UOA's, which we know to be imprecise measuring tools for these sorts of things in the first place? Come on, this is as bad as thinking a UOA is going to tell you the exact rate at which your engine is wearing. They are a tool to measure contamination and oil life, nothing more. They are not a wear divining rod and they aren't meant to provide you with the exact composition of a lubricant either.
And even WITH batch variances, you are dealing with slight changes in the quantity of components that have already been tested to a given standard together. You aren't introducing foreign substances like sodium for example into an oil that didn't have sodium in it, or adding tri-nuclear moly to an oil that doesn't have it...etc.
Quote:
If you have a major problem with mixing oils and then the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Those of us that have mixed oils have provided UOA's, VOA's, and the butt dyno as evidence and you have provided nothing but the theoretical possibility that it may not be feasible even though for decades people have been mixing. Moreover, calling people trolls adds nothing to the discussion.
Quite the opposite dear sir. We have the manufacturer certifications and approvals as well as the data provided by the API and ACEA that shows that a formulated lubricant performs to a given standard. We have MOUNTAINS of this evidence. The fact that you'd cite UOA's, VOA's and the bloody "butt dyno" as proof that you haven't compromised some trait of a properly formulated product is beyond laughable.
Do you think your VOA, UOA and butt dyno replicates the test used by Porsche to obtain their approval? Grueling hours of simulated Nurburgring lapping? How about the Sequence IVA test? Honda's deposit control test? Name ONE OEM, API or ACEA testing protocol that your butt-dyno/VOA/UOA "testing" replicates. There isn't one.
You can mix to your hearts content, I've got nothing against your experimentation. Just don't tell me you've created a better end-product. Because until you actually test it in the manner in which a properly formulated lubricant is tested, you are just peddling unsubstantiated tripe.
