Originally Posted By: Y_K
Pareidolia and Apophenia cover most of marketing.
Any experience, objective or subjective, with Amsoil, LE or TRC?
Hi,
I would also add logical fallacies, non-sequitur comparisons, selective inclusion/exclusion, straw arguments, anecdotal conclusions, and appeals to authority, emotional attachments, outright deception and good old fashioned political/personal agendas to round out the marketing set.
If by LE you mean Lubrication Engineers and TRC you mean Texas Refinery Corp then yes I have a great deal of experience with those 2 and with Amsoil only from my own personal experience.
(Remember, 99.5% of what I do is totally industrial and Amsoil does not have a large footprint in that arena and TRC is not something I encounter much outside of the Texoma/La. Area.)
Short answer- they are all excellent products and based on my professional experience they will all perform to the highest standards of the class lubricant you choose. (I promote and work with LE the most but that’s not because of the product performance but their overall value add. They have a full service lubrication engineering group that sets up lubrication programs and custom designs solutions for unique needs but that’s really not applicable in the topic of individual car usage)
That’s an objective opinion based on reliable and vetted examinations over a broad range of industries and applications.
Now for the “subjective” opinion (this is lubrication engineering focused but generally accurate for any testing scenario) I hope that some insight into the full spectrum lubrication engineering testing and analysis methods and what to look for may benefit some people and maybe clear up some of the mud and misunderstanding (and how to read what these claims say in light of how they determined it to make your own qualified opinion) regarding product testing and promoting.
The information is scientifically derived from testing but the observations and conclusions are mine and are not meant to be binding or anything else since I have never done a cross study to compare the data.
Qualifier
I use the standards laid out by ASTM, ASM, ISO, API and others as applicable (even when doing custom design of experiments) and go the full spectrum from the DFMEA/ functional testing/NDT/DT so they are not just ad hoc. I self-perform many and others farm out to other firms who conduct the required specialized testing so there are often several different sets of eyes on them. (Often including the affected parties because they want their witnesses present especially when I am the 3rd party called to do an impartial RCFA)
One limiting factor I point out in the testing process is the cost of the testing because that can affect the results and conclusion. Some of these cost BIG money and often times the cost of the damage/sought objective does not justify of high level testing.
(it’s like the difference between the drug store drug test versus a full blown mass spectrometer combined with gas chromatography- BELIEVE me when I tell you that this has been a complete game changer many times. That’s why I always tell people to don’t just look at the pretty report- you BETTER look at ALL the data and tests along with parameters, control points, inclusions and exclusions and a whole lot of other “stuff” otherwise that pretty chart is functionally useless for any meaningful result.)
I point this out because I am a human like everyone else here but have to maintain that professional detachment when I do my job and let the facts speak for themselves otherwise I have no more credibility than a carnival barker.
Baseline Data and “rules of engagement”
This needs to be the first thing anyone does before they even begin to make a product statement. You have to separate the “product” from everything else that adversely affects the product. A lot of people hold the mistaken belief that an oil is some kind of “miracle liquid” that does everything by itself- the truth is that the oil is only 1/3 of the tribology triangle and can easily be overcome by the other 2 and then there are external factors beyond tribology that have an effect as well. If you are the type who doesn’t blame a dog for barking because that’s what they do then it’s equally unfair to praise (or condemn) an oil for failing to deliver desired results when all the forces of physics combined with “human factors” that make it impossible to do what it was designed to do.
In my lingo, if you call the oil the “failure mode” then you need to identify the “failure mechanisms” that created the failure state of the oil to see exactly where the fault lies. Results may be surprising.
1) Even though they contribute to the failure and need to be assessed, I exclude “human factors” from a technical analysis simply because they are beyond the product. If you are a fan of the 100k mile OC it’s really hard to blame the oil for failing. This is why I always start with a system review because many times PM schedules do not meet the service requirements, business decisions (often procurement types who buy on price point rather than application requirements) and plain old arrogant ignorance where they use what they “think” rather than what a machine really needs.
2) OEM/Standard Testing Vs. Field Testing. A lot of people promote that a product meets or exceeds this or that. Everybody wants to claim they are higher on a ladder than everyone else. Even when true, that’s at best pseudo-science and at worst can be the cause of failure itself. All these standards exist to compare a given product to a “universal “laboratory standard. This may or may not be applicable to your individual situation. The reason companies publish this data is caveat emptor and legal protection. If they (the OEM) conduct a test and you (the end user) do not make sure this test is applicable in your application they will come back and tell you that’s not their problem. This is where lubrication application engineering comes in. I have found in many cases that to meet application requirements that I have to spec out a product that scores higher in 1 or 2 specific categories regardless of everything else. (Or go to the vendor and brew a special recipe but that’s beyond the scope of this post because the average car owner does not have this option available)
3) The machine itself- Let me tell you the truth about machine design and manufacturing from one that had done it from the concept all the way through the decommissioning. All mass produced machines are produced to a design standard with a range of acceptability. You can have a machine at the tight end, loose end or all over the place. (I’m talking in terms of fit, bore alignments, dimensions, roundness and everything else) This can create a wear pattern and failure path from day 1 that no oil can prevent. This is why under PAS 55 and the new ISO 55000 standards and the AMI strongly promote equipment management programs that start at the manufacturer that demand strict adherence all the way through the casting, machining, HT/CT processes and final assembly and ending with strict baseline testing (temperature controlled metrology, vibration, run in and so forth) before it will even be considered for purchase. This is the true beginning of the asset lifecycle management process and the baseline for all future cost management because no amount of maintenance, TLC, emu oil or anything else can overcome the dynamic forces of a given machine that is engineered and built to sloppy tolerances. Again, this is well beyond the ability of the average car owner. I’m not going to even touch on up front engineering and design but if that’s wrong the machine is hopeless and beyond the scope of this post.
4) External forces- In the automotive world there are few forces that are not widely known and recognized. Excessive temperatures (hot and cold), particulate contamination (mostly silica from dust and maybe road salts and a few others), intrusion from glycol, solvents/soot from fuel and maybe transmission fluid to name a few are the most common. In industry, any number and concentrations of process particulates, chemicals and temperatures will be encountered. Even when the oil chemistry accounts for them, the ratio of volume of oil vs. the amount of contamination multiplied by time may be more than oil can overcome. (This may be mitigated by a different change protocol) That’s a hard thing to capture measure and correlate to the life expectancy of any oil. Regardless, it’s unfair to blame the oil when it’s simply overwhelmed by these things.
5) Bad Batching- Every manufacturer has made a bad batch of something and QA/QC didn’t catch it before it went out the door. Granted they are responsible for the damage but if that’s a truly isolated incident then it should not be counted against the product proper. (This would not cover or remove liability from the event itself)
Those are the most common things I have seen.
So, when I remove those 5 baselines and look at the oil proper, my subjective opinion is that I can count the number of true “oil failures” I have experienced on both hands with a few fingers remaining. Thus is why I am vendor neutral and am comfortable telling anyone that any quality product (that meets the application) will perform satisfactorily.
When I measure product claims against those baselines, my subjective opinion is that for the most part ( there are a few exceptions) they are all meaningless because if the test criteria doesn’t match the end use application and address the specific data points I need then the test was worthless.
Pareidolia and Apophenia cover most of marketing.
Any experience, objective or subjective, with Amsoil, LE or TRC?
Hi,
I would also add logical fallacies, non-sequitur comparisons, selective inclusion/exclusion, straw arguments, anecdotal conclusions, and appeals to authority, emotional attachments, outright deception and good old fashioned political/personal agendas to round out the marketing set.
If by LE you mean Lubrication Engineers and TRC you mean Texas Refinery Corp then yes I have a great deal of experience with those 2 and with Amsoil only from my own personal experience.
(Remember, 99.5% of what I do is totally industrial and Amsoil does not have a large footprint in that arena and TRC is not something I encounter much outside of the Texoma/La. Area.)
Short answer- they are all excellent products and based on my professional experience they will all perform to the highest standards of the class lubricant you choose. (I promote and work with LE the most but that’s not because of the product performance but their overall value add. They have a full service lubrication engineering group that sets up lubrication programs and custom designs solutions for unique needs but that’s really not applicable in the topic of individual car usage)
That’s an objective opinion based on reliable and vetted examinations over a broad range of industries and applications.
Now for the “subjective” opinion (this is lubrication engineering focused but generally accurate for any testing scenario) I hope that some insight into the full spectrum lubrication engineering testing and analysis methods and what to look for may benefit some people and maybe clear up some of the mud and misunderstanding (and how to read what these claims say in light of how they determined it to make your own qualified opinion) regarding product testing and promoting.
The information is scientifically derived from testing but the observations and conclusions are mine and are not meant to be binding or anything else since I have never done a cross study to compare the data.
Qualifier
I use the standards laid out by ASTM, ASM, ISO, API and others as applicable (even when doing custom design of experiments) and go the full spectrum from the DFMEA/ functional testing/NDT/DT so they are not just ad hoc. I self-perform many and others farm out to other firms who conduct the required specialized testing so there are often several different sets of eyes on them. (Often including the affected parties because they want their witnesses present especially when I am the 3rd party called to do an impartial RCFA)
One limiting factor I point out in the testing process is the cost of the testing because that can affect the results and conclusion. Some of these cost BIG money and often times the cost of the damage/sought objective does not justify of high level testing.
(it’s like the difference between the drug store drug test versus a full blown mass spectrometer combined with gas chromatography- BELIEVE me when I tell you that this has been a complete game changer many times. That’s why I always tell people to don’t just look at the pretty report- you BETTER look at ALL the data and tests along with parameters, control points, inclusions and exclusions and a whole lot of other “stuff” otherwise that pretty chart is functionally useless for any meaningful result.)
I point this out because I am a human like everyone else here but have to maintain that professional detachment when I do my job and let the facts speak for themselves otherwise I have no more credibility than a carnival barker.
Baseline Data and “rules of engagement”
This needs to be the first thing anyone does before they even begin to make a product statement. You have to separate the “product” from everything else that adversely affects the product. A lot of people hold the mistaken belief that an oil is some kind of “miracle liquid” that does everything by itself- the truth is that the oil is only 1/3 of the tribology triangle and can easily be overcome by the other 2 and then there are external factors beyond tribology that have an effect as well. If you are the type who doesn’t blame a dog for barking because that’s what they do then it’s equally unfair to praise (or condemn) an oil for failing to deliver desired results when all the forces of physics combined with “human factors” that make it impossible to do what it was designed to do.
In my lingo, if you call the oil the “failure mode” then you need to identify the “failure mechanisms” that created the failure state of the oil to see exactly where the fault lies. Results may be surprising.
1) Even though they contribute to the failure and need to be assessed, I exclude “human factors” from a technical analysis simply because they are beyond the product. If you are a fan of the 100k mile OC it’s really hard to blame the oil for failing. This is why I always start with a system review because many times PM schedules do not meet the service requirements, business decisions (often procurement types who buy on price point rather than application requirements) and plain old arrogant ignorance where they use what they “think” rather than what a machine really needs.
2) OEM/Standard Testing Vs. Field Testing. A lot of people promote that a product meets or exceeds this or that. Everybody wants to claim they are higher on a ladder than everyone else. Even when true, that’s at best pseudo-science and at worst can be the cause of failure itself. All these standards exist to compare a given product to a “universal “laboratory standard. This may or may not be applicable to your individual situation. The reason companies publish this data is caveat emptor and legal protection. If they (the OEM) conduct a test and you (the end user) do not make sure this test is applicable in your application they will come back and tell you that’s not their problem. This is where lubrication application engineering comes in. I have found in many cases that to meet application requirements that I have to spec out a product that scores higher in 1 or 2 specific categories regardless of everything else. (Or go to the vendor and brew a special recipe but that’s beyond the scope of this post because the average car owner does not have this option available)
3) The machine itself- Let me tell you the truth about machine design and manufacturing from one that had done it from the concept all the way through the decommissioning. All mass produced machines are produced to a design standard with a range of acceptability. You can have a machine at the tight end, loose end or all over the place. (I’m talking in terms of fit, bore alignments, dimensions, roundness and everything else) This can create a wear pattern and failure path from day 1 that no oil can prevent. This is why under PAS 55 and the new ISO 55000 standards and the AMI strongly promote equipment management programs that start at the manufacturer that demand strict adherence all the way through the casting, machining, HT/CT processes and final assembly and ending with strict baseline testing (temperature controlled metrology, vibration, run in and so forth) before it will even be considered for purchase. This is the true beginning of the asset lifecycle management process and the baseline for all future cost management because no amount of maintenance, TLC, emu oil or anything else can overcome the dynamic forces of a given machine that is engineered and built to sloppy tolerances. Again, this is well beyond the ability of the average car owner. I’m not going to even touch on up front engineering and design but if that’s wrong the machine is hopeless and beyond the scope of this post.
4) External forces- In the automotive world there are few forces that are not widely known and recognized. Excessive temperatures (hot and cold), particulate contamination (mostly silica from dust and maybe road salts and a few others), intrusion from glycol, solvents/soot from fuel and maybe transmission fluid to name a few are the most common. In industry, any number and concentrations of process particulates, chemicals and temperatures will be encountered. Even when the oil chemistry accounts for them, the ratio of volume of oil vs. the amount of contamination multiplied by time may be more than oil can overcome. (This may be mitigated by a different change protocol) That’s a hard thing to capture measure and correlate to the life expectancy of any oil. Regardless, it’s unfair to blame the oil when it’s simply overwhelmed by these things.
5) Bad Batching- Every manufacturer has made a bad batch of something and QA/QC didn’t catch it before it went out the door. Granted they are responsible for the damage but if that’s a truly isolated incident then it should not be counted against the product proper. (This would not cover or remove liability from the event itself)
Those are the most common things I have seen.
So, when I remove those 5 baselines and look at the oil proper, my subjective opinion is that I can count the number of true “oil failures” I have experienced on both hands with a few fingers remaining. Thus is why I am vendor neutral and am comfortable telling anyone that any quality product (that meets the application) will perform satisfactorily.
When I measure product claims against those baselines, my subjective opinion is that for the most part ( there are a few exceptions) they are all meaningless because if the test criteria doesn’t match the end use application and address the specific data points I need then the test was worthless.