A gold mine on HDEOs and testing IMO.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone who CLAIMS to be a hands-on test engineer.
wink.gif
Always take these things with at least a grain of salt.
 
Interesting reference to a wear/viscosity chart. I would love to see that. Thank you for posting, Craig750
 
Notice the date of that post? Nov. 13, 2004
A lot has changed in the oil business since then. Take it all with several grains of salt.
 
Anybody working in the oil test labs at SWI has exposure to a massive data set of test results. He seems to be an insider.v Some of the Delo development comments were probably violationg his confidentiality agreements.
 
Originally Posted By: BBDartCA
Anybody working in the oil test labs at SWI has exposure to a massive data set of test results. He seems to be an insider.

Something about the style of the post just rubs me the wrong way. I could believe he was a technician who was exaggerating his own importance, but I have a hard time believing he's one of the scientists there.
 
bigbird, would you care to elaborate on that.

I like to build constructively on knowledge, rather than post unsubstantiated conjecture.

Are you referring to:
1) How oil testing is conducted by labs such as the one mentioned.
2) The oils themselves.
3) The additive manufacturers.
4) The additives.
5) The engineers qualifcations.
6) The use of HDEOs in motorcycles as opposed to MC oils.
7) How companies decide on a diesel engine purchase.

Do you have anymore up to date references that can add light to the subject. Specifically ones that show how much of the reference material is not relevant, wrong, superseded etc.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: BBDartCA
Anybody working in the oil test labs at SWI has exposure to a massive data set of test results. He seems to be an insider.

Something about the style of the post just rubs me the wrong way. I could believe he was a technician who was exaggerating his own importance, but I have a hard time believing he's one of the scientists there.


That could be closer to the truth. Be good to get verification on that.
 
I suspect the linked post is legit, but I'm a little uneasy about it.

I worked at a test lab once (not oils) and I would not be comfortable endorsing one tested product over another tested product. At least not in writing.

Honestly, though, if you asked me, "which [insert type of product we tested] is best," my answer would be, "they have different strengths and weaknesses, but all the products we certify are good enough--and no certified products are significantly better than their competitors." It's my guess that's probably true for motor oils too. That's what makes me a little suspicious of the M1 and Delo endorsements in the linked post.

Now we did test some products that failed to meet specs, and some of those were really bad products. These items were on the market anyway (I will say that you could go to Home Depot and buy some of them). For this reason, I do believe that certification is important.

What was interesting in that job was the interactions with the clients (the manufacturers). Some employed very competent people; some didn't. Those memories have stuck with me and do influence my purchasing of the types of products we tested. I wish I could have that insight into the suppliers of everything I buy.
 
The fellow that posts on that forum really does work at SWRI.
He's posted up pictures of blown engines that were disassembled in their lab before...and the administrators of that site know who he is.
 
Sounds like verfication to me.

I think his style might cause some to feel that it is not stereotypical of what might be expected.

But his stories are hard to shoot holes through and there is a lot of it coming from different angles and subject matter. Bit hard to believe it could be from an internet researcher.
 
Last edited:
that thread died 5 years ago.
was GC even born yet?
CJ4 oils?

in the racing forum there is some proof that the once extremely good VR1 has become watered down [censored]. in just the last 3 years.

and yet the data from that forum is 6+ years old.

so the "gold mine" is really not worth the zinc under the copper coating on a penny.
 
Well, I learnt a lot that I didn't see much about on this website.

I had never heard of oil analysis using radioactive tagging. How long ago did you guys post about that on this forum? Has anyone here done that? There are quite of few other insights I have found very useful.

Particularly the one relating to the level of testing on diesel HDEOs compared to PCMOs or MCOs for that matter.

So Sunruh, are you saying your testing and data rivals that of this lab?

Would I be better to rely on an engineers insiders data if it were up to date or Blackstones and others posted here?
 
Originally Posted By: Craig750
Sounds like verfication to me.

I think his style might cause some to feel that it is not stereotypical of what might be expected.

But his stories are hard to shoot holes through and there is a lot of it coming from different angles and subject matter. Bit hard to believe it could be from an internet researcher.

Like I said, the fact that he's an insider and has access to torn down engines and a few tidbits of information could just mean he's a technician of some kind. It doesn't mean he's a chemist or tribologist, which he would have to be in order to be credible on the topics he's talking about.
 
If what he says is true, that would explain Europe not jumping on the 'Thinner is Better' band-wagon.

Thicker oil would leave a heavier protective film - stands to reason. But, thinner oil will pump up faster providing protection sooner on a cold-start - where most of the wear is supposed to occour anyway.

Hard to know which way to go on this one.


Rob
 
Last edited:
I hear what you are saying.

However even if he is a technician, I dare say his access to insider data, assuming it is true, would surpass most of the contributions here.

Why wouldn't that labs data be any better than Sunruh's testing for example.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Scooter_man
If what he says is true, that would explain Europe not jumping on the 'Thinner is Better' band-wagon.

Thicker oil would leave a heavier protective film - stands to reason. But, thinner oil will pump up faster providing protection sooner on a cold-start - where most of the wear is supposed to occour anyway.

Hard to know which way to go on this one.

Rob


Well that is what is often quoted about cold starts, but zinc, moly and other AW additives also protect during startup when there is not much oil circulating.
 
Originally Posted By: Craig750
I hear what you are saying.

However even if he is a technician, I dare say his access to insider data, assuming it is true, would surpass most of the contributions here.

Why wouldn't that labs data be any better than Sunruh's testing for example.



Poorly interpreted good data is rarely any better than bad data.

When it's backed by a "credential" like "SWRI technician," it's arguably worse since people are less likely to look at it critically.
 
Ok, but that is all hypothetical.

What I would like to say is, shoot holes in his data please.

Tell the audience why his data is poorly interpreted and why your data is better.

And if he is only a lowly technician at lowly SWRI would he still qualify to post here or is he below BITOGs standards.

What qualifications would he need to be an expert here?

A few dirt bikes and an account for oil sampling at Blackstone labs?
 
Originally Posted By: Craig750
Ok, but that is all hypothetical.

Until anyone who claims to be an expert proves his or her credentials, what they say is also "all hypothetical."


Originally Posted By: Craig750
What I would like to say is, shoot holes in his data please.

Tell the audience why his data is poorly interpreted and why your data is better.

I never claimed to have any data (where did you get that from?). I didn't say his data was necessarily poorly interpreted. I'm not even specifically disagreeing with anything he said. What I did was to express skepticism of his qualifications and claims. If you don't understand the difference, please let me know and I will explain.


Originally Posted By: Craig750
And if he is only a lowly technician at lowly SWRI would he still qualify to post here or is he below BITOGs standards.

If he is a lowly technician, he is fully qualified to make lowly technician claims. He could talk all day about how the tests are designed, how they are run, the machines they use, etc. -- as long as it doesn't violate the confidentiality agreements that SWRI employees have to sign, which is a whole other story and source of suspicion that I won't get into. On those topics, he would be a darn sight better informed than almost anyone on BITOG. What he would not be qualified to do is to make claims about industry standards, tribology, chemical issues, etc., beyond the basic stuff that he has to know to do his job. That would be out of his area of expertise.

This isn't about a "level" of qualification as you seem to be suggesting. There's no ladder where he is on a higher rung than the rest of us just because he works at SWRI and we don't. This is about whether or not the guy is talking within his realm. If he is a tribologist or a chemist, then I'm sure he can be believed. If not, then he can't. Until we make that determination, we shouldn't be betting either way. It's that simple.


Originally Posted By: Craig750
What qualifications would he need to be an expert here?

A few dirt bikes and an account for oil sampling at Blackstone labs?

Anyone who knows me knows that I've done my fair share of railing on amateur oil experts. Ask anyone with a high post count what I think about Blackstone UOAs, or what happened in the thread about the Mustang cams.
wink.gif


I'm not singling out your Internet expert. My gripe is with standards of evidence and authority in general. I'm not even saying anyone is necessarily wrong, just that we shouldn't believe that they're necessarily right just because they speak well and have a good rep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top