I would agree that my position is very firm and blunt at times. I often will even lead a post with an apology in that regard.
My position as a moderator does not, and shall not provide immunity from our rules. But then again, I typically don't break our rules. As a member, I'm allowed to contribute. And that's what I do. As an analogy, cops are expected to both enforce and follow the laws. My position as a moderator means absolutely nothing in that regard to this thread. I've seen no violation of our RSP, etc. Not on my part; not on anyone's part. So I would ask we move past this topic. If anyone finds me in violation, I encourage them to report the post. If not, then let's leave it alone. I will offer, however, a public appology to anyone who feels intimidated by me; not my intent. I encourage anyone to participate; all I ask is they when you do choose to do so, bring a willing sense to debate. One does not need to agree with me to be important to any conversation here.
I've never claimed to be a tribologist; often admit that chemistry is not my thing. But, I would counter that one does not need to be a chemist nor tribologist to understand how relationships manifest into reality. I often defer to, and have asked advice from, our resident chemistry experts here. BITOG is not supposed to be some social experiment where we congratulate someone for wasting a product because he has a "right" to do so. We should be a group of enthusiasts that challenge each other to find out new things, to root out mythology, to seek and use data in a practical sense. Why is there any reason to post a UOA at all if no one is going to learn from it? What possible good comes from information that is ignored? If I wanted to hear about how great syns were for everything from engines to lubing door hinges, I could enter an unlimited number of car/truck sites where they don't have access to, or even seek out, real information. Rather, they rely on hype and rhetoric. I, personally, want something different; I want something more. I want BITOG to be an experience where truth comes from data rather than hype that is dyed in the pool of ignorance. How many of you have more than 500 light duty UOAs in a database? I do. How many of you understand the differences of micro and macro analysis? I do. I cannot offer experience or expertise in chemistry. But I can offer data analysis and processing. My contributions are based upon my experience as a statistical process quality control engineer. I take UOA data, put it into a glorified Excel program, and run the numbers. I take the data, and break out the sub-sets as desired. One clear mantra becomes true; normal OCIs are just as well served by dinos as syns. There is no "advantage" under these normal conditions. I will not back off of a position that is factually based. This is not opinion; this is data talking in plain form. I have repeatedly challenged anyone to be able to prove me otherwise, and all I ever get is hype and rhetoric linked from marketer's sites; I'm not impressed by that. Interestingly, people often challenge my information, but cannot provide their own, and rely on outside mythology as "proof". I guess I have a higher standard that some others for what "proof" means.
One thing that is very obvious to me, and has opened the eyes to others when they can release their bias, is that a Dmax engine is one of the better (if not best) wearing light-duty diesel engines we've ever seen. I'm not starting a brand-bash here. I have a relative that works at Cummins here in Columbus IN where the 5.9/6.7 is made. I used to work at Ford for many years, as did my father. But I give credit where it's due; the Dmax is probably the leading example of "doesn't matter what oil you use" when it comes to these engines. And this is what I'm trying to point out here in this thread. Dhellman12 used AME for 6k miles. He then stated that was the expected OCI. He switched to OE because of this (even though he denied it later, his own words convict him). My point is that ANY decent qualified HDEO will do a great job here, and there's not going to be any statistically significant wear difference between any of them. Not dino to syn; not Amsoil to RL, or RL to T3, or T3 to RP, or RP to VPB, or ....
The data speaks WAY more than does some marketing hype. We should be using our very own data to make logical, rational decisions.
Do I learn here, and other places? Yes - I've admitted to that as well. And I've been wrong many times before, and will likely be wrong many times again. But when I am wrong, I admit it publically and openly. M37Charlie caught an error of mine not long ago and I didn’t' try to cover it up; I fessed up.
Oddly, I don't see anyone getting upset about my "
non-scientific data" when I praised Amsoil in another active thread by this very same OP (dhellman12) regarding another Dmax vehicle he maintains. No one is questioning my motives there, are they? No one is lashing out at me for being supportive of synthetics in that thread ...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2660111#Post2660111
In that other thread, I am praising the use of synthetics, comment on how excellent the syn (Amsoil) is doing, and encourage the continued use. I talk about how the ROI is often difficult to achieve in small sumps because the cost of premium products and testing is VERY hard to offset; it may neven be achieved. But I didn't let that stop me from recognizing and giving credit for the excellent trends of the Amsoil there, did I?
If my "
non-scientific data" is so corrupt, why is no one challenging me to prove my theory there in that linked thread? Why accept my rationale in that thread, but not here in this one?
I'll tell you why. Because when synthetic junkies get to hear what they like, they are supportive. But when the facts turn against them, they are as vocal as grabbing a piglet by the tail, squealing like all mercy is lost.
I don't have a bias for or against synthetic products (or any premium product for that matter) when used in a manner supported by logical thought and rational conclusions. I personally use synthetic fluids in many of my applications, where the data shows a reasonable ROI and/or external factors dictate the necessity. But I don't use them blindly.
I have seen/commented on excellent UOAs from dinos and synthetics. I have seen/commented on poor UOAs from dinos and synthetics. Heck - I've often challenged people who waste dino oils, just as much as I have when others waste synthetics. I can point towards some dino UOAs where someone changed out a dino in the old "3 month/3k mile" mantra. That is just as much of a waste as dumping syn at 6k miles. But yet, I rarely get challenged in that regard. Where are the synthetic supporters when I criticize a waste of dino oil? Nowhere to be found because they simply don't care; it doesn't interest them.
Synthetics are the sacred cow of the lube world. It stings when they are challenged, and some people run to their defense, even when it does not make sense.
Here is a very good series of UOAs (admittedly not diesel, but still very useful to the concept) where there is a clearly defined, well utilized pattern of UOAs:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...;gonew=1#UNREAD
I want you all to look these over REALLY well. And, follow this storyline as it develops. This is a perfect example that is well controlled, and I predict it will substantiate my claims; dinos are every bit as good as syns in "normal" circumstances. You see, we don't get this very often; we don't see a member here who is dedicated to finding a truth, even when the costs are large. What we most often see is a member who does one of two things:
1) hop-scotch from brand-to-brand or grade-to-grade
2) Only use syn or only use dino, to the exclusion of the other
But here, we are going to be able to watch the storly line develop real time, as a steady diet of syn is compared/contrasted to a steady diet of dino.
Stay tuned!
I have a challenge to lay forth here. Let's have dhellman12 play a little experiment. He's got one UOA with AME here, and presumably another will be forthcoming with OE. Then, why not try a dino 15w-40? I fully admit that one sample each is not "science", but it's as close as we're going to come in this particular vehicle. It would be "better" to run several AME loads, then several OE loads, then several dino loads. But I'll take whatever he'd offer. Dhellman12 already stated that he is not willing to experiment with running a dino oil in this precious vehicle; he's obviously already biased against the contender. But I challenge him to do so. I'll even pay for the load of dino oil in the Dmax. All I ask is that I am included in the decision.
Lastly, Paul, I am going to single you out here, as you directed your comments to me. You and I have gone round and round about this; we don't see eye to eye on everything. I've come to respect you, even though I often don't agree with you. I don't take this personally and I accept you at your word. I accept your criticism with a sense of impartial view; I, as much as anyone, need to be shaken every once in a while so that my perspective stays true. I wish you the very best today has to offer, sincerely.