Nope.
You rely on mythology and rhetoric.
As typical of most BITOGers, you think if something is good, then more of it must, without question, be "better". Thicker is better. More lube is better. Etc ...
Well, if that is true, using your mantra, then more must always be better. Why not run a 10w-60? Why not a PAG or GTL? Why not run the TCW3 at 25:1? If your "common sense" is that more is always better, then more of more must be better than better, right? And you focus on inputs, rather than results. Inputs are only predictors; results are the truth about what actually happens. I'll take UOA data over the hype on a bottle or website any day.
I was asking if you have established any basis in UOA wear-rates for your previous plan; clearly you have not or you'd have posted them by now. I was asking if you are going to compare/contrast actual results relative to macro market data; obviously you have no intention of doing that, either. In short, you have no studies to point to that back up your "common sense", nor do you have any plans to develop data that would support your position.
There's nothing wrong with what you want to do with your vehicle; no one is going to take that away from you. You have the right to do as you see fit with your money and assets.
But you are mistaken if you think your "common sense" is anything but the common application of the "more is better" mentality, with no proof.
In a non-binding, unofficial lubricity effort at a Diesel website, there was an experiment done on the lubricity of several choices of fuel conditioners. TCW3 was tried, and it showed only a moderate improvement in the HFRR rig. HOWEVER ...
a) it was run at 200:1; not the 640:1 you are doing (you are more than three times thinner)
b) it was run with diesel fuel, not gasoline, so the relevancy of translation must be questioned
c) there is no study data I know of that exhibits HFRR data translates directly into a correlation in wear data in injectors; it is an implication and is not proven, however if someone knows of an SAE study that would support this, I'd be all ears, but at this point I know of no study whatsoever showing how TCW3 affects gasoline fuel injector wear, pro or con.
d) none of this addresses the potential long-term effects of the TCW3 on emissions equipment; saving your engine and trashing your cats may not be as fiscally sound as you first think. Again, no study I am aware of exists.
Additionally, I believe it was in the 1960s that Yamaha proved that the "best" ratio of two-stroke lube was 25:1, however that was in two-stroke twin cylinder racing applications and it was strictly looking to the goal of power production; all other aspects such as cost, smoke, etc were ignored. They discovered that such a rich lube ratio sealed the rings best; more or less lube degraded the power production. So if your "more is better" philosophy is really to be believed, then you should at least be adding a lot more oil to the gas you use. However, it should be noted that your four-stroke engine, with modern fuel injection and O2 sensors and Cat converters may not react favorably to such a rich ratio. But hey, "common sense" states more is better, right? Maybe you can make back some of the lost power when using the 40 grade, by dumping in more TCW3 to seal up the ring pack like Yamaha did ....
And just so I don't, too, fall into the "blame, bash and run" camp, I'll be specific here.
You can do this a bit backwards; you can base after the fact.
- run your little experiment as eximplified at this moment; use the Delvac 1 and TCW3 for your planned OCI. Run some UOAs perhaps at 5k and 10k miles. Use any brand/grade filter you choose.
- next season go back to the "cheapest API" (from your signature), drop the TCW3, and again run 5k and 10k mile UOAs. Use the same replacement brand/grade filter.
- try to keep as many variable as minor as possible (idle time, typical trips, etc)
- finally, compare/contrast your data to macro market data
If your common sense plan is superior, then you should be able to demonstrably show a shift outside of statistically significant norms. This is what I mean when I say "prove" something, not blabber about it. Either show SAE studies that meaningfully support your position, or prove it via testing at home that all can see. I often do both.
I will offer this ...
You run your "more is better" plan, and submit your UOAs to Blackstone. I'll contact Ryan and work with him to get the data published; that way both you, I and all will see the true data. Then when you run your less-expensive products, do the same.
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. If your plan is statistically significant in that it provides performance outside "normal" wear-data responses, I'll pay Blackstone and they can refund your money for the UOAs. If not, all you have to do is enjoy the revelation that more is not always better, and that "common sense" is often not what it seems.
Up for the challenge?
