RP 0w-20 + LG Bio-Tech 10,00 mile OCI '12 Tacoma

[Phishin]

Originally Posted By: kschachn

What I've noticed is that only people that have no data resort to calling the rest of the world "haters".


I don't have any data. Obtaining the data is prohibitive to obtain.

A series of UOA would prove nothing. Really. Even if 25 people on this board did 10 UOA's without Biotech and then 10 with Bio-Tech added to their crankcase, those 500 UOA's couldn't show if Bio-Tech decreased wear, did nothing, or increased wear. Nothing short of having a budget of maybe 5 million dollars could possibly show what effects, if any, Bio-Tech has.

That's where there is "no data". You "haters" seem to think there is "no data" because the "real data" wouldn't show anything, possibly even show negative results. That's simply not the case.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
I don't have any data. Obtaining the data is prohibitive to obtain.

A series of UOA would prove nothing. Really. Even if 25 people on this board did 10 UOA's without Biotech and then 10 with Bio-Tech added to their crankcase, those 500 UOA's couldn't show if Bio-Tech decreased wear, did nothing, or increased wear. Nothing short of having a budget of maybe 5 million dollars could possibly show what effects, if any, Bio-Tech has.

That's where there is "no data". You "haters" seem to think there is "no data" because the "real data" wouldn't show anything, possibly even show negative results. That's simply not the case.


What you write above is absolutely correct.

Why then did you post this:

Originally Posted By: Phishin
I use Lubegard's Bio-Tech in my Honda Accord. I've fairly recently posted a UOA as well:

UOA with Bio-Tech

I had a great report as well. I don't think it's snake oil. Only haters hate this stuff.

 

[kschachn]

So let me ask you this - if they don't do those tests (even if they don't publish the results to the public) then how do they themselves know the product does the things they claim that it does?

Originally Posted By: Phishin
You are a rabid poster, kschachn.

The problem with "standard tests to show efficacy" is that:
1.) They are extremely costly to perform
2.) The test are really just "models" attempting to replicate a real engine, and thus could still be refuted by anyone.

So it comes down to the fact that the makers of any Bio-Tech, and nearly any business that produces goods, have realized that: It's probably not worth the risk to spend so much capital going through the rigors of these "standardized tests". Because in the end, you'll either buy our product (for whatever reason) or you won't. And a set of rigorously produced data isn't going to sway the consumer that already has made up his mind.

Therefore, there is a HUGE investment to be made in an attempt to "win over" a few customers....and the people who write the checks and hold the purse strings, have decided to hold onto their money. Not because they know their product is snake oil, but because there is likely their ROI is negative.

You've already made up your mind that additives are garbage. So, please move on.

 

[Phishin]

I'm guessing they could probably only infer the benefits of products from their own testing and accepted truths (like sliding two steel surfaces will exhibit less friction when moly is present.

 

[demarpaint]

The report looks great, I would continue doing exactly what you're doing. Is it worth changing oil brands to see if you can do better? I think you nailed it.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Fsharp
I can't find a VOA for RP 0w20, but there are a couple on bitog for other viscosities. Here's one for sm 0w-40:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2365769

Calcium, phosphorus, zinc and molybdenum are lower than in my sample which is consistent with me adding the Bio-tech.


Its also comparing a 2011 0w40 VOA to a 2016 0w20 UOA... sorta worse than apples-to-oranges, its more like apples to potatoes. In addition to being polluted by a pour-in additive, its two oils that likely have little in common to start with. Back in '11, that 0w40 probably did have synerlec and would correspond to their "HPS" oils of today rather than their API-approved oils, which is what I believe your 0w20 is. They don't even offer 0w40 in HPS, only in API-approved. They do have a synerlec-containing 5w40 though.


Back in 2011 RP 0w40 did not have synerlec in it.

 

[Fsharp]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
I use Lubegard's Bio-Tech in my Honda Accord. I've fairly recently posted a UOA as well:

UOA with Bio-Tech

I had a great report as well. I don't think it's snake oil. Only haters hate this stuff.


It doesn't seem to hurt. Esters plus soluble moly sounds like a good additive to add if a person decides to add one.

Originally Posted By: deven

Back in 2011 RP 0w40 did not have synerlec in it.


I think RP 0w40 is still SM, too. That 2011 VOA is probably similar to what you would find if you did another today.

Thanks to those saying it looks like a good report. It's been a great little engine and a good truck for me. That OCI included several hundred miles of heavy towing as well.