In about a million posts on this site, it is you doing the flapping. You pose as one with knowledge but your contributions here are actually quite meager in my opinion.
2017 Camry V6 | Valvoline 0w-20 | 77,200mi | 5000mi
- Thread starter VTECOverRated
- Start date
- Status
These are such amazingly slow wearing engines. We have one in our family fleet. Toyota consistently (and refreshingly) engineers with significant margin in my opinion.
What I wrote was exactly and technically correct, compared to the political and technically irrelevant comments about brand.
Lots of imagination on this board about what a $30 spectrographic analysis indicates.
Lots of imagination on this board about what a $30 spectrographic analysis indicates.
What you say over and over again, can be disputed with the very reports on this board. There is evidence in all these multiple thousands of reports that a $30 spectrographic analysis has value in the very things you state it doesn’t. For someone here as long as you have been, I am surprised you have not tempered your view. What you say can be true much ( maybe not even “much” but I will be magnanimous) of the time, but not all of the time. So no, you are not technically correct in what you state continually. But you state it as fact continually. Therefore you are in error.
Which SAE or ASTM or ISO test uses a cheap and uncontrolled spectrographic analysis to determine comparative wear between motor oil brands?
Has Bitog hit upon an undiscovered but valid analysis method? Someone should inform ACEA and SAE that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Has Bitog hit upon an undiscovered but valid analysis method? Someone should inform ACEA and SAE that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2023
- Messages
- 981
There are two ways to read what was said:
Interpretation #2 is less accurate and arguably a bit misguided but not absolutely incorrect, depending on how you define “excellent.” If that word means “just as capable as any other GF6A oil” then fine. One would indeed expect unremarkable UOA results with any “excellent” oil.
I see no reason to jump down anyone’s throat here.
- Unremarkable oil analysis. Valvoline excellent. (Separate thoughts)
- Unremarkable oil analysis, therefore Valvoline excellent.
Interpretation #2 is less accurate and arguably a bit misguided but not absolutely incorrect, depending on how you define “excellent.” If that word means “just as capable as any other GF6A oil” then fine. One would indeed expect unremarkable UOA results with any “excellent” oil.
I see no reason to jump down anyone’s throat here.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
3. Good motor with a good oil ?
Valvoline acceptable. After all, Blackstone themselves have stated that there is no statistically significant difference in UOA between any oil they have tested.
A really bad oil may produce a bad UOA but that’s as far as it goes. One expects unremarkable UOA from any oil that isn’t deficient since as I noted earlier its about the engine and the operating conditions, not the oil. You still can’t ascertain that Valvoline “excellent” via an uncontrolled $30 UOA.
A really bad oil may produce a bad UOA but that’s as far as it goes. One expects unremarkable UOA from any oil that isn’t deficient since as I noted earlier its about the engine and the operating conditions, not the oil. You still can’t ascertain that Valvoline “excellent” via an uncontrolled $30 UOA.
I thought you’d hide behind something like that. Look around… Maybe you’ll learn something new.
And I thought you may respond like that as well. After all you also have indicated that you believe the self-same $30 spectrographic analysis is an alternative means of verifying compliance with a manufacturer approval.
You of course never provide any technical justification but rather are content to disparage other posters that point out your flawed logic.
No, that’s not what I’m saying, don’t put words in my mouth. You know I’m right about what I said about your work product here, so now you are trying to divert. I consider you a poseur.
Yes that’s correct I forgot you were also including inapplicable wear scar “testing” in that analysis and conclusion of yours.
Spectrographic data and wear scar… yes that will do it.
Talk about poseur.
I am not the one posing as an expert, posting in so many threads about spectrographic analysis. I don’t pretend to be an expert. But you do. Like I said, take a look around, you might learn something. You likely won’t, because you are not here to learn anything.You have other reasons for being here.
- Status
Similar threads
