- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Pablo, sadly, I do believe that many people won't read the graph properly, because they'll focus only on the visuals.
Amsoil's test says PP isn't the greatest?
- Thread starter sdude2k2000
- Start date
- Status
Pablo, not saying that the graph is skewed, but the visual representation does not support the actual data, and is intended to make it seem that there's a large benefit to using Amsoil, rather than stuff all difference.
Yes they told the truth in the scale.
Yes they told the truth in the scale.
The data isnt lying- Its just represented in a way that leads people believe they are decitful.
However, this isnt anything new- nor is it only done by amzoil. Its done by virtually every company to make the consumer believe that their product/service is "that much better"- by relying on "spacial" comparison, rather than numerics.
Case in point- if you took exactly the same data, got rid of the bar graph, and put it numerical format only... you'd see, We're talking fractions of a percent.
And btw, wow, im really impressed with GTX, and trop artic.
However, this isnt anything new- nor is it only done by amzoil. Its done by virtually every company to make the consumer believe that their product/service is "that much better"- by relying on "spacial" comparison, rather than numerics.
Case in point- if you took exactly the same data, got rid of the bar graph, and put it numerical format only... you'd see, We're talking fractions of a percent.
And btw, wow, im really impressed with GTX, and trop artic.
I thought it was interesting how well the syntetic blends did compared to the full synthetics. The Trop Artic blend for $1.50/qt looks like the deal of the bunch. I thought it was interesting that it did better than Motorcraft blend. Maybe they really are different?
The margins are so small testing variances and batch variances can be demonstrated between Troartic and motorcraft. What you are seeing is most these oils are close, within the margine of error. That doesn't matter in marketing. Bigger is always better.
(it's what people want to see)
I agree that they are within the margin of error, but my point was that you don't need to spend a lot of money to get a great oil that can run with the full synthetics.quote:
Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
The margins are so small testing variances and batch variances can be demonstrated between Troartic and motorcraft. What you are seeing is most these oils are close, within the margine of error. That doesn't matter in marketing. Bigger is always better.(it's what people want to see)
This soda isn't coming off, you owe me a new monitor!
What is their standard deviation in their samples? I bet you they are more than 0.18 cP
Some of the tests are good, some aren't so applicable to real world driving conditions. Higher TBN, HT/HS are relevant in some instances etc. Some of the other testing such as the 4 ball wear have shown no value at all.
The only oil Amsoil won't test against, is Redline. They test against other very small/low market share oils like Motul, Maxima but never Redline. I think Redline would fire back much like they did last time.
The only oil Amsoil won't test against, is Redline. They test against other very small/low market share oils like Motul, Maxima but never Redline. I think Redline would fire back much like they did last time.
Actually there was one test against Redline, the 4-ball wear test, the Series 2000 20w-50 vs Redline 20w-50, but it was done back in 1995.
You say that Redline fired back, what did they do to fire back at Amsoil?
You say that Redline fired back, what did they do to fire back at Amsoil?
I think it was a fair test....Seems like more oils are closing the gap to the syns...
Amsoil has a great product..I would love to use it...If all were equal that would be my oil of choice.....But all isn't equal...
I like what I have seen with PP and M1....and have used M1 exclusively as a synth with great results.....but price is getting out of hand..
But out of this test.....You have to be totally impressed with Castrol GTX....I just bought a new truck and I think I have found my oil...A Dino oil....I have been a synth guy for the last 15yrs....
Amsoil has a great product..I would love to use it...If all were equal that would be my oil of choice.....But all isn't equal...
I like what I have seen with PP and M1....and have used M1 exclusively as a synth with great results.....but price is getting out of hand..
But out of this test.....You have to be totally impressed with Castrol GTX....I just bought a new truck and I think I have found my oil...A Dino oil....I have been a synth guy for the last 15yrs....
Great minds think alike...
Gonna try to get my son in the Ole Miss football camp this summer....
[ May 18, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: FordF150 ]
Like a few others, I say dollar for dollar the TropArtic is the clear winner for my money, assuming the test results are accurate, and I have no reason to think they aren't. The only areas it didn't test all that well were related to "severe service" or "cold service" type test, neither of which applies much to me. I'm feeling pretty good about my decision to use good 'ol TA, especially for a Syn Blend @ $1.48/qt that gets very good TBN, TFOUT, HTHS, and Wear Test. I'm not really concerned with the CCV test or pour point where I live, but NOACK is the only one that I wondered about. It said it has to do with high-temperature service, but I don't know if that means "severe" service or something else.
I've no doubt that Amsoil is a superior oil in most ways, but for my applications it's just not worth the premium. Now if I had some sort of high-performance machine or one consistently in severe service, then I'd consider it. But a 2.4L Nissan and a 3.3L Dodge just don't qualify!
Anyway WTG TropArtic!
I've no doubt that Amsoil is a superior oil in most ways, but for my applications it's just not worth the premium. Now if I had some sort of high-performance machine or one consistently in severe service, then I'd consider it. But a 2.4L Nissan and a 3.3L Dodge just don't qualify!
Anyway WTG TropArtic!
That's my point as well, agreed.
Since this test, I havn't seen Amsoil test RL again.
http://kozmik.guelph.on.ca/gtdproject/fluids/Amsoil_S2000.pdf
- Status
