This. How would the test have worked out with NO snake oils?
Mobil 1 10w40 HM w Lucas HM Oil Stabilizer Fram Ultra Synthetic Filter 1989 Corvette 3280 OCI
- Thread starter Robvette
- Start date
The point about shampoo is legitimate. You can put Head and Shoulders shampoo in that scar rig and get a beautiful result with little to no scar. Try to lather the cam lobes and bearings in it, you'll wipe them out in short order.
Agreed on the point about manipulation. It's practically impossible to get the same load on the bearing every test. He could've run the same oil 2 times and gotten just as much difference. If you're going to do a scar test, at least run a 4-ball. Better yet, run KRL in the 4-ball, see how long the Lucas lasts after that punishment.
Agreed on the point about manipulation. It's practically impossible to get the same load on the bearing every test. He could've run the same oil 2 times and gotten just as much difference. If you're going to do a scar test, at least run a 4-ball. Better yet, run KRL in the 4-ball, see how long the Lucas lasts after that punishment.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 298
This great UOA on a 34 year old car driven 80-110mph for 3 consecutive 1000+ mile days … any reasonable person looking at this data / UOA would say it supports using Lucas.
Fundamentally, scientific process says you need a baseline without Lucas (for comparison) in order to support your statement.
An IC engine driven at constant freeway speeds produces no measurable wear. Most wear is from startup and the expansion of metal parts from their cold to hot shapes. If you’re looking for confidence in Lucas Oil Stabilizer based on this analysis, the numbers are meaningless.
RLI 15w40 has a HTHS of 5.2 cP which exceeds many 50w oils. It’s not only about the cSt, but the VI, HTHS and density as well. That’s how their 15w40 performs one grade higher than it should, This oil also has super low volatility at only 6% and has an HD additive package with over 1000 ppm of ZDDP. There is nothing like it from any manufacturer.
I
It doesn’t support putting worthless garbage goop into your perfectly fine engine.
It’s not a useful data point. You need lots of additional data to determine whether it’s harming or helping or simply doing nothing.
Again, you keep trying. But you have no idea what a used oil analysis shows, and what it does not show. It’s simply is not the tool for saying that some oil mixture is better or worse than another one. Those UOA that you are championing say much more about the engine in than they ever will about the oil.
You’re still miles away and not getting any closer. You’re like somebody shooting in the dark and spraying the room with bullets just to see what you might hit. But in this case you’re not hitting anything. I’m starting to agree with those above that think we are just being trolled. The reason I think that is because you’re not listening to anything being said in this thread and responding to the post. You just keep posting more garbage.
I don’t think he is a troll. How would he have increased the viscosity while decreasing the additive levels? It was added.
He must be a true believer in the product
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
If my buddy hands me his .308 and I put a booger on the bullet and it lands where it is supposed to, did the booger make the gun more accurate? Did the booger reduce bore wear, improve the ballistics and generally make the round better?
Like the rifle and round combo performed as intended, regardless of the presence of the booger, the oil/engine combo performed as intended, despite the presence of the Lucas.
Booger Bill might make all kinds of incredible claims about booger ballistic performance, might even get his name on a stadium for selling folks boogers but at the end of the day, you are buying boogers, even if they come in a fancy container for $20. And that's the reason Booger Bill managed to get his name on that stadium, because folks are impressionable or naive enough to believe the fantastic work of fiction being peddled and when your product costs next to nothing to manufacture and you can sell it for several times the price of a fully formulated engine oil, you get really bloody rich.
I am by far not the sharpest guy here but I know enough to never put a petroleum product with no additives whatsoever into anything I own including my old roto-tiller. Why water down a good oil and make it less effective at doing the job that it was designed to do?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
At least what you have been doing is harmless and free
I have a question. If a voa or uoa mean little if anything regarding additives in an oil because as some have said, these tests don't show everything. Then how can people say Lucas is garbage if an analysis means little regarding what is in fact in said product? I am not a Lucas user but I have seen and been told that an analysis means very little regarding additives then how can it be the opposite when it is a Lucas product?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
A VOA or UOA doesn't show you organic additives, but it shows you metallics. Just because you have certain additives, it doesn't dictate how the product will perform, that's the crux of that claim. An oil with 130ppm of moly can't be claimed to perform more poorly than one with 600ppm of moly for example, because spectrography doesn't differentiate between different types of moly and it's the performance of the whole formulation that matters.
Performance, in a fully formulated lubricant, is the result of the entire formulation, so obsessing over a single ingredient, doesn't enable you to infer how the product is going to perform. This is why certifications and approvals are valuable, as they do indicate that a minimum mandatory level of performance has been met.
Lucas has no additives, it's just bright stock, tackifier and cheap VII polymer. This is why it dilutes the additive package, because it's displacing base oil that's blended with specific levels of additives to meet the intended performance targets.
Does that help?
I know and understand everything said .But,how has it been determined that Lucas had no additives? What tests were done or what information was used to make such determination? I have referenced PDS regarding an oils makeup and was told that it was more or less useless.
There have been several VOA posted here showing the dearth of additives. Lucas is not spending the money for a completely non-metallic additive system, if such a thing even exists. It’s exactly as Overkill has noted, a cheap diluter of formulated oil.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
As noted, we can see what metallic additives are in a product via VOA, and we have had several VOA's of Lucas, and they have no metallic additives (no ZDDP, no moly, no detergents...etc). Which means those additives are being diluted in the fully formulated oil by the addition of Lucas.
Lucas Oil Stabilizer
Has anyone performed a Blackstone analysis on Lucas oil stabilizer? I will get one done with UOA if anyone is interested? Also what id the makeup of LOS??? I know what it does, just no clue what it is.
bobistheoilguy.com
Virgin TBN - 0.1
Visc - 615.3
FP - 435
Calcium - 3
Magnesium - 1
Phosphorus - 4
Zinc - 2
And another VOA, think this one is the "synthetic" version:
Quote from @MolaKule
MolaKule said:
Thanks guys.
Similar threads
