Originally Posted By: johnnydc
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: buster
This is a great video. One of the best I've seen actually. They showed you more engine parts than other similar studies.
Notice how the used oil analysis to track wear.
It is great, but to people who know, it showed that both lubes in the test worked fine.
To those who don't know, it'll glorify their product. The numbers they're tossing around sound stupendous by using percentages BETWEEN the two, but since they only showed ONE engine from either lube out of the four that were ran, how do we know that Kendell really did any better?
The differences likely wouldn't be so glaring if they set and published a predetermined condemnation point for wear metals and measured percentages against that.
If you look at the rest of the graph, they are considerably closer. If you eliminate that one point in the iron wear graph (the point were they are the farthest apart) and average the rest, I bet you'll find that they're within about 10% of each other, and even less if checked against a preset condemnation point.
Don't most oil companies do this? Not to mention names 'cause some folks get their undies twisted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No doubt they do.
I was just pointing out that it really didn't do that much better than the "competitor" and that they didn't really use that much in the way of "facts". In other words, fluff.
It just further solidifies my view that it's hard to go wrong with an oil, any oil that is approved by the OE manufacturer of the vehicle you own or are working on.
I'd be willing to wager that any approved lube would have done the same or similar in this "test".
