Timken Machine Bearing Test

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Lapithes
One thing I noticed is that in the Amsoil video, they never moved the bearing to a new spot, whereas in the BG MOA video they did do this. When in the BG MOA video they moved the bearing to a new spot, the screeching noise was noticeably quieter with the additive than what you heard with oil only. When you watch the Amsoil video, you'll notice that they hold the arm down quite a bit longer than in the BG MOA test. I think it could be argued that Amsoil manipulated this test to their advantage. They need people spending their extra cash on their expensive oil, rather than buying engine oil additives.


Go watch the Amsoil video again. LISTEN to what they say. Of course they varied the time and force. THAT was the point. The rest of what you wrote is pure conjecture and might sound OK to someone who had either no understanding of the subject matter or didn't actually watch or listen to the video. This thread isn't about Amsoil, it's about using an uncontrolled non-standardized test.

 

[Lapithes]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Lapithes
One thing I noticed is that in the Amsoil video, they never moved the bearing to a new spot, whereas in the BG MOA video they did do this. When in the BG MOA video they moved the bearing to a new spot, the screeching noise was noticeably quieter with the additive than what you heard with oil only. When you watch the Amsoil video, you'll notice that they hold the arm down quite a bit longer than in the BG MOA test. I think it could be argued that Amsoil manipulated this test to their advantage. They need people spending their extra cash on their expensive oil, rather than buying engine oil additives.


Go watch the Amsoil video again. LISTEN to what they say. Of course they varied the time and force. THAT was the point. The rest of what you wrote is pure conjecture and might sound OK to someone who had either no understanding of the subject matter or didn't actually watch or listen to the video. This thread isn't about Amsoil, it's about using an uncontrolled non-standardized test.


Your post has to be the most idiotic thus far. Amsoil shill; need we say more? And, I did "LISTEN"...did you fail to read what I wrote? What went over your head was that they manipulated the test to attempt to show that additive companies are manipulating the test. As far as the thread not being about Amsoil -- I'm the one who started it. You get a Darwin award today.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Lapithes
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Lapithes
One thing I noticed is that in the Amsoil video, they never moved the bearing to a new spot, whereas in the BG MOA video they did do this. When in the BG MOA video they moved the bearing to a new spot, the screeching noise was noticeably quieter with the additive than what you heard with oil only. When you watch the Amsoil video, you'll notice that they hold the arm down quite a bit longer than in the BG MOA test. I think it could be argued that Amsoil manipulated this test to their advantage. They need people spending their extra cash on their expensive oil, rather than buying engine oil additives.


Go watch the Amsoil video again. LISTEN to what they say. Of course they varied the time and force. THAT was the point. The rest of what you wrote is pure conjecture and might sound OK to someone who had either no understanding of the subject matter or didn't actually watch or listen to the video. This thread isn't about Amsoil, it's about using an uncontrolled non-standardized test.


Your post has to be the most idiotic thus far. Amsoil shill; need we say more? And, I did "LISTEN"...did you fail to read what I wrote? What went over your head was that they manipulated the test to attempt to show that additive companies are manipulating the test. As far as the thread not being about Amsoil -- I'm the one who started it. You get a Darwin award today.


I guess I touched a nerve there. Calm down big boy. Shill? Sure, calling me a name, that will intimidate me. Over my head? Yeah, I guess you are the one who asked the question. It's like you didn't like the true answer. Darwin award? I'm still living and have already bred!! BUWAHAHAHAAHAA!

But this thread really isn't about Amsoil is it?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Maybe the additive or oil wasn't intended to save fuel but to extend the OCI or impact the UOA in some particular way. Extending the OCI, even by a small percentage, should be valuable to a fleet operator (but probably not to a consumer).

There are plenty of ways to extend an OCI without purchasing additives - both from an effectiveness and cost standpoint. I would find it very difficult to believe that some additive would make Brand X to be equivalent to M1, M1 EP, Amsoil, or any other long drain oil if it weren't in the first place.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Ehhhhh? The reason a fleet is a valuable test mechanism is that most of the extraneous variables do not really matter - they cancel out. If you had a large enough fleet, your results would be near certainty, even in a short test.

They can "cancel" each other out, but this does nothing to reduce the size of the error bars. In fact, it's counterproductive in this regard.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
They need people spending their extra cash on their expensive oil, rather than buying engine oil additives.


Amsoil spends a fortune on oil additives so I don't see your point.

 

[Lapithes]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Amsoil spends a fortune on oil additives so I don't see your point.


Less of the consumer's money spent on an additive means more money available to buy a more expensive oil. It's a very clever marketing scheme...or not that clever in the end.