Worst 3 synthetic oils based on testing

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
MacT is actually just the YT manifestation of the typical BITOG attitude towards lubricants.

He cares far more about what is, or isn't, in the bottle than what he really should care about; how does it perform in the crankcase and produce UOA data?

This is not a new conversation, nor a new topic.

My advice is to not worry about what's in the bottle; focus on what comes out of the crankcase.


At least a VOA shows what the starting formulation mix and concentrations are of the oil. UOAs have too many variables associated with them IMO. You could run the same oil in the same engine and drive it really mellow for 5K miles or really hard for 5K miles and probably have a different UOA result. And on the flip side, you cold drive the same car the same way with different oils and also probably have different UOA results. The latter method might give some kind of correlation to how the oil itself and it's specific formulation contributed to the UOA.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
MacT is actually just the YT manifestation of the typical BITOG attitude towards lubricants.

He cares far more about what is, or isn't, in the bottle than what he really should care about; how does it perform in the crankcase and produce UOA data?

This is not a new conversation, nor a new topic.

My advice is to not worry about what's in the bottle; focus on what comes out of the crankcase.





Exactly. We saw this kind of comparison with the old Valvoline sodium oils. Valvoline was trashed for not having any moly yet uoa’s posted were nothing short of stellar.

 

[buster]

Garbage. Ignore it.

 

[Zee09]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
MacT is actually just the YT manifestation of the typical BITOG attitude towards lubricants.

He cares far more about what is, or isn't, in the bottle than what he really should care about; how does it perform in the crankcase and produce UOA data?

This is not a new conversation, nor a new topic.

My advice is to not worry about what's in the bottle; focus on what comes out of the crankcase.


At least a VOA shows what the starting formulation mix and concentrations are of the oil. UOAs have too many variables associated with them IMO. You could run the same oil in the same engine and drive it really mellow for 5K miles or really hard for 5K miles and probably have a different UOA result. And on the flip side, you cold drive the same car the same way with different oils and also probably have different UOA results. The latter method might give some kind of correlation to how the oil itself and it's specific formulation contributed to the UOA.



Good points in your posts. What percentage of people do UOA's I wonder?

 

[SirTanon]

Originally Posted By: Wolfie
No trolling here. Just curious how important these numbers are. Is the ppm of the various additives significant?


The answer to this question could possibly be 'yes'.. but here's the thing - They could very well be significant in ways that are completely different than you think they are. Significant in terms of cost to the formulator? Probably. Significant in terms of molecular mass? Sure. Significant in terms of how well they protect your engine? Who knows, without digging deeper. What you're trying to do here is akin to judging how good a bunch of bowls of chili are going to taste strictly based on the quantity of ingredients going in to them.

Originally Posted By: Wolfie
They vary widely between the brands. So you think it’s not appropriate to rank the oils this way


Yes, they do vary widely, but how do you determine the synergy of the additive pack based on nothing other than a very basic analysis of only some of the elements within it? You can't.

Based on my example above, trying to rank the oils based on nothing more than what you can see from these analyses is like trying to rank chili based on how much onions, tomatoes, green peppers, beans, and beef goes into them. Sure, you'd know which has more of each, but what do those 5 things alone mean in terms of the overall flavor? It says nothing about how fresh those 5 ingredients are, or what spices, herbs, and other 'stuff' goes into them.. nevermind the cooking process itself.

..dang, now I'm hungry.

 

[Gebo]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Wolfie
Thoughts on this?



Yes. Don't consume alcoholic beverages before making UTube videos, and attempt to appear "presentable."


LOL

I have also seen hydrocodone and marijuana illicit the same type of effects. With the intermittent giggles, I would lean towards marijuana.

Nah, me thinks he is just a happy guy....

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
MacT is actually just the YT manifestation of the typical BITOG attitude towards lubricants.

He cares far more about what is, or isn't, in the bottle than what he really should care about; how does it perform in the crankcase and produce UOA data?

This is not a new conversation, nor a new topic.

My advice is to not worry about what's in the bottle; focus on what comes out of the crankcase.





Exactly. We saw this kind of comparison with the old Valvoline sodium oils. Valvoline was trashed for not having any moly yet uoa’s posted were nothing short of stellar.


I couldn't agree more. And now Valvoline and everyone else uses similar add pack since d1G2.

The arguments against it were...
A. Not a good long drain oil
B. Too similarly priced to M1 and PP (now cheaper everyday price at WM)
C. Sodium based means inferior

And NO, I'm not saying any of these oils is better than the next.