Blackstone ZDDP analysis Off

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point Pablo. Which is one reason why I won't spend money on a report. Part of me would love to try one, but honestly the % of screw ups is very high, and determining engine wear from a report is a complete waste of time and money IMO. I've done well without them.

Still I enjoy reading them and trying to master them. So far the only thing I've really learned from them is many are flat out wrong, and depending on which is the favorite oil of the month the interpretation of the reports can vary. I also doubt they re-run them to make corrections, there's no money in it. I would also be certain if I did a report I would not use a lab owned by an oil company, that would eliminate possible bias.
 
I don't use Blackstone personally, but in their defense, isn't trending analysis what's most important when it comes to these $20 UOAs? I don't see how consistently slightly reduced ad pack levels can do much harm when it comes to the big picture.

Also, they only compared Blackstone results against one other lab, which I'm guessing they're affiliated with. That only proves that the two labs are different and does not really prove which one is correct (probably neither). It'd be more credible if they sent samples to 5-10 different labs for comparison.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I don't use Blackstone personally, but in their defense, isn't trending analysis what's most important when it comes to these $20 UOAs? I don't see how consistently slightly reduced ad pack levels can do much harm when it comes to the big picture.

Also, they only compared Blackstone results against one other lab, which I'm guessing they're affiliated with. That only proves that the two labs are different and does not really prove which one is correct (probably neither). It'd be more credible if they sent samples to 5-10 different labs for comparison.


Trending is the important thing. However, people do compare add packs and make decisions based on this, right or wrong.

Accuracy is important. What if the lab runs on the low side, makes some adjustment - now they run on the high side, or even in the middle. What the heck good is that?

SW labs is an accredited lab that most everyone (including Amsoil) uses when they want independent verification. Smart for Brad Penn to choose them. They are an accredited lab. Probably many here should learn what that means. If you send the sample to "5-10 different labs" that are not accredited, it would be futile - the results would be a loosely spread pattern. If you send it to accredited labs, there would be a fairly tight pattern with accountable standard error, and a mean and sd that actually would be useful.
 
OK, then send it to 5-10 accredited labs.

My point was that you should not just put your faith in the hands of a single lab (accredited or not) when trying to prove another lab wrong.

M1 5w-30 was API-accredited supposedly...
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
What is the ~cost for an analysis from an "accredited lab"? Thanks


I think Polaris via OAI (Amsoil) is actually less and includes TBN.

My purpose is not to rag on Blackstone and I'm certainly NOT saying accredited labs don't make mistakes - they all have humans, last I checked.
 
I don't see this as ragging on anyone. I think it all comes down to who makes less mistakes. Data is useless if it is loaded with mistakes, or if someone is doubting the accuracy due to prior history. JMO
 
No one is ragging on anyone. It is logical that an accredited lab will show more consistent numbers that tend to be more accurate. If I were to do a UOA this is the route that I would personally take.
 
demar, it still tells you if you have coolant in your oil, hard to beat for 25 dollars, and could save your motor. Only reason I recently sent a sample to [censored].
 
Originally Posted By: defektes
demar, it still tells you if you have coolant in your oil, hard to beat for 25 dollars, and could save your motor. Only reason I recently sent a sample to [censored].


I agree, however I question the accuracy. If you look through UOA reports there are lots of screw ups. If I ever ran one I'd probably look for a lab with a history here that has less botched up reports that's all. If an accredited lab is more accurate I'd spend my money there. Again, JMO
 
It really shouldn't be a shocker we all know for a long time Blackstones reports are probably off it's been proven before here over the years and should be used as a guide not as the gospel,senior members know this.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
It really shouldn't be a shocker we all know for a long time Blackstones reports are probably off it's been proven before here over the years and should be used as a guide not as the gospel,senior members know this.



I understand all that. But if the report is flawed, or flat out wrong, what good is the data? Even as a guide if the data is wrong it is useless. I'm not trying to toss stones into a still pond, just trying to make sense of it.

I realize it can even happen with blood work too. Imagine the poor guy that goes for blood work and is told he's diabetic, goes on a diet for 6 months and later comes to find the blood work was for someone else. That other person is told he's healthy, and later finds out he's diabetic. That 6 months could have cost him a leg. Or both parties get second opinions, and the lab was wrong, now a third opinion. Maybe this is a bad example I'm just using it to make a point. All I'm saying is go with the lab with the best track record. They can make mistakes too, but less often. JMO

For a $25 report I don't see much time or effort going into it.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

I understand all that. But if the report is flawed, or flat out wrong, what good is the data? Even as a guide if the data is wrong it is useless. I'm not trying to toss stones into a still pond, just trying to make sense of it.

Right i understand and agree you gota take it with a grain of salt i guess or stop doing the test! and just rely upon the products quality like i do,i don't do UOA's why because i can get a allot of oil for the $$.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

I understand all that. But if the report is flawed, or flat out wrong, what good is the data? Even as a guide if the data is wrong it is useless. I'm not trying to toss stones into a still pond, just trying to make sense of it.

Right i understand and agree you gota take it with a grain of salt i guess or stop doing the test! and just rely upon the products quality like i do,i don't do UOA's why because i can get a allot of oil for the $$.


We are on the exact same page my friend. Maybe one day though I'll get one.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

I understand all that. But if the report is flawed, or flat out wrong, what good is the data? Even as a guide if the data is wrong it is useless. I'm not trying to toss stones into a still pond, just trying to make sense of it.

Right i understand and agree you gota take it with a grain of salt i guess or stop doing the test! and just rely upon the products quality like i do,i don't do UOA's why because i can get a allot of oil for the $$.


We are on the exact same page my friend. Maybe one day though I'll get one.

I really want to also someday...lol
 
It's more a matter of range calibrations ..or so I imagine. When additives get above a certain level, B-S just doesn't see them. Anyone who has worked in instrumentation and knowing what span and range are can relate.

People tend to get SM levels with SM oils, do they not? SL too.

Otherwise, B-S reads just fine. Out of 5 labs, 4 of them paired into 2 parallel sets of readings. They used the same protocols and processes.

Now any single reading can be off or the limits of their calibrations can be exceeded.

Everyone really needs to check why they're reacting to something as much as what they're reacting to. Many seem to really like to find flaws in stuff and well beyond "oh, did you notice?" and spur some further investigation ..and rather turn it into some McCarthyesque indictment of some (would be) being "unclean and soiled" for life type deal.

We really are odd creatures.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


Everyone really needs to check why they're reacting to something as much as what they're reacting to. Many seem to really like to find flaws in stuff and well beyond "oh, did you notice?" and spur some further investigation ..and rather turn it into some McCarthyesque indictment of some (would be) being "unclean and soiled" for life type deal.

We really are odd creatures.


We are human. We must have it pretty good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top