Fascinating study on Ravenol 0w16 vs 5w30 in fleet of similar autos

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Further with XOM's deep pockets they would have sued the pants off SOPUS if the claim wasn't true by forcing them to provide proof for all pistons involved in the test to provide proof they cherry picked. Why hasn't that happened?

Shoot they sued Castrol over Group III being marketed as synthetic. wink


Note the "up to" in Shell's verbiage, that's key. It allows for the variability as shown in the Mobil pistons.

Furthermore, Shell and Mobil both co-own Infineum, their relationship isn't as simple as one is just going to sue the other over advertising.

And Mobil didn't sue Castrol, they took them to the BBB, who shot down the claim. They haven't gone after anybody since that I'm aware of. Advertising is advertising, Mobil has, historically, kept theirs a little more high-brow than their competition and they don't tend to name their competitors. It's a nice trait, but as can be shown from the contrast example, they are certainly wiling to tweak their advertising material to paint their own results in a more favourable light.

 

[StevieC]

So why is that ok for XOM to do (tweak materials) but not ok for SOPUS to do if they in fact did cherry pick the piston?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
So why is that ok for XOM to do (tweak materials) but not ok for SOPUS to do if they in fact did cherry pick the piston?

Both aren't OK, as I noted in my previous post. My point is that this is the reality of advertising, nobody is going to publish something that paints their product as inferior, it is always done with the intention of making their product look the best. If that involves using dimensionless graphs (Ravenol), using contrast tricks (Mobil) or cherry picking samples (Shell) it's all the same game and they'll all get slagged for it if somebody comes on here and presents it as fact.

 

[StevieC]

Where are the lawsuits suing them for not living up to their claims either between competitors or from end users? (There isn't)

So then we can't assume the claims aren't true unless this unbiased proof exists either by way of lawsuit (because the lawyers found it) or scientific testing methods proving it.

We can only take a best guess as to which will work best for us for any one out there making claims that aren't refuted by testing or lawsuits and can't deny to anyone else that oil "A" or "B" is better than one another until such time proof exists showing one oil is worse than the other.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Where are the lawsuits suing them for not living up to their claims either between competitors or from end users? (There isn't)

So then we can't assume the claims aren't true. We can only take a best guess as to which will work best for us and can't dismiss others until then.

There won't be lawsuits. Again, these claims are carefully made with caveats like "up to" as qualifiers so that they don't court legal action. Marketing is a game, if you treat it as such, then it all makes sense. It is when somebody takes it as gosphel and then peddles it on here as fact that things get a bit nasty.

 

[StevieC]

Ok but you are missing my point as well though... So then without some sort of confirmation either lawsuit or scientific testing and not just marketing how can you claim superiority of one oil over another We can't, we can only "assume". That's my point.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
We can only take a best guess as to which will work best for us for any one out there making claims that aren't refuted by testing or lawsuits and can't deny to anyone else that oil "A" or "B" is better than one another until such time proof exists.

If it meets the requirements for the application, then it is a safe conclusion that it will perform acceptably for the life of the equipment. If one wants to shop for "superior" performance, then going for a hard to obtain Euro spec like Porsche A40 is likely to get you a better lubricant. That does NOT however mean that it is going to provide a benefit in your application that calls for API SN.

Applications are not equally demanding. Running Honda 0w-8 in a 911 Turbo probably isn't a good idea, but then neither is running Bullseye 20w-50 non-API garbage. As Doug Hillary stated years ago: "All approved lubricants should provide identical performance in their intended application". That's the whole point of the approval process.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Ok but you are missing my point as well though... So then without some sort of confirmation either lawsuit or scientific testing and not just marketing how can you claim superiority of one oil over another We can't, we can only "assume". That's my point.


It is the point of marketing to claim. That's how you sell product.

If you want the "best" oil, generally, choosing the one with the most OEM approvals, is the closest you are going to get. That's why the 0w-40's get so much love, as they tend to be the most approved.

 

[StevieC]

But you are wrong there... Just because they don't carry official approvals from OEM's doesn't mean the product is not capable. That again is an assumption. It is that assumption that forced Amsoil to license their Euro oils so that they could sell them because folks get caught up in the assumptions meaning it can't live up to the needs. The formulation didn't change for so it could be approved, it already met the spec just not on paper officially.

This is what I mean. Folks can't run around on assumptions. They can only run around with facts.

Shannow running around making off the cuff remarks and "assuming" Amsoil is making stuff up and using shady marketing when I provided proof that I have that they aren't doing so both real world experiences with my Santa Fe and my UOA's from the Journey and their ASTM testing methods called out all over their literature and a 40 year track record without lawsuits, we are just supposed to accept that he is correct and I'm the one that is wrong? Yet they carry approvals on their Euro Oils and their API licensed line of oils which shows they are more than capable or meeting requirements set out by OE's and the API.

That is an assumption not grounded with proof to back it up and that is nonsense. It's no different than assuming SOPUS cherry picked and is hiding something. We don't have facts, we only have assumption. Maybe all the pistons came out more or less the same as the ones in the photo from XOM look like with little variation between them so they only showed one of them because they all looked pretty much the same.

Anyway, I'm going to end here. I need to go make dinner. LOL

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
But you are wrong there... Just because they don't carry official approvals from OEM's doesn't mean the product is not capable.


But it doesn't mean it does either, ergo, I'm not wrong. It's an entirely safe position to judge an oil based on the approvals it DOES have rather than hope that the claims of a blender, where there are no formal approvals to validate these claims, are sufficient. In one case you are basing your position on proven performance as the results of actual testing. In the other, you are relying on a blender, who didn't seek that approval, telling you that the product "should be good" for that application.

Can the blenders claims be true? Certainly, and I'm not saying that isn't the case. What my statement said was that generally, choosing the oil with the most approvals is the closest you are going to get to obtaining the "best" oil, and this is based on actual test data that validates performance. Since it isn't practical for Average Joe to run tear-down testing he can either rely on a blender's claims or the test data from the OEM's that prove that oils A, B, C and D are all capable of passing their testing protocols.

Originally Posted by StevieC
That again is an assumption. It is that assumption that forced Amsoil to license their Euro oils so that they could sell them because folks get caught up in the assumptions meaning it can't live up to the needs. The formulation didn't change for so it could be approved, it already met the spec just not on paper officially.


It did? AMSOIL blended a number of "new" oils for the Euro market (full-SAPS, mid-SAPS, low-SAPS) that carried the various approvals, and that aided them in Euro sales. It also demonstrated that they were capable of blending an approved product, but then using additive packages from Lubrizol that are likely "ready to go" for those applications certainly helps I'm sure.

That in no way means that SS 0w-40 for example could pass Porsche A40. Maybe it could! But one cannot simply assume it does because they make another product that carries it.

Originally Posted by StevieC
This is what I mean. Folks can't run around on assumptions. They can only run around with facts.


OK, but we've diverged significantly from the context of Ravenol's advertising here at this juncture which I believe we can both agree, is designed to sell product not demonstrate that 0w-16 is suitable, and a superior lubricant, for applications that call for C3.

Originally Posted by StevieC
Shannow running around "assuming" Amsoil is making stuff up and using shady marketing when I provided proof that I have that they aren't doing so both real world experiences with my Santa Fe and my UOA's from the Journey and their ASTM testing methods called out all over their literature and a 40 year track record without lawsuits, we are just supposed to accept that he is correct and I'm the one that is wrong? Yet they carry approvals on their Euro Oils and their API licensed line of oils which shows they are more than capable or meeting requirements set out by OE's and the API.


I'm not wading into the exchange between you and Shannow, that's your business. He's a man of facts and doesn't have much tolerance for advertising fluff. He also isn't one to abandon a discussion that isn't going well, so keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by StevieC
That is an assumption not grounded with proof to back it up and that is nonsense. It's no different than assuming SOPUS cherry picked and is hiding something. We don't have facts, we only have assumption. Maybe all the pistons came out more or less the same as the ones in the photo from XOM look like with little variation between them.

Anyway, I'm going to end here. I need to go make dinner. LOL

Nobody claimed SOPUS was hiding anything. They specifically chose the two pistons they did to paint their product in the best light possible and covered their posteriors by using the "up to" verbiage. Look at the six Mobil pistons. You can easily see that the Shell picture could be replicated using pistons all from that one group. There's enough variability between pistons (as shown in both groups of 6) in this test that, if you are only using single examples (Cherry Picking), that Mobil could likely make the exact same ad, provide the same caveat, and be on equally solid ground. It's an advertising fluff piece and that's how it relates to the OP here.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by Bjornviken
I have heard similar about Ravenol, someting about big quality difference. Funny is that Finland have alot off weird oil brands but havent seen any Ravenol at store.

They are definitely working at improving their image and create public awareness, and are spending a great deal of money to do so. Around next March, we'll see how genuine the commitment is, at least from a financial perspective.

 

[StevieC]

Garak, would be great if we could get some here to try. Stupid labeling laws (by you know who) are currently preventing this according to them when I e-mailed them.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
But whatever... It's not worth arguing with you over because it will just end up in circles like every other thread. Live in your narrow minded "there can't possibly be better out there" world.


See, this is your always go to tactic...making a statement that's not what I said, and using it to close down further discussion.

There's plenty of good/better...look around the board, I have sung the praises of this oil, and stated that I would use it over a typical Japanese 0W20 in a heart beat.

How do you reconcile THAT with the statements that you attribute to me ?

(you won't even respond, I'm sure).

My problem is advertorials that look to the average Joe to be sience….it works. You are clearly not of scientific bent, and soak up the advertising just like they want you to.

Go back and look at the Amsoil thread...the one that you stated that you would not even READ my response.

Why not ?

What have you got to lose in becoming more educated in a topic that you are CLEARLY passionate about...passionate enough to start throwing bait into every thread that meets your need for conformational bias.

If Ravenol had done their back to back with their OWN 5W30 C3 (I linked to the data sheet), which appears to have nearly no VII...AND they described how they measured the wear comparison, and gave numbers and scales to their charts, I would give this "study" more credence. But the facts that they are showing are mearly "whiter than white" washing powder adverts.

Yes, they beat the standard SAE tests handsomely...so does everyone else.

You can't argue (well you can, you do, and you are doing) that the failure to prove that a product is lesser automatically implies that it is "better" I can state with almost absolute certainly that this oil is not used to lubricate the gimbal mechanisms on the Hubble telescope...but in your world, as I can't prove it's not, then it could well be the oil used on said gimbal.

You won't accept papers, facts, and charts, as they are "scary" to the uneducated...but will suck up adverts ?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Garak, would be great if we could get some here to try. Stupid labeling laws (by you know who) are currently preventing this according to them when I e-mailed them.

Have a bit of patience and hope for some good luck. I suspect we may see it before long, assuming everything stays on the rails. Ravenol is to be the lubricant formulator for whatever Racing Point Force India F1 will call itself next year; at least they signed up for that when it was still Force India. Lawrence Stroll, a Canadian, led the consortium to buy Force India. With at least two major Canadian investors and a Canadian driver, it wouldn't hurt to actually have some of that sponsorship have meaning to Canadians.

 

[StevieC]

I'd give it a try if it were available.

 

[Bjornviken]

Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Bjornviken
I have heard similar about Ravenol, someting about big quality difference. Funny is that Finland have alot off weird oil brands but havent seen any Ravenol at store.

They are definitely working at improving their image and create public awareness, and are spending a great deal of money to do so. Around next March, we'll see how genuine the commitment is, at least from a financial perspective.


I hope so. Would be nice to see their products in store over here.

 

[KrisZ]

It's threads like this, taking nothing more than marketing claims, smoke and mirror shows maskaraded as studies or tests, and treating it all as viable parameters for comparing oils and their performance, is what keeps a lot of knowledgeable folks from posting.

What's even worse, is the vigor of the defenders. And that's the only description of some of the posters I can come up with. They're the equivalent of SJWs, but for the corporations and their products.
That would explain why they treat any form of attempt at discussing the questionable marketing or tests these corps. put out as an automatic attack of the product.

I fully understand someone having a great service from a product, I'm pretty sure we've all been there in one form or another, but the automatic defence mode some posters go into, no matter the information presented, is a big concern for me.

 

[StevieC]

There is a bunch of folks that think M1 can't stand up to 20,000 miles in service when M1 proved it can. This is still not good enough for some folks and they will look for every reason to keep discrediting it despite proof that exists.
So much so they started a campaign showing real world use in a vehicle, but I'm sure they will throw their hands up to this as well because of personal bias.

There is also those that believed it well before they had the videos showing the testing they did, the engine tear downs, and the campaign to further prove their product.

Further to that you have a moderator here that ran on regular Supertech for 15K miles and the UOA showed no increased wear to that point and folks throw their hands up at that as well. Even though it was 5 times what the manufacturer called for in terms of OCI.

That's the real problem. You can never make everyone happy. Even if they did provide everything one was looking for.
But to take ones word as the be all / end-all over another is ridiculous without some sort of proof. No reputable company is going to make a claim that is unsubstantiated especially in today's sue happy culture.

Where is the proof that this oil doesn't perform as they claim, where it the proof they have a history of lying and cheating?
And then to attempt to beat down other folks because they have a differing opinion is wrong especially when those folks have no proof backing it up, just their "I know better so listen to me" attitude.

That's was my point.



(Not aimed at you KrisZ, but touching on some of your points is all).

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by StevieC
There is a bunch of folks that think M1 can't stand up to 20,000 miles in service when M1 proved it can. This is still not good enough for some folks and they will look for every reason to keep discrediting it despite proof that exists.
So much so they started a campaign showing real world use in a vehicle, but I'm sure they will throw their hands up to this as well because of personal bias.

There is also those that believed it well before they had the videos showing the testing they did, the engine tear downs, and the campaign to further prove their product.

Further to that you have a moderator here that ran on regular Supertech for 15K miles and the UOA showed no increased wear to that point and folks throw their hands up at that as well. Even though it was 5 times what the manufacturer called for in terms of OCI.

That's the real problem. You can never make everyone happy. Even if they did provide everything one was looking for.
But to take ones word as the be all / end-all over another is ridiculous without some sort of proof. No reputable company is going to make a claim that is unsubstantiated especially in today's sue happy culture.

Where is the proof that this oil doesn't perform as they claim, where it the proof they have a history of lying and cheating?
And then to attempt to beat down other folks because they have a differing opinion is wrong especially when those folks have no proof backing it up, just their "I know better so listen to me" attitude.

That's was my point.



(Not aimed at you KrisZ, but touching on some of your points is all).



Well some folks will change AP at 10K because it's cheap insurance and they don't feel like pushing a oil with a 20K recommended OCI further then half the recommendation.

 

[KrisZ]

The 20k mile Mobil test proves that the oil can do that OCI under specific circumstances, that is all. However that test has little relevance to how most vehicles are operated. Is it better than nothing, sure, but it should not be taken as proof that an avrrage commuter can now do 20k OCIs.

By the way, my current fill is an M1 that I'm close to completing a 15k kilometers (almost 10k miles) OCI. So it's not like I consider the product inferior just because their tests are questionable in my view.