Recent Topics
Next Project: 1968 Cub Cadet Model 72
by Phishin. 07/16/19 02:14 PM
Mother's CMX
by rooflessVW. 07/16/19 01:54 PM
Continental True Contact Tour
by Char Baby. 07/16/19 01:39 PM
Chevron Delo ESI grease?
by nthach. 07/16/19 01:24 PM
Keeping downspouts clean
by Klutch9. 07/16/19 01:00 PM
Cellphone plans
by aquariuscsm. 07/16/19 12:59 PM
Concealed Carry and Training
by Al. 07/16/19 12:47 PM
Ugliest/Best Chrysler LeBaron
by GumbyJarvis. 07/16/19 12:34 PM
Its TIme to Stock up on Pennzoil Ultra
by ad244. 07/16/19 12:32 PM
2003 Jetta VR6 2.8L, 6 speed tarns
by LazyDog. 07/16/19 12:26 PM
Interesting read
by double vanos. 07/16/19 10:34 AM
Shell Rotella T Rebate Program
by Ignatius. 07/16/19 10:20 AM
Apollo 11
by Snagglefoot. 07/16/19 09:55 AM
Brake Pad Unboxing and Review
by krismoriah72. 07/16/19 09:40 AM
Limited Slip Additive
by Snagglefoot. 07/16/19 09:39 AM
Future of Chevy Bolt
by Snagglefoot. 07/16/19 09:04 AM
ST6607 on Honda CR-V 2.4L
by MontePrix28. 07/16/19 08:50 AM
2006 4runner Oil Leak After Synthetic
by Lucas_Jones. 07/16/19 08:46 AM
Newest Members
jasonhardesty, gogi, Bob47, Lucas_Jones, cobb_cruiser
68673 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
108 registered members (14Accent, 4WD, 53' Stude, 2010Civic, 16 invisible), 2,459 guests, and 28 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics291,947
Posts5,013,882
Members68,673
Most Online2,967
Mar 10th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Hop To
Page 21 of 21 1 20 21
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: alarmguy] #4346661
03/06/17 04:22 AM
03/06/17 04:22 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 27,752
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Garak Offline
Garak  Offline

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 27,752
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
It would have been cool people for knocking RAT if they were forced to reveal the criteria they use for selecting an oil before they could post anything discounting RATS method.

I purchase knowing what the specification is, even though the specification may not be necessarily what I require. Generally speaking, I consider oils of the same tier within the same viscosity and service categories as interchangeable, and ignore these "rankings," which really don't exist. To me, PP 5w-30, M1 5w-30, and black bottle Edge 5w-30 are close enough to be considered the same product for my purposes, and the same would apply to PYB, Mobil Super 1000, and GTX. Generally speaking, a viscosity and specification can tell me a fair bit. If I say I want to run a synthetic A3/B4 in my G37, I know already I'm going to exceed the minimum HTHS and will not be short on the SAE grade. It won't matter which A3/B4, but if I said I wanted any A3/B4 available in Canada, I know it would be okay for the winters here, and be a safe choice all around, without even seeing the SAE grade or service category on the bottle. Using the blog, I have to ensure that the specification is met before I select the oil, since lots of things can pass that wouldn't be useful for me to run. So, the blog is essentially a waste of time.

Originally Posted By: alarmguy
RAT backs up his statements with facts of his statement

He decidedly does not.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm saying you can certainly buy load cells that can easily read accurately to 5 significant figures (or more) and have low repeatability error.

The problem is, the significant figures one uses in reporting must match the error in the error analysis. The error analysis includes understanding what the manufacturer says about the error of the instrument and the repeatability. One's own methodology can also alter the error analysis and what should be reported. Reporting six significant figures from a load cell while using a methodology with a 30% error bar due to repeatability shows a gross misunderstanding of how to represent these values.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But, as said before if his methods and repeatability error is decent (like 3 sig-fig with +/- 15% error, which isn't impossible)....

Actually, yes it is impossible. Look at a number like 101, with three significant figures. The 15% is 15.15, or 15 in this case, and that makes the third significant figure insignificant and the second one very shaky. Take a 15% error on 999 and you get into worse territory. Hand that in on a string of physics labs, and you'll be taking the class over again next year.

Originally Posted By: edhackett
The data would look something lie this: Ca 256.3756 7.3845, the second number being the uncertainty. We had accurately measured uncertainty values for every step of the analysis from the sampler air flow to the last ppq of neodymium in the sample. Those uncertainties were carried though the calculations so that the final output included an uncertainty value for the entire process to obtain the value. I had to keep telling myself that the true value, accurate to four decimal places was in there.

That's computer scientists for you. I suppose it's an artifact of it being an accomplishment many years ago to be able to calculate a lengthy number. A lot of coding compromises occurred along the way, and we're stuck. The head of the chemistry department here a number of years back was a computational chemist, so had a pretty good grasp of the mathematics involved. Even he was surprised at how rigorous the physics department was with this stuff, but admitted it was the "way it should be done." wink

As an aside, many, many years ago, in my first year chemistry class, they made us use analytical balances to weight absolutely everything, every time, every week, all year. We were instructed to not even touch the brand new electronic balances, and to leave the mechanical balances alone, too (yes, I guess it was a long time ago). After first year chemistry, we only had to use analytical balances where necessary, but we never forgot how to use them.

BrocLuno: No matter what, methodology and statistical analysis aside, given the disparity between the readers and this fellow's customers, I'm really beginning to take his rankings with a grain of salt, given what racers do for advantages. Do we have any ringers stuck in the bottom by design? Do we have something that tested poorly by his methodology tossed near the top? Of course, we can't verify any of this, and that's the problem.

Solarent: Thanks for your insight, once again.


Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, Wix 57356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: Garak] #4346717
03/06/17 07:44 AM
03/06/17 07:44 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,292
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,292
PNW
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But, as said before if his methods and repeatability error is decent (like 3 sig-fig with +/- 15% error, which isn't impossible)....

Actually, yes it is impossible. Look at a number like 101, with three significant figures. The 15% is 15.15, or 15 in this case, and that makes the third significant figure insignificant and the second one very shaky. Take a 15% error on 999 and you get into worse territory. Hand that in on a string of physics labs, and you'll be taking the class over again next year.


Did you look at the link to those digital load cells? If a load cell reads xxx.xx lbs resolution with a +/- 5% error (easy to obtain) it can certainly be confident to 3 sig-figs which is to 1 lb. The way you make it sound, people are still using yard sticks and beam balances with rocks and can't measure anything beyond 1 or 2 sig-figs.

The +/- 15% error I was talking about also includes all the uncertainty in the repeatability of the test, not the instrumentation making measurements. You could have super high resolution and highly accurate instrumentation making measurements, but the test methodology and/or test equipment/hardware (besides the instrumentation) might lead to lots of non-repeatability error.

Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: ZeeOSix] #4346722
03/06/17 07:58 AM
03/06/17 07:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 27,752
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Garak Offline
Garak  Offline

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 27,752
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
The methods and instruments don't change the mathematics. The repeatability of the test is part of the error analysis. If the methods and repeatability give you a 15% error, you don't get 3 significant figures. The source of the error isn't terribly relevant from a mathematical standpoint. If it's the instrument's fault or the testing's fault, it's not relevant. If you have a load cell reading xxx.xx with 5% error, yes, you can have 3 significant figures (certainly not the 5 it displays). But, if your error analysis doesn't account for the errors introduced by the methodology and trials, then the error analysis is wrong.

Read through some lab manuals, as I suggested. Ed already commented how it's inappropriate, too. You do not get to report figures in which you have no confidence, unless you like taking a class all over again. Submitting something like that for peer review would be even more problematic, to say the least.


Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 - Shell ROTELLA T6 Multi-Vehicle 5w-30, Wix 57356
1984 F-150 4.9L - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: Garak] #4346790
03/06/17 10:08 AM
03/06/17 10:08 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,678
Upper Midwest
kschachn Online content
kschachn  Online Content

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,678
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: Garak
The methods and instruments don't change the mathematics. The repeatability of the test is part of the error analysis. If the methods and repeatability give you a 15% error, you don't get 3 significant figures. The source of the error isn't terribly relevant from a mathematical standpoint. If it's the instrument's fault or the testing's fault, it's not relevant. If you have a load cell reading xxx.xx with 5% error, yes, you can have 3 significant figures (certainly not the 5 it displays). But, if your error analysis doesn't account for the errors introduced by the methodology and trials, then the error analysis is wrong.


Thank you. Yes this is the root. The method is deficient so all that a more accurate measuring tool does is make a more accurate measurement of a fundamentally imprecise result.


1994 BMW 530i, 242K
1996 Honda Accord, 277K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 418K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 281K
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: Garak] #4346830
03/06/17 11:00 AM
03/06/17 11:00 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,218
Iowegia - USA
MolaKule Offline
Global Moderator
MolaKule  Offline
Global Moderator

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20,218
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
But at the race track, the top oils keep engines alive and the bottom ones do not. So there is something going on ... His race team clients pay for oil and use additives that let them run lower maintenance schedules and spend more time on-track buzzing those engines. So how do you square that ...

He needs to square that, not us. If what's going on is so hush-hush, I question as to why the results were published, then. Hide the methodology and statistical analysis in view of keeping an edge on the track, only to publish the answers? I can think of a few ways to come up with what we've seen, including methods using subterfuge and dirty tricks, which are part of the racing game.

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Should we just be living on track data? Which teams finish in the top ten constantly and which oils do they use? Will they even tell you ... I mean, that's a real world laboratory with little math involved ...

Problem is, they do not all use the same set-up. Same cam, same lifters, same spring rates, or even the same cylinder heads. So now our problem is not maths, it's trying to build a meaningful spreadsheet... And try to reduce the variables to a simpler model, or approximation - Ooops, something like what RAT did ...


And, that is the point. Do we have the answers, or don't we? Are the results we see the consequence of some sort of methodology, or simply knowing the answers and questions before test time? The work hasn't been shown, so I don't know if this is good methodology or a good memory for memorizing an answer key.

Part of publishing the methodology and the error analysis is so we don't have a bunch of hand waving explanations as to what might be happening. After all, that's all physics is if you remove math, a bunch of hand waving.

Of course, where is the evidence that the "top oils" are keeping engines alive on the track, and the bottom ones are not? Are we introducing another problematic mathematical sample here?




thumbsup


Originally Posted By: 4WD
Said differently - he did not simply rationalize the specificity of the effort - instead just stood behind select empirical evidence he firmly believed in. Fine and good - but then he went "bold and fresh" and condescending - he decided what matters and poked a finger in the eye of all the PhD's to blenders in this business - leaving a great one here (BrocL) to explain the method of his madness ...
Well ... never owned one of those cars he races - but when I do ...


thumbsup


"Science is a body of knowledge, a 'recipe', as it were, for reality. The totality of science is a collection of hard-earned nuggets, using math as a language of expression." Chip Cohen
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: CapitalTruck] #4347033
03/06/17 03:02 PM
03/06/17 03:02 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,205
Kalifornia Kollective
BrocLuno Offline
BrocLuno  Offline

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,205
Kalifornia Kollective
I still think the marketing dept got it right smile

Ultimate Durability is what we have here, no doubt about it laugh


Formerly in marine engineering. In an earlier life I owned my own petroleum tank truck, and hauled for the majors and independent's.
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: BrocLuno] #4347037
03/06/17 03:11 PM
03/06/17 03:11 PM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,498
Texas
4WD Online confused
4WD  Online Confused

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,498
Texas
Ultimate and Ultra everywhere ! The Mobil 1 AP is "Ultimate Synthetic" ? They should of said ultimately we'd get back to synthetic when we don't sell GIII (not listed on XOM's base stock sales site).

Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: 4WD] #4610885
12/22/17 06:38 AM
12/22/17 06:38 AM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 13,807
Idaho
CT8 Offline
CT8  Offline

Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 13,807
Idaho
Originally Posted By: 4WD
This was the one arm bandit test ? Really ?
The results are like the Amsoils test results


2015 F150 2.7
2018 F350 6.2
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: ZeeOSix] #5019835
02/22/19 09:03 AM
02/22/19 09:03 AM
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 420
montreal ,canada
madeej11 Online content
madeej11  Online Content

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 420
montreal ,canada
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Let's say Rat's test, or some other bench test did accurately rank engine oil's EP/anti-wear performance. I'm not claiming his rankings are accurate (but he does), so let's say it is for addressing his claim statement.

If Oil A ranked high for EP/AW and Oil B ranked low, then why wouldn't Oil A protect the whole engine better than Oil B assuming they are both the right viscosity and API rating for your engine. I think that is Rat's reasoning why he says that, but if that's not true then I'd like to know how Oil B (with much lower EP/AW performance) would protect engine parts better than Oil A.


We've been through that with dissimilar metallurgy and kinematics...


Can you or anyone else here find something that says a motor oil that has high EP/anti-wear properties showed very low wear on a cam and flat lifter (demanding high EP/AW lubrication) in a real engine test, but showed excessive wear on other engine parts? Of course assuming right viscosity and appropriated lubrication supply was there. I can't imagine an oil that can keep cams & flat lifters from wearing under extreme conditions isn't going to adequately protect the rest of the motor.

You only pulled up some old test by the military that showed that the same test oils ranked differently on different types of test machines. Also, someone could say that the test methods and accuracy/repeatability & reproducibility errors between different machines could have skewed that ranking just like many think Rat's data is skewed due to high error percentages.

This guy just won't give up. I have a feeling that it's because his favorite M1 0w40 did very well on Rat's test. Imagine going to these lengths to defend an engine oil...

Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: madeej11] #5019837
02/22/19 09:05 AM
02/22/19 09:05 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,678
Upper Midwest
kschachn Online content
kschachn  Online Content

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,678
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by madeej11
This guy just won't give up. I have a feeling that it's because his favorite M1 0w40 did very well on Rat's test. Imagine going to these lengths to defend an engine oil...

Imagine someone digging up an old thread from December of 2017 just to stir the pot.


1994 BMW 530i, 242K
1996 Honda Accord, 277K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 418K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 281K
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: madeej11] #5019883
02/22/19 09:57 AM
02/22/19 09:57 AM
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 40,137
Ontario, Canada
OVERKILL Online content
OVERKILL  Online Content

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 40,137
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by madeej11
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Let's say Rat's test, or some other bench test did accurately rank engine oil's EP/anti-wear performance. I'm not claiming his rankings are accurate (but he does), so let's say it is for addressing his claim statement.

If Oil A ranked high for EP/AW and Oil B ranked low, then why wouldn't Oil A protect the whole engine better than Oil B assuming they are both the right viscosity and API rating for your engine. I think that is Rat's reasoning why he says that, but if that's not true then I'd like to know how Oil B (with much lower EP/AW performance) would protect engine parts better than Oil A.


We've been through that with dissimilar metallurgy and kinematics...


Can you or anyone else here find something that says a motor oil that has high EP/anti-wear properties showed very low wear on a cam and flat lifter (demanding high EP/AW lubrication) in a real engine test, but showed excessive wear on other engine parts? Of course assuming right viscosity and appropriated lubrication supply was there. I can't imagine an oil that can keep cams & flat lifters from wearing under extreme conditions isn't going to adequately protect the rest of the motor.

You only pulled up some old test by the military that showed that the same test oils ranked differently on different types of test machines. Also, someone could say that the test methods and accuracy/repeatability & reproducibility errors between different machines could have skewed that ranking just like many think Rat's data is skewed due to high error percentages.

This guy just won't give up. I have a feeling that it's because his favorite M1 0w40 did very well on Rat's test. Imagine going to these lengths to defend an engine oil...

[Linked Image]


2019 RAM 1500 Sport - Mobil 1 EP 0w-20, FRAM Ultra
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT - Ravenol SSL 0w-40, FRAM Ultra
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: OVERKILL] #5019902
02/22/19 10:06 AM
02/22/19 10:06 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,678
Upper Midwest
kschachn Online content
kschachn  Online Content

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,678
Upper Midwest
And not just a typical revival of any old thread, a trollish revival of this thread.


1994 BMW 530i, 242K
1996 Honda Accord, 277K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 418K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 281K
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: kschachn] #5019903
02/22/19 10:07 AM
02/22/19 10:07 AM
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 40,137
Ontario, Canada
OVERKILL Online content
OVERKILL  Online Content

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 40,137
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by kschachn
And not just a typical revival of any old thread, a trollish revival of this thread.


Yup wink


2019 RAM 1500 Sport - Mobil 1 EP 0w-20, FRAM Ultra
2016 Grand Cherokee SRT - Ravenol SSL 0w-40, FRAM Ultra
Re: 540 Rat Blog - QSUD better than Mobil 1 [Re: madeej11] #5019975
02/22/19 10:58 AM
02/22/19 10:58 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,765
Maricopa Arizona
dave1251 Offline
dave1251  Offline

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,765
Maricopa Arizona
What do you ReCommend!¿


make the inside of your engine oil cap white.
don't use.
Page 21 of 21 1 20 21
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™