I do see where this test could prove some points and where it can also use a bit more re-testing. Due to the fact that this device they used doesn't generate the same amount of heat that an engine block would or a differential, some of the facts they proved were not 100% true b/c they didn't add in a temperature factor. Cooler air has more oxygen in it correct? Correct. So, if these machines are run at room temperatures or basically, any temperature below standard engine operating temperature, they are flawed. As the oil is heated up throughout the block, any air trapped within the oil or the block itself is evaporated/disintegrated into it's molecules. With the constant heat found within the engine block, I would suspect that the air bubbles found in this test would be very minimal in a real engine block or differential test.

But, I do see how this test can have some validity in just presenting numbers, but not as much in a real life test.


Your thoughts?

Your post would probably make more sense if it was in the thread where it all started....
As is, I can only ask "what test?" and "what device?" etc.
.
.
doc

He's referring to the additives story on the main page of this site.

Oops..my bad. Heres the article in question:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/images/lucas/lucas.htm

Thanks...was trying to answer a comment by another Scion owner. I stopped taking caffiene, so I am a bit slow in the mornings.

Quote:

---

But then the tests are valid during the cold start-up, and that's when you get most wear...

---

That says it all for me. Thanks!

That demonstration doesn't directly simulate any specific real-world application. It simply demonstrates that undesirable things can happen when you modify a lubricant that is already engineered and proven to be suitable for a specific application.