Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:VHJQf.7154$lb.624742@news1.epix.net:

> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:19:47 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
>>>enormous.
>>
>>
>> Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year.
>> Setting up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV
>> ad.
>
> Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know
> what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance,
> but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested.

If the engines are otherwise identical, you would not need a lot more
than, say, 15 tested with each kind of oil to detect a difference that
is practically as well as statistically significant.

On the other hand, if we are setting up a test of engine lifetimes on
different oils, the experiment may have to be run for a long time.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>that.
>
>
> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
> the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
> will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>
> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
> statistics.
>
> Sinan

Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.

 

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>that.
>
>
> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
> the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
> will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>
> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
> statistics.
>
> Sinan

Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.

 

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>that.
>
>
> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
> the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
> will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>
> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
> statistics.
>
> Sinan

Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt,
>>>>
>>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>>> quickly
>>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry
>>> worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the
>>> market are not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies
>>> like Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an
>>> additive package and resell them to companies that put their label on
>>> them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from
>>> the same source and is likely identical to some name brands, but it's
>>> sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't pass through as
>>> many hands in the supply chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil
>>> and/or Quaker State.
>>
>>
>>
>> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it
>> may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is
>> available at the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't
>> created equal.
>
>
> It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
> The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
> oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
> basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
>

Again, I ask to see the mysterious data you keep referring to, but can't
seem to produce a reference to. I provided a clear reference to the
source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your
claims that all oils are created equal.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt,
>>>>
>>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>>> quickly
>>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry
>>> worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the
>>> market are not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies
>>> like Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an
>>> additive package and resell them to companies that put their label on
>>> them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from
>>> the same source and is likely identical to some name brands, but it's
>>> sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't pass through as
>>> many hands in the supply chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil
>>> and/or Quaker State.
>>
>>
>>
>> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it
>> may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is
>> available at the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't
>> created equal.
>
>
> It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
> The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
> oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
> basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
>

Again, I ask to see the mysterious data you keep referring to, but can't
seem to produce a reference to. I provided a clear reference to the
source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your
claims that all oils are created equal.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt,
>>>>
>>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>>> quickly
>>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry
>>> worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the
>>> market are not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies
>>> like Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an
>>> additive package and resell them to companies that put their label on
>>> them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from
>>> the same source and is likely identical to some name brands, but it's
>>> sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't pass through as
>>> many hands in the supply chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil
>>> and/or Quaker State.
>>
>>
>>
>> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it
>> may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is
>> available at the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't
>> created equal.
>
>
> It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
> The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
> oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
> basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
>

Again, I ask to see the mysterious data you keep referring to, but can't
seem to produce a reference to. I provided a clear reference to the
source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your
claims that all oils are created equal.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
> are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
> manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
> the MSDS's overlap.

And you accuse me of fear mongering for not wanting to use an oil where
the source can't even be determined? :-)


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
> are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
> manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
> the MSDS's overlap.

And you accuse me of fear mongering for not wanting to use an oil where
the source can't even be determined? :-)


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren
> are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the
> manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on
> the MSDS's overlap.

And you accuse me of fear mongering for not wanting to use an oil where
the source can't even be determined? :-)


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
> 2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
> Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
> comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.


2000 sounds about right. I knew it was a few years ago. I'd be happy
to have more current data, but I've been unable to find any.


> I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
> oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
> intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
> little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
> will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
> amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
> the certification.

No, the point of most certifications, and I believe API falls into this
category, is to provide MINIMUM standards. It doesn't prevent a
manufacturer from going ABOVE the standards and many manufacturers do
this. Sure, many will skirt just above the minimums, but the MCN test
showed that many of the reputable names, Mobil being one, have products
that are well above the minimum requirements. So, certification doesn't
limit variability, it just places a lower limit on the variability
range. The upper end is generally not limited by specification.


> If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
> like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
> if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
> rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
>
>> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
>> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
>
>
> Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.

No, in any difference of wear rate. If the rate of wear is different AT
ALL, then the amount of wear between two oils will be completely
dependent on the mileage driven.


>> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
>
>
> No kidding.

Yes, my data is just as good as yours claiming that Supertech is a good
oil. :-)



>> And often engines don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the
>> rings getting stuck due to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages
>> getting blocked with crud, etc. I have seen enough engines torn down
>> to know that synthetic oil keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
>
>
> That I can agree with.

So now you agree that better oils are better for your engine? I thought
you were saying that all oils were essentially equal and thus buying a
better oil was a waste of money.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
> 2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
> Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
> comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.


2000 sounds about right. I knew it was a few years ago. I'd be happy
to have more current data, but I've been unable to find any.


> I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
> oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
> intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
> little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
> will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
> amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
> the certification.

No, the point of most certifications, and I believe API falls into this
category, is to provide MINIMUM standards. It doesn't prevent a
manufacturer from going ABOVE the standards and many manufacturers do
this. Sure, many will skirt just above the minimums, but the MCN test
showed that many of the reputable names, Mobil being one, have products
that are well above the minimum requirements. So, certification doesn't
limit variability, it just places a lower limit on the variability
range. The upper end is generally not limited by specification.


> If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
> like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
> if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
> rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
>
>> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
>> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
>
>
> Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.

No, in any difference of wear rate. If the rate of wear is different AT
ALL, then the amount of wear between two oils will be completely
dependent on the mileage driven.


>> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
>
>
> No kidding.

Yes, my data is just as good as yours claiming that Supertech is a good
oil. :-)



>> And often engines don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the
>> rings getting stuck due to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages
>> getting blocked with crud, etc. I have seen enough engines torn down
>> to know that synthetic oil keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
>
>
> That I can agree with.

So now you agree that better oils are better for your engine? I thought
you were saying that all oils were essentially equal and thus buying a
better oil was a waste of money.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in
> 2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before
> Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a
> comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products.


2000 sounds about right. I knew it was a few years ago. I'd be happy
to have more current data, but I've been unable to find any.


> I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY
> oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended
> intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how
> little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it
> will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the
> amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of
> the certification.

No, the point of most certifications, and I believe API falls into this
category, is to provide MINIMUM standards. It doesn't prevent a
manufacturer from going ABOVE the standards and many manufacturers do
this. Sure, many will skirt just above the minimums, but the MCN test
showed that many of the reputable names, Mobil being one, have products
that are well above the minimum requirements. So, certification doesn't
limit variability, it just places a lower limit on the variability
range. The upper end is generally not limited by specification.


> If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration
> like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what
> if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear
> rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth?
>
>> You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
>> showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different.
>
>
> Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates.

No, in any difference of wear rate. If the rate of wear is different AT
ALL, then the amount of wear between two oils will be completely
dependent on the mileage driven.


>> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different.
>
>
> No kidding.

Yes, my data is just as good as yours claiming that Supertech is a good
oil. :-)



>> And often engines don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the
>> rings getting stuck due to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages
>> getting blocked with crud, etc. I have seen enough engines torn down
>> to know that synthetic oil keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.
>
>
> That I can agree with.

So now you agree that better oils are better for your engine? I thought
you were saying that all oils were essentially equal and thus buying a
better oil was a waste of money.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>>
>>
>> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
>> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
>> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look
>> up Taguchi for more information.
>
>
> Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
> the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
> loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
> frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
> could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
> in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.

Yes, I agree that it is very difficult and that is the reason that I
believe it has never been done. A test worth doing would cost literally
multiple millions of dollars and just isn't worth it to anyone.


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>>
>>
>> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
>> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
>> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look
>> up Taguchi for more information.
>
>
> Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
> the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
> loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
> frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
> could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
> in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.

Yes, I agree that it is very difficult and that is the reason that I
believe it has never been done. A test worth doing would cost literally
multiple millions of dollars and just isn't worth it to anyone.


Matt