PUP beats Amsoil again

[grimmjeeper]

Curious, short of getting the engine out of the truck and put it in a control environment and test oil in a repeatable manner. What other options have we to perform the test that would meet your requirement for valid testing ?

That's a start. To really get a solid answer, you need to perform the tests on many engines so you can isolate any one-off variances.

Sponsored

 

[CarbonSteel]

Curious, short of getting the engine out of the truck and put it in a control environment and test oil in a repeatable manner. What other options have we to perform the test that would meet your requirement for valid testing ?

The unsaid secret is that with RARE exception and within a level of statistical noise, oils that meet specification "X" are going to perform the same--given they all meet the exact specification, which in this case one did (Pennzoil) and one did not (Amsoil--no certifications or specifications).

The ONLY way to know if one oil produces less wear than another are highly controlled engine runs (more than one engine to eliminate variances) followed by a tear-down with measurements of critical components taken. Is that extreme? Yes, but that's just the way it is.

Attempting to use two or three UOAs to determine engine wear and which oil produces less wear is a fool's errand at best. There is far too much variation in the operating conditions, test results, and limits of what a UOA can and cannot "see" to establish the oil itself as the crux of less or more wear.

 

[CarbonSteel]

No concensus will be reached, as always in every oil thread in every forum I have ever seen.

You are correct--no consensus will ever be reached using UOAs as the qualifying decision point simply due to the inaccuracies and variations.

 

[Pape]

That's a start. To really get a solid answer, you need to perform the tests on many engines so you can isolate any one-off variances.

OK, now you go down in statistic. I did not listen to the video but looking at the oil analysis I see numerous, 4 of them, therefore we can say 2 test for each oil, who is not the best stat sample at less it is something.

 

[CarbonSteel]

The guy did say he happened to take a long road trip hauling stuff for the first and last test. That alone has the potential to skew the results.

1000% - the engine would have to have the exact same operating conditions as a start, but even then, a UOA is not the tool that could be used to determine if one oil outperformed the other in relation to wear.

 

[jadmt]

I would have no issue running any oil that meets specifications that the OEM has set. Just so happens Pennzoil meets specs in both my vehicles and that is what I have been using since about 2012...before that it was Mobil1 before that quakerstate....I have never had an oil related issue.

 

[CarbonSteel]

OK, now you go down in statistic. I did not listen to the video but looking at the oil analysis I see numerous, 4 of them, therefore we can say 2 test for each oil, who is not the best stat sample at less it is something.

If you had 100 tests on each oil, then you might have something to review, what you are seeing now is statistical noise at best and completely wrong conclusions at worst.

 

[Pape]

The unsaid secret is that with RARE exception and within a level of statistical noise, oils that meet specification "X" are going to perform the same--given they all meet the exact specification, which in this case one did (Pennzoil) and one did not (Amsoil--no certifications or specifications).

The ONLY way to know if one oil produces less wear than another are highly controlled engine runs (more than one engine to eliminate variances) followed by a tear-down with measurements of critical components taken. Is that extreme? Yes, but that's just the way it is.

Attempting to use two or three UOAs to determine engine wear and which oil produces less wear is a fool's errand at best. There is far too much variation in the operating conditions, test results, and limits of what a UOA can and cannot "see" to establish the oil itself as the crux of less or more wear.

OK, you are seeing this as definitive answer, while I see it as for him based on some data he can get is hands on.

We do not all have the luxury of having numerous engines, collecting healthy data basin for statistical analysis and disassembly at the end.

Some time we need to go with what we have. While the provided claim should be taken as a opinion based on some number.

 

[CarbonSteel]

OK, you are seeing this as definitive answer, while I see it as for him based on some data he can get is hands on.

We do not all the luxury of having numerous engines, collecting healthy data basin for statistical analysis and disassembly at the end.

Some time we need to go with what we have. While the provided claim should be taken as a opinion based on some number.

But it is BAD data--he has not proven a single thing, and if he thinks that Pennzoil outperformed Amsoil (or any other oil that could have been used), based upon his "test" then he could not be more wrong.

UOAs can only detect particles within a specific size range, and therefore, there may be more or less wear than the numbers indicate. There have been cases where a UOA showed everything was fine and the engine failed.

What he has done (and I am no Amsoil fanboy) is to seed doubt about the quality of Amsoil using BS data. If a European oil had been used instead of Amsoil and had the same results, it would be even more laughable given the specifications and standards those oils have to meet versus US oils.

 

[Pape]

If you had 100 tests on each oil, then you might have something to review, what you are seeing now is statistical noise at best and completely wrong conclusions at worst.

IF we move the conversation toward further good science and not what a guy can do on is limited resource (much better than basing is conclusion on the seed of the pants). I would say that even if he do 100 oil analysis of is engine the only achievement will be providing solid number for IS engine but the real feat will be properly capture is engine aging process.

 

[jadmt]

be more interesting if they were all blind tests where the driver did not know which oil was in the rig.

 

[Pape]

But it is BAD data--he has not proven a single thing, and if he thinks that Pennzoil outperformed Amsoil (or any other oil that could have been used), based upon his "test" then he could not be wrong.

UOAs can only detect particles within a specific size range, and therefore, there may be more or less wear than the numbers indicate. There have been cases where a UOA showed everything was fine and the engine failed.

What he has done (and I am no Amsoil fanboy) is to seed doubt about the quality of Amsoil using BS data. If a European oil had been used instead of Amsoil and had the same results, it would be even more laughable given the specifications and standards those oils have to meet versus US oils.

In regard to catastrophic failure, not all of them are oil related, just saying.

 

[Badunit]

You are correct--no consensus will ever be reached using UOAs as the qualifying decision point simply due to the inaccuracies and variations.

Even if tested in a lab under controlled conditions with hundreds of tests and trendlines there will be no concensus. Someone will claim the conditions do not match real-world conditions so the test is invalid.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Even if tested in a lab under controlled conditions with hundreds of tests and trendlines there will be no concensus. Someone will claim the conditions do not match real-world conditions so the test is invalid.

I'll take that naysayer (who would be clueless) over what we currently have

 

[CarbonSteel]

In regard to catastrophic failure, not all of them are oil related, just saying.

Fully agree and that was not my point--it was that a UOA is not a tool for measuring wear.

Sponsored