Oil Spec Recall/TSB - Grounds for Class-Action?

[fhedrickjr]

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3019857
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2661795/1

I want this argument to be over, and near as I can tell your boy 540 rat is indeed wrong, the pressures he's tested to aren't relevant to an internal combustion engine. His science is good, but it is incredibly flawed and more research needs to be done. Look into how everyone else that actually sets standards tests engine oils. THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS IN A RUNNING ENGINE, PERIOD!!! The highest performing engine rarely see about 1500psi during compression, therefore a test to the high heavens of 100,000 psi is not an accurate indicator of wear protection because it isn't a relevant pressure seen during internal combustion. You can continue believing your oil cult, but please don't try to spread this malarkey to the masses. Read those threads, and do some research on your own and you will see the flaws in 540 rat's thinking.

Actually, he DOES say why the "increased pressures that a normal engine will never see" are important in seeing how well a particular oil protects. (So, how do you conclude he is wrong?)
He ALSO has a section where a NASCAR team asked for his opinion on the oils they were using, and, the oils in question ranked poorly in his tests, which corroborated with their engine wear problems. They changed their oil to one that ranked high in his findings, and, their wear problems went AWAY.
"....Look into TBN in gas vs diesel engine oils, something I don't recall seeing in your oil guru's paperwork. Just because an oil has similar additive pack numbers doesn't not mean the concentration is the same....." (I'm sorry, I thought PPM was PPM regardless. Here is the definition: "Parts per million also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means the same thing.")

He DOES talk about TBN and its importance
".....................
Boron = 191 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 18 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3354 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 1 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 824 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 960 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 161 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 1 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 11.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.5 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.

.

Even though extended drain intervals are not really in the best interest of any engine, because motor oil is typically dark, dirty, contaminated and in need of changing by 5,000 miles, for those who absolutely insist on extended drain intervals, this may be one of the best oils for that. Because it has a lot of extra detergent and acid neutralizer (TBN), so that there is a lot of reserve to draw from as these become depleted over time........................"

AND, one of the threads you posted has 540 RAT talking about his empirical data...(I find THAT amusing)
AND, having worked with engineers throughout the years, they are not swayed by anything OTHER THAN empirical data. (As 540 Rat states)
AND I too want this conversation to be over, ESPECIALLY since you are arguing with EMOTION over SCIENCE.......
AND, I have stated repeatedly about reconsideration in the difference in gas and oil engine lubrication and you keep throwing that back at me. I was only trying to say that, if the TBN and other additive packages (which is what gives oils the abilities to deal with the soot and acids from blow by) were comparable, that it might not be a bad thing (my words, not his, just trying to think outside the box, didn't say I WAS going to run the 0w20 gas engine oil, repeating: I did NOT say I WAS going to run the 0w20 gas engine oil in my ecoDiesel)
He also addresses the "old thinking" & "fairy tales" about heavier viscosity being a better protector than a lower viscosity...
It is not a cult, and empirical data is NEVER malarkey.
I suppose at this point, we should just AGREE to DISAGREE.

 

[bobcat67]

You're amazing! Even in the face of defeat you still think he is correct, you don't get it. An internal combustion engine never sees those kind of pressures so it is completely worthless test data regardless. You clearly didn't read what anyone else said even though I presented it in a civil manner. The testing method is invalid and not an accurate indicator of how a motor oil protects or is going to perform in an engine. I agree to disagree, but please don't spread this malarkey around thinking it is correct. It doesn't matter what how many useless facts you spew out about his science, it is good, but it is wrong. Plain and simple. You want to know how an oil is going to perform, run it in an engine, it's pretty easy.

 

[fhedrickjr]

You're amazing! Even in the face of defeat you still think he is correct, you don't get it. An internal combustion engine never sees those kind of pressures so it is completely worthless test data regardless. You clearly didn't read what anyone else said even though I presented it in a civil manner. The testing method is invalid and not an accurate indicator of how a motor oil protects or is going to perform in an engine. I agree to disagree, but please don't spread this malarkey around thinking it is correct. It doesn't matter what how many useless facts you spew out about his science, it is good, but it is wrong. Plain and simple. You want to know how an oil is going to perform, run it in an engine, it's pretty easy.

I'M AMAZING?
You completely ignored the part where his data was corroborated by the NASCAR results? His reasoning for the pressure tests was explained, which was to avoid waiting 100k miles to find out you chose the wrong oil.
Pitiful. I STILL have no proof from you he is as wrong as you say he is, other than some people on a thread like this saying why they think he is wrong instead of proving it scientifically.
You believe what you want to believe.
Empirical evidence is never malarkey. Science trumps gut feelings any day of the week.

 

[bobcat67]

I'M AMAZING?
You completely ignored the part where his data was corroborated by the NASCAR results? His reasoning for the pressure tests was explained, which was to avoid waiting 100k miles to find out you chose the wrong oil.
Pitiful. I STILL have no proof from you he is as wrong as you say he is, other than some people on a thread like this saying why they think he is wrong instead of proving it scientifically.
You believe what you want to believe.
Empirical evidence is never malarkey. Science trumps gut feelings any day of the week.

What other oil testing body uses his tests? None! I think the empirical data on how many other scientific bodies use his methods speaks volumes. You believe what you want, yours is more of a gut feeling than mine. I go by VOA's/UOA's and real world testing in engines. If you wanna buy into some guys incredibly innacurate testing method be my guest.

 

[bobcat67]

I'M AMAZING?
You completely ignored the part where his data was corroborated by the NASCAR results? His reasoning for the pressure tests was explained, which was to avoid waiting 100k miles to find out you chose the wrong oil.
Pitiful. I STILL have no proof from you he is as wrong as you say he is, other than some people on a thread like this saying why they think he is wrong instead of proving it scientifically.
You believe what you want to believe.
Empirical evidence is never malarkey. Science trumps gut feelings any day of the week.

What other oil testing body uses his tests? None! I think the empirical data on how many other scientific bodies use his methods speaks volumes. You believe what you want, yours is more of a gut feeling than mine. I go by VOA's/UOA's and real world testing in engines. If you wanna buy into some guys incredibly innacurate testing method be my guest.