|
real science is peer-reviewed, not published in a personal blog.
his testing was in a clean environment, not a real-life engine environment, so it was easy for him to denigrate the value of detergents.
he states that most engine damage occurs at start-up, but his testing is in a steady-state environment, with no effort to rationalise his testing results against his statements regarding oil weight and start-up performance.
he states that some oils produce noisier engines than others, but that this is not an issue. any engineer (no idea about tribologists) knows that noise is bad. noise is energy going in the wrong place.
oil manufactures state that zddp works by bonding to the wear surface, hence the issue with detergents which compete with zddp for access to this surface. he states that this bonding does not occur, but still holds to the statements about detergents having a negative effect on wear performance by 'tying-up zddp at the wear surface'.
and finally, he states again and again that this is not a test of how oil performs in an engine, but rather how oil performs at an extreme, artificial limit. he states that his test results mirror what is seen in race engines, but only in American race engines which see a lot more mechanical action at the cams than we do in our overhead cam engines. which also see much more frequent oil and filter changes so detergents are not required. which do not see the same number of cold start-ups as a street vehicle (note that race oils often do not have a cold weight) etc.
listen, anyone can write something and put it on the web - adding numbers to it doesn't make it science.
Ps, don't flame me either, i'm only the devils advocate.
|
Threaded Mode
