I'm sorry that the website changed your font from medium to small, this must be very frustrating, as a professional Systems Analyst, when people don't know as much as you do about your profession and still create a website without all of the knowledge needed to do it properly. You stated that there was an easy fix for this problem and I assume from this statement that if the person that made this mistake would educate themselves that they could do their job more professionally. I'm sure you understand the hidden analogy here.
Originally Posted by TimMullen
You also ignored the rest of my point. The fact that BA MOA "improves" the viscosity of regular oil is not necessarily a good thing, and has little relevance to it's use with synthetic oils. I notice that it doesn't do that much for the good "regular" oils either. It's Snake Oil marketing to quote the poor performance of one (cheap) brand of oil, and quote the "superior" numbers when used with another oil.
*** "The fact that BG MOA "improves" the viscosity of regular oil is not necessarilly a good thing".
Totally incorrect statement and a lehmans understanding of the word improved as it relates to the viscosity of oil. They mean Viscosity Index Improvers, but don't believe me:
***3rd paragraph CLEARLY states that Viscosity Index Improvers are good and needed, just the opposite of your statement!!
***also: "and has little relevence to its use with synthetic oils."
Again just the opposite from the truth. Synthetic oils have a higher inherent viscosity index so they have MORE of a need for V.I.I.'s than do dinosaur oils. But don't belive me, read what Mobil/Exxon says:
***2nd paragraph re-states what I just wrote.
Again, the opposite of what you said.
Now giving you the benefit of the doubt, you might have been referring to the TFOUT test that shows only dinosaur oils. It's all I had at the time and with your new found knowledge of synthetic oils needing V.I.I.'s MORE than dinosaur oils, I assumed you could put 2 and 2 together and understand that it is equally beneficial for an oil that needs more V.I.I.'s. My assumtion was incorrect.
*** I noticed that it didnt do much for the good "regular" oils either."
The best dinosaur oil tested was Mobil which lasted 386 min on its own. By adding BG MOA to the Mobil oil, it increased the length in minutes to 516. A difference of 130 mins. Which, as you can see form the TFOUT test was almost the length Castrol GTX lasted for the ENTIRE test at 163 mins. To a lehman it didn't do much, but to a professional in the industry that is a VERY competent improvement.
As to the, now known typo, on the website comapring different oils. It was a typo for some out sourced computer geek that made a mistake.
Nope. I'm just showing healthy skepticism to the same Snake Oil marketing claims that have been made and disproved for various products for many, many years.
*** The computer use to be the size of a room and took punch cards to transfer data, then we spoke Cobal and Fortran, then we spoke DOS and now windows. Your industry has improved by leaps and bounds, it would be pretty arrogant to think that my industry hasn't done the same...wouldn't you agree?
Obviously not cause you keep refering to our products as "Snake Oil" and other oil manufacturers as "quality" oils infering that ours is not.
***Just so you know I am taking personal offense to the "Snake oil" monniker, for me, the man who holds a double doctorate who invented our products, the doctorates of chemical engineering whom keep improving our chemistry and the lubrication engineers that make sure our oils work in real world vehicle and fleet testing, the API and for our industry in general.
*** Do you hold a degree in chemical or lubrication engineering? Have you ever been employed as a Tribologist? Somehow I think not. So as a Systems Analyst, please quit using punch cards to transfer data towards modern Tribology and try to update your knowlegde base to the Windows version of Tribology.
***I hope that anyone reading this thread can decifer between professional knowledge and opinion.