I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I just got a TDI and came across this thread as I was reading.
I have yet to find a dependable rebuttal of "540 RAT". The links some people provide for such "rebuttals" seem to be consistent in the tune of "his tests do not represent real-world applications" and then they do not provide adequate reasons as to why that is the case. They all revert to good ol' appeal to authority that they berate him for. Essentially, he is wrong because an engineer from Shell or a tribologist I know confirmed to me that he is wrong.
Mind you, they admit that his testing is relevant for high contact pressure applications such as 1970s technology flat tappet cams. My thinking is, if it is relevant for those applications, wouldn't that mean a high-pressure oil although allegedly not very "applicable" in modern engines would theoretically still provide the best hedge against any unknowns as far as contact wear or boundary lubrication is concerned? That criticism sounds more like approval of his methodology. If you notice also, the oils that tend to do the best on his tests are the same oils that would generally have outstanding performance in other tests. These are true synthetic base oils with excellent additive packages.
I decided to do some digging. He mentioned in a certain forum that his real name is Rick Jackson and from other clues on his blog and other forum sources, I figured out that he is based in California. A major criticism he receives is the lack of proof of his credentials. I found a profile that matches his claimed credentials. He apparently works at the acclaimed SLAC national laboratory that is run by Caltech and Stanford University. He is a Mechanical design engineer and has been in that position since 2006 and verifiably is a holder of two patents. I confirmed that a Rick Jackson works there through several employee directories.
However, if all is true, what gives me a slight bit of confidence in his methodology apart from his bonafide credentials working at an exceptionally esteemed organization (you essentially have to be near the top of your field to work here) is his experience in fluids from his college days. It states he won the fluid society award in 1988 at California Polytechnic.
Now, it is true he has a tendency to toot his horn a little too loudly, but it is slightly understandable considering he is constantly insulted and belittled in every forum he posts.
I am not a fan of proprietary testing methodologies, however, having read his entire blog, there is something to be said for his technical know-how on various topics. Until I find a reliable refutation for his methods that does not appeal to industry authority, and why his recommended oils do not provide the best wear protection, I will continue to take his advice. It's fine if you don't, but I recommend you gloss through the entire blog even if you do not read it in detail.