540 Rat Real world oil testing

turbobrick240 said:

If you like what 540rat has to say, by all means follow his recommendations. Just don't expect everyone who knows a thing or two about lubricants to eat it up too. I've learned that generally the folks who shout "believe me" or "trust me" the loudest and most frequently are not the most reliable sources.

Click to expand...

Good point(s).

I would say that for the general public with passenger vehicles the issue is not so much do you have the 'best' oil and all the technical discussion that goes with it but something more basic such as 'maybe you are changing your oil too often (going beyond 3000 mile fear)'. Imagine what it would do for the environment (and your wallet to a certain degree) when millions of owners of passenger vehicles (mostly gasoline) change the oil not earlier than around 7000 miles instead of 3000 miles!

MichaelB said:

FXDL you believe everything you read.......try this http://xtremerevolution.net/exposting-the-flaws-in-540rats-engineering-test-data-blog/

Click to expand...

And further to that ...

http://xtremerevolution.net/exposing-the-flaws-in-540rats-rebuttal/

TL : DR? Responds to technical criticism with personal attacks ... nothing more.

There is nothing to see here. "Project Farm" on Youtube (actually rather entertaining) is more relevant ... if nothing else, his test apparatus isn't secret! And he blows stuff up from time to time ...

tikal said:

Good point(s).

I would say that for the general public with passenger vehicles the issue is not so much do you have the 'best' oil and all the technical discussion that goes with it but something more basic such as 'maybe you are changing your oil too often (going beyond 3000 mile fear)'. Imagine what it would do for the environment (and your wallet to a certain degree) when millions of owners of passenger vehicles (mostly gasoline) change the oil not earlier than around 7000 miles instead of 3000 miles!

Click to expand...

Could you just imagine if the average owner just read the owners manual for their car and actually followed the recommendations there?

As I see it, no experts in this forum on the subject of engine oil etc.. No real world testing out here by all the experts. Each their own as to what one wants to believe or not and use what ever oil one wants that all the experts insist to use or not. After reading most lam write ups here one needs to take a pill to believe the bs.

Yep. If you are under warranty use what the manual specs. If not use whatever you want. Most people don't own a car long enough to see any benefits from one good oil to another. Even those that do keep one 300k miles or so more than likely won't notice any difference using a spec oil.

Lightflyer1 said:

Yep. If you are under warranty use what the manual specs. If not use whatever you want. Most people don't own a car long enough to see any benefits from one good oil to another. Even those that do keep one 300k miles or so more than likely won't notice any difference using a spec oil.

Click to expand...

This! So much this. I can't for the life of me understand why there is so much consternation about oils. We're talking tens of parts per million of wear rates. If you do the math, it works out to one or two atoms of thickness of material per oil change. Why is that a big deal? Unless your specific car has some kind of extremely marginal design issue that depends on oil in a critical way, there's way too much worry about this topic. And if it does (let's for argument sake say the PD cams *might* count in this category), then you just need to fix the root cause issue which is a crappy cam instead of obsessing about the oils.

Wear rates are the signal, not the source. Stop trying to fix the proximate cause of "too much signal", and find the underlying cause--fix that. Put an oil in your car that meets the manufacturer's specifications and drive. If you know of an issue, have it tested periodically, but don't freak and post giant diatribes and rants on zddp on the interwebs.

Ain't that the truth. Car guys obsess WAY too much about this or that brand of motor oil. I've been guilty of it myself. As long as you use roughly the appropriate spec. oil and change it like you should, it's totally a non issue. Shoot, you don't even need synthetics in many engines to rack up a million miles or more.

I just taught my daughters to keep oil and water in them and check every time they fueled up. I also taught them to keep the right oil in the car and which numbers are the important ones. That and keep the tires aired up properly. These three things will get you pretty far to having a car that will last some time, assuming it is in decent shape to start. My daughters still thank me to this day for teaching them this and how to drive a standard transmission.

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.

Oh boy...

moshet said:

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...

*WALL_OF_TEXT*

...do not read it in detail.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

There are years of work by credentialed engineers (engineers who publish work under their real name, you know - "peer reviewed" studies?

He needs to actually show his methodology (which his vomited-stream-of-conciousness blog does not do), testing methods, actual data, wear scar tests etc.

Failing that his and yours are (erroneous at best) opinions.

That goes for pretty much out here and for all other sites who claim they know about oils when they ready know nothing and think they do.
Most people who claim here and any other site that they know about oils have no real proof of what they are talking about. They have no way of testing and proofing what they say is true. Most people believe the writing on the bottle of oil they buy is true and people of they talk.
His testing out weights anything about anyones oil options here or else where.

Let it go, man. Nobody cares about that guy anymore.