Dave and Bob seem to want to hammer away and ridicule the work I've done on oil in the RS4 engine, and seem to become offended when I make a statement or answer a question. For some reason, both want to challenge facts, without even a cursory evaluation, and immediately dismiss them as untrue, based on a variously changing criteria.
I talk about what my research has been freely and openly, and you all have been the recipients of around $5K worth of professional consulting and about $20K of my own time involved in research and self-education. I started out about one year ago not knowing a thing about oil, except what I read in the manufacturers literature, and a few scattered postings here and there on the Internet. This forum has been there at every step in my personal learning, and you've come to know my style, which is to base everything on science, and leave no stone unturned. If you don't like that, tough. Some people have enjoyed hearing about what I've learned, as I've happened onto understandings and insights that are generally not published anywhere.
How many of you out there admit when you're wrong? I do, and have at every step in the way. Yet, some ridicule my mistakes, rather than acknowledge them as part of any good learning process. For example, I chose Elf oil, based on a few good comments in internet forums, and good marketing in their literature. Unfortunately I found through oil analysis that the oil did not live up to it's marketing. (BTW, I did not trust just one lab, but sent samples to a second lab for a comparison, just to be sure.)
Then, under the recommendation of Terry Dyson, a highly recognized independent oil tribologist, I was given a choice of oils that might solve the fuel dilution and wear problems that we had been seeing. That list was:
Amsoil Euro 5W-40
Motul 8100 Etech 0W-40
Motul 8100 Xcess 5W-40
Pennzoil Platinum Euro 5W-40
Quaker State Q Euro 5W-40
Of those oils, 2 were not on the 502 list, which I did not want to deviate from, and 2 were not readily available. So, I ended up deciding on Motul 8100 Etech 0W-40, which was available, and is a well-known, highly regarded Ester based oil.
As I was running it and taking samples, I talked about it in this forum, and yes, it did do a bit better than Elf. And wear was measurably lower, but ultimately once fuel dilution climbed to about 2% it would begin to crash hard, just like other oils.
Other owners had also taken samples and added them to our data base. It was becoming clear that no 502 oil was going to have a very significant advantage in the face of fuel dilution. At that point, I was fed up with the Audi specs and warranty requirements, so I authorized Terry Dyson to consult for me and research what would be necessary to fight fuel dilution and decrease wear in the RS4 engine. (Before this point, Terry was performing his normal oil analysis and interpretation service.)
For those of you who are not aware, I approached Terry professionally and in the same way I would approach and use any consultant in my business. This was not a consumer-level engagement, but at the professional level, just like his engagements have been for Pennzoil, the US government, numerous racing teams, and other fleet operations and lubricant formulators worldwide. Absolutely nothing was off the table. And for the small consulting fees that I paid him (compared to what I normally consult for myself) he did one hell of a job, using his extensive proprietary knowledge, reviewing the technical literature, speaking with contacts in the automotive, racing, fuel and oil industries, and then setting out to find a formulator who would create our own brew, based on the research and insights.
Terry had previous knowledge of Renewable Lubricants and Bill Garmier their VP, who were willing to work with us on a special formulation. (There was no prior professional relationship between the two, or financial interests. But RLI, was willing to work with us.) Nothing was off the table. And as a result, we were able to specify and have blended the most advanced oil to be targeted specifically for this engine.
Our formulation uses the most advanced and stable additives currently known in the industry, with some base oils that are totally rockin'. The additive chemistry that we use is extremely expensive, as are the HOBS, PAO, and VHVI base oils in the mixture. Through patents that RLI holds, we have access to some remarkable copper/antimony antiwear and antioxident additive chemistry that is unique, and the reason why our wear is so low. And through the HOBS base oil, we get an exceptional viscosity index of 190, and at the same time some pretty incredible cleaning properties, due to the HOBS esters.
I have no ulterior motive than pride in doing something good that is a win-win for all. As they say , take what you like and leave the rest.
So, is this something that you RS4 owners on the forum are interested in continuing to hear, or do you want me to shut the -uck up? I'm done with Bob and Dave.
08-16-2007, 08:25 PM
i don't want to hammer away at your oil analysis, and i don't believe Bob does either, so stop distorting this. what i don't like to see is these giant leaps from some fairly typical UOA results to this notion that the RS4 engine is in serious trouble unless your oil is used. WTF!
this is what i challenge: your own spinning of the facts to suit your needs or means to an end, and it's where you really lose it, IMO.
just please provide the info without all the misguided conclusions.
also, i would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth or trying to belittle my comments. example: saying that i view oil as just another commodity. bullsh!t! this from the guy who said the first time he ever used a gas additve was within the last year. i know a little about oil, gas, gas additives, and engines. don't make the mistake of viewing yourself as some newborn authority, when in reality you have just managed to get all tangled up in your own incredibly myopic viewpoint...on something as common as oil and gas additves. i mean, give me a break, Scott!
08-16-2007, 08:29 PM
I follow along when discussing oil and its only because you write in an articulate and organized fashion that I can enjoy and somewhat understand the read (I'm just not that technical about cars. I've heard people say that guys either know computers or cars very well, but I am sure there are people here who know both very well).
You also always seem to have valuable and hard to get information, like the RS4 product launch pdf and the great write-up of what the S button really does and the torque curves. The RI RS4 break-in method is pretty much the defacto standard.
As a matter of fact, I may dyno my car this weekend and if I go, I am going to do at least one pull with the S button on and one with it off.
I did think that Dave and Bob were just kidding around. And don't you think that an argument between daveak and dxben would be great? Maybe we can rile 'em up.
** ok, maybe dave isn't joking. haha
08-16-2007, 08:32 PM
08-16-2007, 08:37 PM
i know what you're saying and i agree. i have tried every approach with Scott, but he is so tunnel visioned on this oil question that it becomes hopeless. it is just too much. it needs to be put into perspective...constantly, thanks to Scott.
yes, he provides good information, like you said. the PROBLEM arises when he then draws completely unsupported conclusions. half the time i don't even know where it's coming from, where he gets these strange detached theories.
and then, at some point, he always questions mine or Bob's knowledge, as if that's going to boost his own stmts somehow.
the bottom line is all oils are not equal. but in the last 100 or so years of automobiles, they have never been equal(or identical). does that mean that we all switch to the next looney oil that Scott finds on his travels? heck no!
08-16-2007, 08:41 PM
08-16-2007, 09:19 PM
I also appreciate the levity and banter provided generally in the forum by Bob and Dave.
I can draw my own conclusions and make my own decisions from the information you provide, as I suspect most others here can and do also.
08-16-2007, 09:22 PM
08-16-2007, 09:25 PM
it is banter. nothing serious. all i'm asking for is some perspective. there are other car mfgrs using direct injection. i'd be interested if they feel the need for any special approach to engine oil. so far, nada.
08-16-2007, 09:38 PM
FWIW, I don't reply to any of these threads regarding oil unless I see something ridiculous, such as todays "10k oil service interval, LOL" comment. My reply to that statement wasn't directed at you, so there was no 'piling on'...you jumped into the pile!
You admit that you knew nothing about oil a year ago, and you've done (despite what you think) a minuscule amount of research on this subject, and this qualifies you to WRITE ABOUT the type of oil that is appropriate to use in my $70k car? And to top it off, you expect me to believe that your one year of experience in this area qualifies you to question the appropriateness of the manufacturers service recommendations? Scott, we've been taking it easy on you. Under the circumstances, I think you should expect people to be VERY critical of anything you post on this subject.
08-16-2007, 09:40 PM
08-16-2007, 09:49 PM
hey scott, it's available in 55gal drums!
08-16-2007, 09:52 PM
08-16-2007, 10:03 PM
I've really valued the information you've shared and it's rare to find people like yourself on the forums. You have to separate those who talk out their asses from those who know who know a thing or two -- you fall into the latter camp and then some. Thanks again for sharing everything you've learned at no cost to us!!
08-16-2007, 10:05 PM
that Marvel Mystery oil used to have whale oil in it? then the enviro groups had a go at them and they changed to a more CD2 like formula.
it's very thin, highly detergent like ATF. i'm a bit ashamed to admit that i once used it on a German Capri back in the late 70's. actually it probably did some good...a pint.
Scott won't touch it i'm sure. someone else discovered it, and the can is too attractive : )
08-16-2007, 10:05 PM
08-16-2007, 10:12 PM
okay, rather than just admiring one, and diss'ng others, do you have any input? any knowledge on the subject? i'd like to hear your opinions on this ongoing oil question. and don't worry, i won't accuse you of talking out of your azz.
08-16-2007, 10:17 PM
why would you buy their car?
08-16-2007, 10:20 PM
08-16-2007, 10:25 PM
It's like reading endlessly about what type of powerstrip to use with my computer. Like the oil with the car, I realize that that the wrong choice can have a negative impact in extreme situations. But a little common sense and you'll be just fine with most any recommended oil (powerstrip) in most circumstances.
I'm more interested in the car (computer) itself.
08-16-2007, 10:27 PM
it was uncalled for and just kissing Scott's a**. he must feel a need for that information, right or wrong.
08-16-2007, 10:30 PM
thank you for saying that what should be so obvious. now we just need one fanatic to listen. considering your name is not Dave or Bob, i am optimistic.
08-16-2007, 10:31 PM
08-16-2007, 10:32 PM
but I don't think he realizes what he's really saying by revering Scott's info.
08-16-2007, 10:37 PM
i'm going to slip some into a UOA to Dyson(C/O Scott). that outta throw them off and be good for another 6 months of nauseating oil dscussion here.
08-16-2007, 10:39 PM
I'm usually a spectator who's open to reading both sides of an argument with out really imparting much knowledge (you guys know far more than I do in this regard). At the same time, we're also all grown men here who can make our own decisions on what we actually want to do with our cars, despite what someone says. In that regard, the variety of perspectives is great.
If anything, you all (as a group) help make this car as great as it can be, despite the fact that we are all just our own personalities on a forum.
08-17-2007, 02:44 AM
08-17-2007, 02:59 AM
Most of us appreciate all that you have done! We can always move to a yahoo groups forum or other board to discuss this further.
08-17-2007, 04:39 AM
well researched findings from manufacturers, but I do see it as valuable. Few people think out of the box. Most are just sheep and will follow wherever they're led. It pays to do your own research, even if the only thing that comes from it is knowledge. How much time and effort you put into it is obviously up to you. It's your time.
Keep it up.
Jet Jockey/A4 Pilot
08-17-2007, 04:41 AM
I would have listenned to the few negative people on these boards.
08-17-2007, 05:05 AM
08-17-2007, 05:08 AM
why spend so much money testing this and that.....for what an extra 2000 miles out of the engine? extra 20 HP? A couple of bucks saved on oil?...end of the day, let audi worry about it and enjoy the car.
But then again, I do applaud your efforts RI RS4 if its something you want to do and you enjoy, you have done a through job of investigating. You have put alot of time and resources into it, finish it up to your heart's desire and dont ass bob and dave deter you. I would just appreciate a final report at the end instead of a post every 5 mins about oil.
08-17-2007, 05:14 AM
08-17-2007, 05:30 AM
Dave & Bob
I have at times enjoyed the banter back and forth. However in this case you have maliciously jerked off a friend of mine who happens to be a bright Engineer to boot. May of us on the Forum like Scott's oil info and are big boys and grils and can make our own decisions without your constant ankle biting. I also thank Scott for his time and major investment in what he thinks is a very important issue with our RS4s. Through Scotts efforts and enthusiasm I also have joined the Terry Dyson oil regime and am happy with the results with the new formulated oil.
Jet Jockey/A4 Pilot
08-17-2007, 05:55 AM
08-17-2007, 06:32 AM
08-17-2007, 06:49 AM
08-17-2007, 06:58 AM
and a hardy f--k off to you too.
08-17-2007, 07:01 AM
for the record, I never asked anyone to stop posting anything. If Scott (or anyone) can dish out criticism, he should be able to take it as well....that's how it works.
08-17-2007, 07:09 AM
...as do I enjoy Dave and Bob's posts. I think, with rare exception, that the back-and-forth between you and them has ultimately lead to productive information exchange, which unfortunately gets clouded in personal debate at times. I think you should all try to keep that in perspective. This is an internet forum and it will get heated at times, but it should never reach a point where anybody feels the need to chose sides or "take their ball and run". I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I'd hate to see you discouraged by the few to the detriment of the many. As others have pointed out, information is good and we can all draw our own conclusions from it. This is equally true for the responses you receive from Dave and Bob. In a sense, I consider them your devil's advocates. Time and time again, you've demostrated great patience in responding to their questions and challenges. I say keep up the good work.
08-17-2007, 07:16 AM
08-17-2007, 07:19 AM
i'd love to see them explain DNA in a UOA report.
08-17-2007, 07:24 AM
In line at the company cafeteria, Bob says to Stanley behind him,"My elbowhurts like hell. I guess I better see a doctor."
"Listen, you don't have to spend that kind of money," Stan replies. "There's a diagnostic computer down at WalMart.
Just give it a urine sample and the ComputerI'll tell you what's wrong and what to do about it. It takes ten seconds and costs ten dollars...a lot cheaper than a doctor."
So Bob deposits a urine sample in a small jar and takes it to WalMart. He deposits ten dollars, and the computer lights up and asks for the urine sample. He pours the sample into the slot and waits. Ten seconds later, the computer ejects a printout:
"You have tennis elbow. Soak your arm in warm water and avoid heavy activity. It will improve in two weeks."
That evening while thinking how amazing this new technology was, Bob began wondering if the computer could be fooled. He mixed some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and daughter, and masturbated into the mixture for good measure.
Bob hurries back to WalMart, eager to check the results.
He deposits ten dollars, pours in his concoction, and awaits the results.
The computer prints the following:
Your tap water is too hard. Get a water softener.
Your dog has ringworm. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo.
Your daughter has a cocaine habit. Get her into rehab.
Your wife is pregnant. Twins. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer.
If you don't stop playing with yourself, you'll never cure that tennis elbow.
Thank you for shopping at WalMart
08-17-2007, 07:47 AM
And as you say, we have the ability to take from it whatever we want, as well as our own conclusions. I constantly read the posts for my own edification, but still would rather have audi fix an engine issue that may arise than have to worry about fixing it myself... still using 502 approved.
Jet Jockey/A4 Pilot
08-17-2007, 07:48 AM
I chose to not believe their long term oil change schedules and dino oil use and go for superior synthetic oils with a more frequent oil change schedule... Common sense!
Now they are stuck paying out perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in warranty claims.
BTW, I'm on my fourth car with a 1.8T and I have had <b>no</b> oil sludge issues and that's because I did not follow Audi's recommendations!
08-17-2007, 08:06 AM
i've had 2 cars with the 1.8T, and I don't even know wtf you're talking about with this 'sludge issue'.
08-17-2007, 08:22 AM
Audi's mistake was in not requiring a synthetic oil in the 1.8T. and supposedly too small an oil filter. i used to have one, so i researched the H out of it.
08-17-2007, 08:26 AM
it seems an issue of how the info is presented. like i said before, if he would just say he found a great oil that works well in the RS4 and may reduce wear and extend engine life, no problem.
but that's not ever how it's presented. it's always that all other oils break down and are harmful to the RS4 engine. that is not going to float, sorry. he needs to be acknowledged for his diligent work, but called on this blanket stmt that other oils are weak.
08-17-2007, 08:34 AM
some people weren't bringing the cars in for scheduled service...EVER. then they'd turn it in at the end of their lease and some poor slob would buy it pre-owned. this is what I was told by the general manager at my dealership when I asked why the free scheduled maintenance was dropped.
08-17-2007, 08:34 AM
any info or comments i post is never to try and influence any owner into to doing something or not. it is entirely a "hold on" approach to those that re trying to do just that.
sorry, but ditching accepted oils for this bio blend on a 70k car may not be a sound idea. and it should not go down as a slam dunk just because someone puts a lot of questionable data out their in support of it.
08-17-2007, 08:41 AM
most every example of sludge killing an engine is subsequent owners...as the mileage piles up.
the sludge issue was real. but now people here are using that as a scapegoat for their own oil nonsense. around the same time another big mfgr had a very similar oil sludge problem...Toyota!
08-17-2007, 08:47 AM
that thru all the bantering, important info is at least clarified. thank you for recognizing that.
Scott and this oil issue goes way back. it's just being beaten to death, IMO.
i agree with him in most oil questions, including my opinion that 502 is nothing special. but, where i can't agree(and hate to watch) is this strongly implied idea that so many other oils will not protect the RS4 engine and will lead to damage thru increased wear(copper?iron?metal shavings?deposits?) UNLESS you use his latest find. kind of silly isn't it?
08-17-2007, 08:53 AM
however, wouldn't those that blindly follow the "out of the box" thinker also qualify as sheep?
08-17-2007, 09:07 AM
this, which you are sharing - those who do not appreciate it should simlpy go to the next thread. I am however amused by this thread in particular - never have I seen 2 people stroke eachother as much as I am reading here ...
"definitely true, and that's part of the reason Audi dropped the free scheduled maintenance. - Bob W. 2007-08-17 12:34:05 (4 views)
exactly, Bob... - daveak05"
good for a few laughs at least
08-17-2007, 09:12 AM
there is, however, a fine line with sharing a mod here and TELLING people to do certain mods.
i view it this way: enthusiatically supporting certain mods is fine for those that have experinece with mods(i.e. mod their cars). but, for the average owner, diving into mods because of questionable performance gains could be the start of a world of hurt...for the uninitiated...the guy who expects no downside in reliability and drivability from the mod. there's your gray are. it should not be minimized.
08-17-2007, 09:12 AM
You know, one stop shopping for all the questions, answers, research, and opinions (along with all the caviats that go along with those things). It might prevent each oil-related post from degrading into the same old back-and-forth, which never really gets anywhere. Food for thought...
08-17-2007, 09:21 AM
first, i don't on one. and second, i am hardly an expert on oil. leave it to the chemists who work in the industry to provide the factual and objective data. we all have our opinions and experiences with oils. let no one tell you to dump one in favor of another. especially one so borderline.
08-17-2007, 09:23 AM
08-17-2007, 09:25 AM
thanks for your comments.
08-17-2007, 09:54 AM
08-17-2007, 09:54 AM
this is one of the only posts you've made here that isn't stroking Stasis.
08-17-2007, 09:56 AM
well, a little excitement again, and all over one of the most mundane subject out there, oil. go figure.
08-17-2007, 09:58 AM
08-17-2007, 10:43 AM
To be frank - I doubt any of you guys will keep the car long enough to make much difference.
Oh, it's Friday! People should be making plans to meet for beers along with their Audi's
08-17-2007, 10:49 AM
Keep up the good work, Scott. There is no definitive answer, but your analysis has provided us with the best evidence on which to weigh our own decisions. We have all come to learn that there are genuine concerns related to oil dilution in direct injection engines. Since we are all at the early stages of addressing this problem, we can just follow Audi or do what we think is best for our expesive toys. I applaud you in assisting in that process.
As to Bob and Dave - While someone must play the devil's advocate or maintain the Socratic questioning in any well-rounded debate, there is a point where it becomes obnoxious, if not offensive. Clearly, Bob and Dave have passed that point in the view of many. Unfortunately, most well-attended enthusiasts' forums are frequented by at least one individual who is the self-appointed critic of all. That is just something the rest of us have to learn to deal with.
08-17-2007, 11:03 AM
hard conclusions drawn on minimal data from invalid sample testing is being a critic of all?
you may chose to spend time and thought sifting through the good and the bad info provided by Scott, but it think it's f*cked up. not worthless, but by presenting it as fact, it is highly questionable, to say the least. and that needs to be pointed out.
we all know about supposedly independant lab tests or samples being used in the marketplace as a means to validate one product over another. IMHO, Scott is engaging in this, so take it with a grain of salt.
the conclusions...those that he draws are premature and NOT factual, despite what he says. when you have controlled conditions favoring one oil over the others, it is not objective, and no sound decisions can be made as a result.
if he wants something definitive to show, he would most definitely need to submit UOA's to API or some other regulatory entity...not have people under widely varying operating conditions Fed Ex their oil samples into a tester, and leave it at that.
there needs to be some bonafide legitimacy to this process, and we don't have it here. it should be viewed as peripheral(if informative) info and not science, in the correct application of the term.
08-17-2007, 11:32 AM
I understand your point of view. I feel that Scott's statements represent his point of view based on the available data and not the final word. As stated, we are in the early stage of of a scientific evaluation of this issue, and I prefer to play it safe by using Scott's data to make my choices at this time. You may certainly disagree, but I believe that the oil Scott recommends looks best so far. I will keep testing my oil to monitor engine wear and examine the properties of the oil.
08-17-2007, 11:39 AM
08-17-2007, 11:39 AM
I hope you do not believe that beer is just beer. Thanks for reminding me that it is Friday afternoon. My next dilemna is whether to go to the sports bar that has great beers or to stay home (and, thus, be able to drink more) and enjoy the 3 beers that I have on tap in my keg system.
This is a reminder to not take everything too seriously and to enjoy our vehicles and the other pleasureable aspects of our lives.
As Mike Labbe says, "Cheers!"
08-17-2007, 11:49 AM
As a car enthusiast - like most of you are - you can't get enough oil & tire debates.
08-17-2007, 11:52 AM
Yeah, I caught that, but I thought it was also a good opportunity to calm down the rhetoric in this thread and change the focus.
08-17-2007, 11:58 AM
Scott, I personally value your input very much. You have presented us with boatloads of valuable scientific information. This information, however, needs to be used in the context of the "real world". Sometimes all the theory, no matter how scientifically sound it appears, can fall through in the real world.
As long as we accept the basic idea of the inevitable discrepancy between theory and reality, I am always open to more theories, research, findings, experiments, etc. always keeping in mind that the results are only part of the picture.
Finally, aren't we a lucky lot to be able to spend so much time discussing such trivial matters in the grand scheme of things!
08-17-2007, 12:02 PM
08-17-2007, 12:25 PM
i have no problem with the info he shows here from time to time. i find it interesting.
critiquing the other major oils and declaring them unfit for the RS4 is where it all goes wrong, IMO. that and these erroneous oil change intervals.
another example: changing out factory "swill" at under 500 miles to get all the metal shavings out??? there's an oil filter capable of trapping far smaller particles than any metal shavings generated during breakin.
this and other curious stmts are the kinds of "leaps' of logic that i'm talking about.
08-17-2007, 12:31 PM
in other words, get one's mind out of the laboratory. any data presented in a loaded context will seem infallable. experience in any number of real world conditions tells us otherwise.
08-17-2007, 12:41 PM
it's use, even in this forum setting is idiotic. I think all the data presented should be posted and commented on rather than judged for other motives.
08-17-2007, 12:53 PM
see if this new blend would be added to the approved list. I find this information curious in the fact that so many variables in fuel, driving styles, ambient temperatures, oil change intervals and lack of any meaningful blinding of the analysis of the results would lead most industry based researchers to conclude that this study is really just getting started. You may be onto something but until the company that warranties my engine signs on I will continue to be an intrested observer. I have my oil changed at the dealer every 3-5K miles and don't plan on defending that program to anyone. It seems a bit odd to be at issue with anyone here who chooses to follow the AOA guidelines.
My 2 cents, but actually worth what you paid for it. Nothing!
08-17-2007, 01:26 PM
Which is why only the big boys get approved. You'll never see smaller oil companies like Redline, Royal Purple, Lucas, Amsoil ... etc, go for approvals. API testing is also in the $1/4 to $1/2 million range. There is also the possibility of an independent warranty on the oil, similar to what Amsoil and other small formulators do.
I am also working on several paths through Audi for either official approval, or a waver of approval. Being a German company, this probably has near zero chance of flying, unless, of course, engine failures begin to occur. Then then there might be some additional flexibility.
At this point, I am 3/5ths through my factory warranty period, and I intend to protect my investment so that the car has a very long life. Ultimately, after 50K miles, it doesn't matter what Audi thinks.
I've always said that if you are leasing and are going to give back the car, or if you plan on turning it for another car before the warranty is up, the oil that you use just doesn't matter. It is Audi's problem.
08-17-2007, 01:28 PM
08-17-2007, 01:30 PM
08-17-2007, 01:35 PM
08-17-2007, 03:14 PM
I find some of Scott's posts obnoxious, if not offensive as well....but you don't see ME complaining about that, do you?
The essence of the problem is this: I don't have a problem with someone saying "this is what I'm doing, and here's why." I DO have a problem with someone saying "this is what YOU should be doing, and here's why"...particularly when the latter involves doing something 'off label', so to speak.
08-17-2007, 04:31 PM
08-17-2007, 06:10 PM
The whole oil breakdown analysis.
The only way to see if it has any real world significance is to take about 20 cars that have had their oil changed every 2000 miles and another 20 that have had their oil changed every 5000 or even 7500 miles and see if there is any physical difference in the amount of degradation to engine parts. And, to go one step farther, does this degradation of parts (if it exists) affect performance or meaningful longevity of the engine.
Likewise with exhaust power gains.
Does anyone here realize the number of cars that would have to be dyno'd with a particular exhaust to prove a statistically significant power gain given the overall power level of this car, the relatively small percentage gain and the inherent variability between dyno runs? It would be in the hundreds, if not thousands of vehicles even with tightly controlled variables.
Anyone who has spent time tuning cars will tell you that you can get a 15hp variation between two successive dyno runs on the same car, on the same day, in the same conditions, etc, etc, etc. So what does that really mean you are trying to demonstrate an overall 15hp power gain due to a product???
The lab is great place to start, and you certainly should start there. But it is a far cry from what really matters.
08-17-2007, 06:15 PM
08-17-2007, 06:29 PM
the infantile sneering and snickering of Bob W. and Daveak05. They have wasted far more of my time with their pathetic pseudo moderating on this forum than your oil posts have. Notice that they rarely originate a post. Pretending to represent the healthy skeptic, they prefer to respond like adolescent class clowns with off topics, beside the pointers and ad hominem rhetoric. What's worse, they have chased some valuable contributors away from this forum. If they cannot appreciate fanaticism, they should not visit any forum, as fora are populated by enthusiasts. Maybe they should start a cable TV talk show for decadent adolescents who ruin clutches within 20 miles. These kids might appreciate hearing a physician talk about fvck and jizz...
08-17-2007, 07:13 PM
opened up to the real world, taken out of solely lab conditions, a tightly controlled environment. all the data in the world needs to apply to real conditions. otherwise it's pointless.
someone saying that this or that chemical in oil automatically correlates to this or that condition inside an engine is idiotic.
all the quality oils have what is needed to operate an engine safely. oil X, just because someone stumbles on it and becomes a believer, should NOT be presented as a 'use it or else' scenario. and that is exactly what i have been seeing from one particular individual here for quite some time now. why? because he says so??
regardless of whether it is a good oil or not, the other oils, that are a hell of a lot more proven, should not be blindly discarded as no longer being any good.
it's getting damm close to becoming that kind of situation here, and that would be a travesty.
keep in mind that many performance cars use Mobil 1 as factory fill(Corvette and Porsche to name a couple) and recommend it's use. when i see any of them recommending Renewable Lube's bio oil(whatever that means), then i'll walk across the parted sea and buy some.
08-17-2007, 07:24 PM
open your mind and about what the issue is here. in fact, read down a few threads where it started. neither Bob nor I jumped on anybody. in fact Bob was ridiculed by RI RS4 when he wasn't even responding to him. i came down on the side of Bob's accurate stmt and i got the same shouting down attempt by the resident oil expert as of about 13 months ago.
i'm sick of it. the highly slanted onfo or misinfo is bad enough to have to see repeated ad nauseam here. but, when you have a different opinion or question some of the giant leaps in reasoning, you're overwhelmed by encycolpedic double talk.
don't feel sorry for anyone here. anyone repeatedly pushing a product or an opinion here, and representing it as fact when it isn't, should be the one you have a problem with.
but maybe you're too infantile to make the connection.
08-17-2007, 07:26 PM
a sound position and good approach, Silver.
08-18-2007, 05:52 AM
08-18-2007, 06:53 AM
Tribology is a well-known science. Multiple correlation studies of oil analysis metal particle wear results to measured wear in engines has been an established for over 50 years. Forensic analysis of engine failure, using oil analysis results, are used in court. Manufacturers use real-time oil analysis of engines on dynos to determine when to shut down and rebuild the engine or terminate the run before the engine blows, destroying a dyno in the process. Fleet operators use oil analysis to guide the oil change interval and oil selection process. Elemental particles seen in oil do not give us an absolute measure of wear, but they do give us an accurate relative measure that can be used as a basis for comparison.
Changing oil early, by itself, does not improve wear. Changing oil prior to the point that the oil has begun to significantly break-down and degrade, does. In this particular engine, it appears that oil starts to "head south" as soon as it's introduced. Oil in the RS4 acts differently than in other engines that do not have fuel dilution. Viscosity shear, wear profiles over time, and acid formulation, to name a few indicators, are all accelerated, when compared to engines that do not dilute. Oil is designed to tolerate some of this abuse. But having a solvent continuously mixed in with the oil is having a seriously measurable impact on the iron and copper components of the engine, viscosity reduction, and acid formation. On top of that, there are hard thresholds that the oil cannot recover from. Acid formation is one of them. Each oil has the ability to fight acids formed, but eventually they begin to give out, and we can measure that. It's around this point that the oil should be changed. An oil change prior to this point is a waste of oil and money, and has no measurable impact on wear.
We can do two several things pro actively, also. First, we can try to find an oil that "lives with" dilution and has a lower impact on iron and copper component wear. Second, we can look for an oil that does not degrade as rapidly in the face of solvent attack. Third, we can look for oils that do not shear in viscosity in the face of fuel dilution as much as others. Fourth, we can look for oils that actively fight fuel ingress into the oil, by providing a better ring seal. Finally, if we have the resources available, we can design an oil that is actually targeted for each of the four points above.
The only question, and I've been up front with it, is where the failure limit of the engine is. I don't know. It is a fact that by reducing the wear in an engine, you will increase it's life. What is not known for a particular engine is whether that provides a 50K to 55K longevity increase, a 75K to 300K mile longevity increase, or a 100K to 150K longevity increase ... etc. All we can say is that lower wear is better. Much like in medicine we can say that lower LDL Cholesterol is better, but we cannot put an absolute life expectancy on it.
The best comparison I can give for oil analysis is blood chemistry analysis. I take Lipitor because my LDL numbers are high, due to genetics. Will it increase my life span? Probably. How much additional life will I gain? Who knows, since we don't know what will fail in my body first. Knowing that any life expectancy changes are not a certainty, should I discontinue using Lipitor?
08-18-2007, 09:01 AM
can you bring yourself to stop preaching so much on the subject of oil? please?
...and now this oil/choleserol comparison?????...??????????
are you under some kind of stress?
sorry, if you think i'm being a jerk. but, i can't believe what i'm seeing from you here lately.
you started off by providing some UOA's of different oils. now you have taken that to a completely off the wall level.
08-18-2007, 09:35 AM
Elevated LDL is correlated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. The same can be said with the use of an oil with inferior wear properties. What cannot be quantified is the actual benefit or improvement (in terms of years of life or miles) other than regular measures (serum LDL test and oil analysis). Simple case studies (beyond the randomized fda regulated controlled trials) have added a GREAT DEAL to the literature we have on Lipitor.
Scott's efforts may be regarded as simple case studies - that in fact may have an impact on the way we manage our engine. As we all know, studies are small bodies of work and all are scrutinized, the reader is advised to take them for what they are and interpret them in the manner they seem fit. There are a number of case reports that actually impact the way one manages a particular patient. The same can be said for Scott's "case report" which in turn may impact the way we choose/change/manage our lube.
Scott is completely accurate in making this analogy, it's simple science.
I think we are actually starting to think that you are more attacking Scott rather than offering something additive or constructive to his contributions. Maybe you need to address this with him directly rather than on a forum.
If you are sick of reading his posts, you have the option of not clicking on them. The overwhelming majority is more than appreciative of his efforts.
08-18-2007, 09:47 AM
and, analogies do not qualify as science. speak about something of which you know. then maybe i'll listen.
he took it upon himself to lecture Vijay on oil testing on dynos. as if Vijay wasn't remotely aware of that. geez, anybody who's ever watched a Castrol commercial is aware of this. not to mention means of knowing this MOST COMMON KNOWLEDGE. but, no, we all have to be told by Scott, in what has become, IMO, a VERY condescending manner.
finally, if he's going to continually put this "stuff" out there, then he should expect to be called on it. not only is it NOT factual, in any stretch of the word, but it now borders on fantasy.
not clicking on all this oil B.S. would be like crawling thru a minefield. it's all over the place here.
08-18-2007, 10:14 AM
This is a forum. It benefits from civility, hobbyism, even fanaticism. I would like for people to have a low threshold for posting questions and information, rather than having to fear being ridiculed by Mr. Daveak05. Scott provides information, you provide crap, and in an offensive way to boot. If you would like to change the subject, you are free to start a string on something more interesting than oil.
08-18-2007, 10:33 AM
I am not meddling with whatever was being DISCUSSED with Vijay. I am not so uptight as to think he was LECTURING by any means. Everyone knows Vijay as well as Scott are both quite knowledgeable and contribute positively on a regular basis.
Much of the knowledge-based discourse has made the forum an interesting read. Would one rather bounce concepts, ideas, data of someone knowledgeable or some moron? Seems like Vijay and Scott both know that each alike can likely provide positive additions in their discussions, so let them post their thoughts!
So basically, fvcking relax dude. :-)
08-18-2007, 10:33 AM
08-18-2007, 10:36 AM
Don't you dare stop using Lipitor!
08-18-2007, 11:45 AM
ONE MORE TIME, the issue isn't the info. that would be fine. provide some useful info on oil for others to see.
instead, what repeatedly happens is preaching of some fairly basic oil info, as if no one is aware of it. and, perhaps more importantly, the completely incorrect assumption that the other oils fail where this bio oil excels. that is PURE BS! absolutely!!
and that is what some here question. not just me. there have been a few other posts in this thread alone where people have hinted to Scott to tone it down on the oil lectures. that's all, just tone it down. lighten up a bit on the subject of oil.
if you're offended by that, then that's your problem. if you believe it without reservations, including the bizzare cholesterol and Lipicor comparison, then i can only feel sorry for you.
08-18-2007, 12:01 PM
look, you jumped on a couple of my posts here with some offensive remarks and i answered you.
NO ONE here, either myself or Bob(as he has clearly stated), is trying to get anybody to stop posting what they want to share. what i AM doing is questioning the information and completely unsubstabntiated conclusions drawn, and then presented as fact here...where oil is concerned.
if it has deteriorated here, it's becasue Scott won't budge off his hard stand that EVERYTHING he has said to date about oils is accurate and scientifically sound, which it IS NOT! you can also add gas and gas additives to that. he won't listen to any other points of view about oil and the RS4 engine except his own. and he is pushing a quirky, smalltime oil product for use in a $70k high performance car.
if you are blind to the potential repercussions involved with this risky strategy, then be so. i don't care. for others here, counterpoints to questionable information can be valuable.
if i'm being a little sarcastic or cynical here, it's because we have been down this oil road with Scott countless times before. and he will simply not consider any other viewpoint but that which he has contrived to come up with. and then, on top of that, he presents it as scientific fact, which is very troubling.
IT ALSO MIGHT INTEREST YOU TO KNOW THAT HE AND I SHARED AN EMAIL WAY BACK AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF HIS OIL RESEARCH, AND WHILE I COMMENDED HIM ON HIS INTEREST AND RESEARCH, I ALSO WARNED HIM ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN...THAT IF THESE THEORIES OR UNCONTROLLED OIL TESTING METHODS COULDN'T BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY ACCEPTABLE MEASURE, THAT IT WOULD BE VIEWED WITH SKEPTICISM...AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
08-18-2007, 12:20 PM
i believe Scott is a good guy, a neat individual, and good for AW, without a doubt. i also believe that our relationship here has likely been permanently damaged, and that's too bad.
i used to discuss, kid around, and go to Scott for info. but something happened there, recently. he became very condescending in his remarks to me.
just look down to the other oil thread below. while i am discussing i get responses from Scott such as "you are wrong" "you are sorely mistaken", "can you read english?"
in the content of his posts i am accused of lack of knowledge and some negative agenda...just because i don't agree with some of his leaps of logic, and say so.
all this about oil, for God's sake! i'm beginning to wonder if he thinks of us as childen here that need to constantly be lectured to on a few things that he has been "enlightened" with recently. that, if the case, is a very smug attitude, and leaves little room for objectivity.
08-18-2007, 12:31 PM
he has spent many hours testing the reactions of certain oils some recommended and some not in the fsi 4.2 in the rs4. He has found through sampling that fuel dilution in the oil occurs at different points in the life cycle of these oils. some react better than others causing more or less elements to be worn from the engine internals.
he has spent time trying to create(with the help of professionals) an oil that will help offset the fuel dilution that occurs. I'm guessing in hopes to enjoy his toy for as long as possible??
I've read many of his posts on oil and like his approach. He may have found an oil that is perfect for these cars...he may not have. if you want to test your RS4 and see if the oils are working properly or if Scott is trying to force his miracle blend on all that read these threads by all means do it, I always love to see some one with alternate beliefs provide information on that level.
so far it does seem to be more of an attack(may not be meant to) but it has a similar tone to the threads of your frustration with jetjocky's support of stasis and mtm's ability to create parts that will compliment and out perform the stock ones.
that's just what I gather.
08-18-2007, 12:35 PM
I never made ANY offensive remarks directed at you whatsoever - there is no desire to attack anyone on here. I jumped on posts where I thought fitting to comment. Get those facts straight.
My stance is that taken for anyone embarking on a small case study of their own - take the data as you wish, use it or not. I am not going to completely revolutionize the way I treat my patients based on a small case study, however, I make take some specific points and integrate them. Obviously, the scope and context is different, but the idea is the same.
I am sure you are both due for an email exchange.
08-18-2007, 12:45 PM
Let's "simplify" it for you -
You LDL is 200 - there are well over 100 studies, some conducted over decades to show that LDL levels correlated with increased morbidity and mortality. LDL too high, more likely to die.
I really cannot quote studies on engine oil but it is verging on common sense that crappy oil leads to premature engine failure. Muy facil.
How is that bizzare, man?
Vijay, get us some succ. for our pal! ;-)
08-18-2007, 12:49 PM
08-18-2007, 02:06 PM
and certainly agreeable.
my take is the same as yours, believe it or not. the only problem i have is with this tendancy to take it to the next level in saying that the bio lube is the only oil that works well in the RS4 engine. i think that is inaccurate, and that's what i have an issue with. why, when promoting one product, must one trash the others. that is a common trap to fall into. it should be pointed out for what it is...blatant favoritism, with no sound basis.
that said, Renewable Lubes and Scott are experimenting with oil blends that may be better for an engine. MORE POWER TO THEM! i too think it's great. but, DO NOT then bandy about erroneous test info based on very limited(and flawed) sampling and state that as absolute fact. it is not. it should be recognized as not. but, it is being falsely presented as fact here.
i guess i'll have to say it again: all the millions of cars, all the decades and decades of oil research and improvements, and one person here says he has the magic pill???
08-18-2007, 02:09 PM
i appreciate your clarification. and it makes sense. thx.
08-18-2007, 02:12 PM
please don't keep insisting that it does. Scott went there, why i can't even imagine. and you now choose to follow him in this?
08-18-2007, 02:34 PM
his contribution is negligible.
i wonder what oil HE is using in whatever cars he owns.
i have never seen this guy in any previous oil discussions here, but now he's telling us how it is???
it is remarkable that we are tagged as the bad guys in trying to counter this wholly unconventional approach to RS4 oil, when every owner has to consider warranty and their investment.
out of the woodwork is all i can figure.
08-18-2007, 04:49 PM
don't know dave, but bob's personality in this forum is hard to deal with. i just try to never respond to him if i do not agree with his post.
sorry about no caps, only have one hand free
08-18-2007, 07:19 PM
a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee] -noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
3. an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others
4. drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy to the working of the brain"; "the models show by analogy how matter is built up"
08-18-2007, 09:24 PM
Jet Jockey/A4 Pilot
08-19-2007, 05:14 AM
A4s and Passats to explain the issue although the problem had been around for several years already and people had already picked up the repair bills for VAG's mistakes.
Of course they did not go into all the details about why these things were happening. Only if you dug deeper and asked the right questions to the right people did the truth come out. At first only the B6 A4s were covered, and then they had to backtrack and include the B5 A4 and the B5 Passats, talk about CYA.
For your info the problems encountered with the 1.8Ts in these cars stems from several technical issues and bad decision making from VAG and AOA...
The 1.8Ts mounted longitudinally in the A4s and Passats have an oil capacity of almost half a litre less as opposed to transversally mounted 1.8Ts on the Golfs and Jettas. This means the oil runs hotter and breaks down faster in the A4s and Passats. Add to this that AOA went cheap and specified a longer oil change interval and dyno oil use only and the fact that some owners did not even follow those guide lines and you have a recipe for disaster waiting to happen and it did happen to even those who followed the AOA oil change intervals using the oil supplied by their dealer network.
To remedy the situation VAG implemented a few things...
One, change to a more frequent oil change interval.
Two, use a bigger oil filter to augment the oil capacity.
Three, change the oil specs required for the oil changes in these cars.
Here's the kicker; at first these new rules were only to be implemented on the B6s, then they backtracked to include the B5s and the Passats. People were actually told that using the bigger oil filter now mandated by VAG on the B6s was going to void the warranty on their Passats if they were found to be used on their cars. Same engine, same problems yet they could not use the bigger oil filters! Finally someone at VAG woke up and said that they should use the bigger oil filter too! Same thing with the oil used during the oil changes done under the Audi maintenance program. The B5 people were still only getting the dyno oil until Audi bit the bullet and approved the switch to synthetic oil for their oil changes.
And since you are so smart, please explain this to me (Bob or Dave)...
Why is it as of today, I am still required to change my oil (VAG's oil change schedule) more frequently (actually at half the mileage) on my Passat when compared to my Audi when they use the same 1.8Ts?
Again same motor same problems yet they except and demand (lost of motor warranty if not complied with) that VW owners pony up an oil change twice as frequently (more expense to the VW owner) when compared to the owners of the Audi brand.
Make a lot of sense to me!!!
08-19-2007, 05:22 AM
08-19-2007, 08:32 AM
why you are not endearing yourself to many contributors on this forum. You should read your own posts.
Let's take the one I am responding to:
"his contribution is negligible"
What is the purpose of this remark? Put me down? Why do you talk about me rather to me? Feel safer talking to Bob? And what exactly are YOU contributing, Daveak05? Protection from the assaults of RI RS4? A sense of humor? No, I do not post a lot. I have a life. If contribution were measured in number of posts, you do contribute a great deal. Thanks so much.
"i have never seen this guy in any previous oil discussions here, but now he's telling us how it is???"
This is not an oil discussion. I and others are beginning to voice objections to your forum manners. For an enthusiasts' forum the RS4 site is strangely inhospitable. Do you thrive on that? If you and RI RS4 were to suddenly reverse positions, I would still be on your case because of your writing style. I have watched from the sideline for a long time. You personally have drawn me out of the woodwork.
You will perceive this post as a condescending lecture, but let me assure you: you bring it out in people. Here's one more free piece of advice: I think you might be more convincing in your writings if you weren't so offensive. But perhaps being convincing is not your goal...
Now I am going to move on. I am done. I have more important things to do than help you with your personality disorder. Good luck.
PS. Do not think you can make another notch in your belt, because you have driven another RS4 enthusiast off this forum. I am not leaving. This is not a matter of getting out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat, as BobW suggested recently. You don't own this kitchen.
08-19-2007, 10:06 AM
but you, in your over-zealous approach, insulted both myself and Bob in an early post. my first response to your first post was not insulting or offensive. then, you did it again, and i decided to play it your way.
don't try and hide behind some honerable tag here, when you quite simply took issue with 2 people and decided to try and trash them, completely ignoring the discussion at hand.
that's why i asked you quite simply if you had any comments on the oil discussion, anything to contribute to it. evidently not, as all you have contributed is insults, and now you are trying to justify this offensive approach by throwing it all on me??? nice try!
you seem quite insecure with this notion that I or anybody else is trying to chase people off this forum. that's absurd! you are the only one who keeps saying that, ridiculous as it is.
Scott and I go back a long ways here, but YOU are going to try and protect him from me? why don't you check in with him about that.
idiotic! go back under your rock.
08-19-2007, 10:16 AM
but not exactly atypical. Jet, it still represented a small % of cars with those engines.
there was an issue with sludge, but several things had to occur to get it to the level of engine damage. going beyond the recommened oil change intervals was mentioned in corresposndence by VAG. although not a defense, it was applicable.
people who changed their oil regularly, even using dino oil and the old oil filter, generally did not have problems. but, there were enough that did have problems, and enough specific complaints to warrant action by VAG to correct the potential problem with this engine and oil sludge.
it didn't keep me from buying a car with the 1.8T and it didn't keep you from buying and owning one either.
08-19-2007, 03:50 PM
Use any one of a number of decent high grade oils, change it every 4000-5000 miles (racing notwithstanding) and be done with it. In the end, all the analysis, pages upon pages of posts, responses, data, criticisms, etc. all boil down to this.
Any questions? No? Good. Game over.
08-19-2007, 03:57 PM
<< Any questions? No? Good. Game over. >>
that's what you think : )
personally, despite what some people INSIST on believing about me, i look forward to ongoing posts from Scott about where his oil analysis is at.
let's just please try and see it for what it is and keep things in proper perspective regarding oil.
08-19-2007, 06:09 PM
08-19-2007, 06:43 PM
and i never imagined that it could be.
i think i finally understand Scott's posts though. he feels the RS4 could benefit from a special oil and maybe he's right after all. i may question the heck out of it, but i don't have a closed mind on the subject.
08-20-2007, 12:47 PM
However, for 99.9% of owners, under 99.9% of street driving conditions, for as long as 99.9% of people will own this car, I still feel that any high grade oil changed at reasonable intervals will do just fine.
And this is my final post on the subject of oil in the RS4....EVER!
08-20-2007, 01:53 PM
i think you surely have conventional wisdom in your corner on this.
if there was an oil concern, it would be out there, immediately known.
people can debate oil forever. that's what happens when you have so many choices and so many things wrongly blamed on oil(or which oil).