Yea, the test is a bit one dimensional. I still haven't seen anything better though. I am always on the hunt for stuff like this on the net. There are some good comparisons out there and we have done plenty here at work, but that info isn't shared with me. He tested so many brands, it must have cost him quite a bit, not just in purchasing oil, but having them tested. Someone had to pay for those results, it would have broken my bank account long ago. I don't know if my work still offers it but I remember many years ago we use to test used oil samples for the public, I can't remember what they charged, but it was just a screening process to tell you what was in the oil itself and in what quantity. It certainly didn't include any tests under pressure.
There are two statements that he made that stand out to me. The first I agree with and the second I don't. The first is when he stated that just because an oil held up to a higher pressure doesn't necessarily mean that you need that level of protection in your engine. Pressure is just one variable and there are so many other things to take into consideration. The second is the fact that he doesn't like testing oils in engines. Well, last time I checked motor oils go in...engines. It only makes sense to test them in...engines! Now of course there are a lot of other ways to test oils that don't involve engines and the industry knows this and makes good use of the other tests. But, once you add combustion by-products to the equation, things start to change. The R&D industry has been using engines to test oils for 60+ years that I am aware of and I am sure they did it even further back.
Removing the additives I mentioned earlier did cause some problems, that's apparent. There is a reason why they called those additives anti-wear agents. There is also a reason why diesel engines that were utilizing slider followers got to keep those additives in their oils. It may have been unfair but they realized all the modern gas engines were roller or OHC with bucket followers (direct acting, no rocker ratio). As for the older gas engines, they didn't really want them on the road anymore so we were left to fend for ourselves and find oils that would work with our antiquated equipment or find an add pack that we could pour in with some modern oil and make parts live.
Things are getting tricky for the oil companies with modern engines. Turbo gas direct injected engines are all the rage right now. Oil formulations are changing rapidly to work with semi-heterogeneous fuel mixtures. Also, as you saw in my earlier posted story about 0W-20, oils are getting thin as can be. Not just for fuel mileage reasons either. Engines now have lots of tiny screens placed through out for turbo feed, vanos units that adjust variable cam sprockets, and vacuum pumps. People won't be able to sludge engines anymore, they will simply plug these screens. The engine will fail to run properly, won't run at all, or it will lock up turbo or cause plastic internals of vacuum pump to break.
The soot that is created by stratified charges with D.I. gas motors will wear timing chains out if oil isn't changed enough. Look at new GM 3.6, chain stretches till tensioner is at max and then chain slap occurs (public knowledge, lots of tsb's), of course the early chains were made in France when they should have been made here, tight asses
Once the add pack breaks down an engine's oil will go south very quickly. Oil degradation is not linear. This is one of the reasons why I would love to see the test that Rat blog guy posted done with engine testing, but that would truly cost a fortune. Average engine test being 50 grand times 100 oils = 5 million bucks
Probably not going to happen anytime soon. So, as I mentioned before, I still think the test he posted has some good info in it, and something can be learned and gained from it. Is it the be all end all of motor oil comparisons? Certainly not.
Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think he is trying to hide his identity, he is a frequent poster at speed talk and can be found under the user name 540 RAT.