OCI, not when but why?

KARNUT · June 26

1 minute ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Lets see if I can sum up two pages of nothing useful.

You want to refute your own governments data of the "Purchasing Power" Index FOR THE ENTIRE USA and its territories replacing it with the experience of a single family and its business and label that reality? Then pound on that for a week hoping it will find traction?

Stan, I've told you several times. I don't do irrational. There are more people in the USA than your family.

I'm pretty sure this tread is so blown up. I'll give you a few days or months if need be to post yourself silent then I'll see if I can find enough parts of the train to reassemble it.

I put the prof up. If you read what I posted. You can see that housing, cars and income are in line with the era we were talking about. It’s harder in some places easier in others. Let’s agree to disagree and put this back on track, OK? We both are pretty stubborn and hard headed. But I bring receipts. If you wish I will not respond to you in the future.

Grumpy Bear · June 27

22 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I put the prof up. If you read what I posted. You can see that housing, cars and income are in line with the era we were talking about. It’s harder in some places easier in others. Let’s agree to disagree and put this back on track, OK? We both are pretty stubborn and hard headed. But I bring receipts. If you wish I will not respond to you in the future.

I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".

My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.

I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.

We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....

Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.

I do not see any advantage to disengagement. But that said we can step back to compose ourselves. :thumbs:

KARNUT · June 27

35 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".

My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.

I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.

We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....

Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.

I do not see any advantage to disengagement. But that said we can step back to compose ourselves.

As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.

Grumpy Bear · June 27

5 hours ago, KARNUT said:

As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.

Consider me amused. :crackup: We are who we are, right?

Grumpy Bear · June 28

9 hours ago, KARNUT said:

As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.

Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".

The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".

It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".

The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:

Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:

9 hours ago, KARNUT said:

Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule.

What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken.

KARNUT · June 28

6 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".

The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".

It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".

The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:

Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:

What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken.

But Grumpy I did show several subdivisions that had homes starting in the 170K range. If you bought a Townhouse or Condo you could go cheaper. Same with a car 3000 dollars in the 70s translates to around 20K today. There are several models at that price. You actually get more for the money. In the 70s I drove a 3000$ car bought a 28K home and made 4.50 per hour. Thank goodness for overtime. Today I could buy a 170K house drive a 20K car and make 25 dollars an hour operating the same machine today. The difference the house, car, machine would be better and have AC. And I wouldn’t be taxed on overtime. And statistically your wife works too. Easing the burden. I thought we agreed to disagree. I brought receipts earlier, showing examples. I think you’re more stubborn than me. I was done with this debate.

KARNUT · June 28

I see where you’re going and I can appreciate that. Statistics can be misleading because of the word average. They say statistics show the average cost of a new vehicle is about 50k. The average monthly payment is close to 1000 dollars a month. That’s statistics for you. I know very few people who pay that.

Atlas · June 28

People mislead themselves. Statistics are highly useful indicators.

Here's the tie-in to this thread. If an oil sample tests shows a wear indicator of 7 using cheaper ACDelco oil, and a wear indicator of 2 (lower = less wear) using a particular brand of Mobil oil, and wear has a linear relationship with engine lifespan, anyone could assume that Mobil is reducing wear by more than 50% (let's just say a 200% reduction for you red state people trying hard to do math) which leads to increasing engine life by 2x. Perhaps, in a vacuum, by itself, when dreamed by AI.

Yeah?! That's what the statistic is saying, isn't it?

No, it isn't. It didn't come out and say engine life is doubled. That's a very bad assumption, and a case of severe myopia by assuming something potentially untrue about the only data point in focus.

Average cost of a new car is 50k. You bet it is.

The median cost of a new car is more like 35k. Expensive cars are skewing the perception that "average" now means a $50k price of entry for a very average automobile. And that's not true. People who don't understand statistics twist the living heck out of them to mean all sorts of things they don't actually mean.

"Average" new car payment is $1000/month. Yep, it is. And in that number are all the $35k new car buyers who bring significant equity, and the $25k new car buyers who finance the car for a month just to get a rebate, and then pay it off. Know what isn't in that number? All the payments made by people who don't finance a car.

Picking one's own data point (don't have a car payment, never paid $50k for a new vehicle, my house cost $170k, I afforded a middle class lifestyle on $4.50/hr) is just a data point. Just like earning $25/hr in an area where the median home price is almost $1 Million is a data point. In fact, it's a lot of data points given that 80% of the US population lives in/around major cities. They're not idiots; the vast majority of them do it to make a living because that's where the big money is.

The highs have become higher, lows have become lower, and how your personal mileage varies is not truth for an entire country. At the same time you can't NOT acknowledge the data. While it doesn't paint YOUR personal picture, it certainly tints the reality that you also live in, as does your single data point.

KARNUT · June 28

What’s missing in all this is patience and investment in the future. Buy a 170K starter home. Ten years later sell it invest in a more expensive home. Eventually you’ll have a 600K home and pay starter home payments. Buy a starter car. Maintain it well. Save the payments after it’s payed for then buy an expensive car if you desire. Buy a tumbler make your own coffee, pack your lunch. Cook your own dinner. Most importantly take care of your car.

Grumpy Bear · June 28

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/fuel-economy-stickers-don-t-tell-the-whole-story-aaa-data-reveals-why/ar-AA26ocHk?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=6a4122ea3dae47e5b8dfbed5d4fd3d55&cvpid=648f6b4fc2fa4eddb4c12893aeb957ed&ei=59

KARNUT · June 28

20 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/fuel-economy-stickers-don-t-tell-the-whole-story-aaa-data-reveals-why/ar-AA26ocHk?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=6a4122ea3dae47e5b8dfbed5d4fd3d55&cvpid=648f6b4fc2fa4eddb4c12893aeb957ed&ei=59

I usually do as well or better than the sticker for mileage. Usually better going west than east. North then South. Wind makes a difference. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist. But it did dawn on me I’m going by the vehicle calculation. Now that would be interesting.

Grumpy Bear · June 28

The average lifespan of automobiles on the road is increasing - here's why

Grumpy Bear · June 28

6 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I usually do as well or better than the sticker for mileage. Usually better going west than east. North then South. Wind makes a difference. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist. But it did dawn on me I’m going by the vehicle calculation. Now that would be interesting.

I have four that read by the dash 8 to 10% better than miles/pump calculations and I have one that is spot on.

asilverblazer · June 29

18 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I have four that read by the dash 8 to 10% better than miles/pump calculations and I have one that is spot on.

How accurate is the pump?

How much actual fuel is in the tank before the pump was triggered off by air/fuel/bubbles/turbulence in the filler neck?

Even if you use the same pump at every fill up, it could still sway the average to be off by the pump's calibration.

Bottom line, the volume in the tank is not known (exactly) the volume added to the tank is not known (exactly).

Further, how is idle time captured, fuel is being lost but the miles aren't increasing? A bunch of idling would show a lower MPG than what the vehicle achieves going down the road.

Grumpy Bear · June 30

Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing

Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.

http://papers.sae.org/600190/: http://papers.sae.org/850215/:

Up to 75% of engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.

So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.

How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.

Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.

There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.

The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:

Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.

It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.