Is the Data Biased Toward Sponsors

It's human nature to wonder whether the data and information provided on this site is skewed in favor of the sponsors of the site, especially since many of those sponsors are oil distributors/companies themselves. So, it's a valid question to ask, and I hope I can give you a satisfactory answer here.

The following is actually a "preface" added after the fact, to this article. There is a little repetition between the preface and the older, original article, but, between the two, I think you'll have a good idea of what this is all about.

==== Preface Added After the Fact ====

Ranking/Scoring Calculations

I hope that you'll take a look at the specific documents that I've published regarding exactly how oils are scored/ranked in the database, how default values are chosen for those specs that are not provided by some manufacturers, how specification weighting values are used in the calculations, etc. There are four specific documents that will be most helpful in this regard:

1. Understanding Motor Oil Scoring
2. Understanding Specification Weighting
3. Understanding Motor Oil Ranking
4. Understanding Default Values

One reason you may be curious about the scoring of oils is that you may see some pretty drastic gaps between the top oils and those that score/rank below them on the list. Upon closer inspection you may find that some of the oils that scored below the "top" oil(s) within a particular viscosity may actually have a few specs that are equal to or even better than the "top" oil(s).

Of course, that may lead you to ask, "How, then, is it possible for the scores of the "top" oil(s) within a viscosity to have such a drastically higher quality score than those that next on the list?" In fact, I'd go so far as to say, you SHOULD be asking that question, because that's precisely what I'd be asking if I wasn't the one who'd designed the site and the scoring algorithm. So, let me briefly explain this phenomenon.

Importance of Some Specs vs. Others

As you will read in the documents linked to above, and possibly also further down on this page, I consider some specifications to be much more valuable in establishing an oil's ACTUAL quality than others. For instance, if an oil manufacturer dumps enough cheap, low-grade pour point depressant (PPD) additives into an oil, they can post a pretty low pour point on their spec sheet. Unfortunately, if you were test the pour point of that same oil after only a few hundred miles driving on it, it would likely be MUCH worse (higher) because those low grade PPD additives will be used up very quickly.

Likewise, an oil manufacturer can "prop up" the viscosity index of an oil with very unstable viscosity index improver (VII) additives in order to make their oil look good on paper. However, once in use, such an oil will QUICKLY shear back and those VII additives will become useless, leaving behind a very low quality oil, unable to adequately protect under temperature extremes.

In fact, many oil companies will intentionally use highly unstable VII additives in the oils they send in for fuel efficiency testing. They do this purposely, because during the fuel efficiency testing procedure these VII additives quickly shear back, resulting in a much lower viscosity oil which will post better fuel efficiency scores. Sad, but true.

Hence, technical specs that can be easily propped up, specifically pour point and viscosity index, I tend to give less importance in the quality scoring algorithm because there is no way to be certain of the quality of PPD or VII additives a manufacturer has used to post the tech specs they do on their spec sheets. That's not to say that they don't receive ANY weight, just less than those that cannot be so easily propped up, such as NOACK, flashpoint, HTHS and CSS scores.

These latter specs, will receive more weighting than PP and VI, since they are a pretty reliable indicator of oil quality which cannot be easily tampered with via discount additives that oil manufacturers will often use.

So, this is one reason you might see an oil score CONSIDERABLY better than another, even though the two oils might have similar pourpoint and viscosity index numbers (or the "lower quality" oil may even have higher PP and VI numbers) - the specs that "count", in my book, lean heavily in favor of the higher quality oil.

Manufacturers "Penalized" for Withholding Data

In addition to the issue of "propped up" specification data, I feel that many manufacturers withhold a considerable amount of data that they HAVE in their possession, simply to keep consumers in the dark regarding the true quality of their oils. In my opinoin, if a manufacturer HAS the data available, it should be published to give consumers sufficient information to make an educated decision regarding their motor oil selection.

Unfortunately, most manufacturers don't really care what my opinion is, they only know that there is certain data they really don't feel like publishing, and there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Of course, there are some more obscure tests which a manufacturer doesn't really HAVE to run in order to check for adherence to API or SAE classification requirements. In those cases, I don't expect a company to publish that data, although I like to see a company that publishes as much data as possible.

In the end, though, I really only expect a company to publish the basics. Virtually all companies publish pourpoint, viscosity index and flashpoint data, so I assume that data to be a given, especially since companies can actually USE PP and VI data to "sell" an oil, by propping those numbers up with low quality additives. Thus, VI and PP can actually be a "marketing tool" for some less than scrupulous companies.

But, there are other specs I would expect to see as well, and those other specs are included in my data tables. A High Temperature High Shear (HTHS) is required to be run in order to classify an oil to a particular SAE viscosity grade. There are absolute minimum HTHS values that are required for each SAE viscosity grade. Thus, if an oil manufacturer lists an oil as being of a particular SAE viscosity grade, I assume they've run the HTHS test procedure and have the data results. Hence, there is no reason for them not to provide them. If they don't, they deserve to "take a hit" on their quality score.

Similarly, the NOACK Volatility test procedure MUST be run if an oil manufacturer is to say that their oil meets/exceeds a particular API classication. This is because API requires a certain minimum NOACK score for each API classication (currently 13% for the latest diesel oil specs and 15% for gas engine oils). Thus, if an oil says it meets a particular API classification, the oil manufacturer must have run a NOACK test. Where's the data? If it's not provided, they take a hit.

Same for Cold Crank Simulator (CCS). Maximum values are set by the SAE for each multi-grade viscosity. Thus, any oil that is listed as a particular SAE multi-grade viscosity MUST have been tested on the CCS. No numbers, take a quality score hit. List the numbers, get the bump.

Different Viscosities Have Different Purposes

DUH. As if you didn't already know that, right? Well, just hear me out, because this obvious statement translates into a less obvious modification of the scoring algorithm.

Depending upon the viscosity of the oil, certain specs may be more important than others, in most cases. For instance, someone looking at 0w30 oils is probably wanting cold temperature performance. A person investigating SAE 60 motor oils, probably has a high temperature application and doesn't care about cold weather performance. Thus, the specifications of highest importance will differ between these two viscosities and the quality scoring should reflect this.

Thus, I have weighting values that are set for each specification and are specific to each viscosity (weighting values typically ranging from 0 to 10, although they, technically, can go as high as you like - and can be customized by YOU). So, for a 0w30 oil, the weighting values for CCS and pourpoint will be considerably higher than for an SAE 60 oil. And, because CCS can't be "tampered with" as easily as PP, the CCS weighting will be heavier than the PP weighting.

I think you get the idea. I've tried to set the weighting values for each specification within each viscosity so that the specifications given the most weight are those that can be tampered with the least and that will be most important for the applications most often using that viscosity. Of course, as I said, you can always customize these values yourself to completely modify the ranking algorithm, if you like.

==== End Preface And Begin Original Article ====

Data Directly From Manufacturers

First and foremost, I want to make it clear that the vast majority of the data provided in the Oil Comparison Application is taken directly from oil manufacturer spec sheets. If the data is listed in red, then I've used default values because the manufacturer did not provide the information.

Since all of the specifications listed in our database are BASIC specs, there are NONE of them that any manufacturer could claim they don't have. Thus, the only reason that I can think of for not putting the data on the spec sheets is because they don't want you to see the data. If the data reflected positively on the quality of their oil, it would be in their best interests to provide it. So, I'll let you make whatever inferences you like from that.

Either way, recognize that most of the "default values" that I use within the table (when manufacturers don't provide the data) are taken directly from the MAX/MIN requirements that are set for API classification or SAE viscosity grade classification.

For instance, if a diesel oil claims to meet API CI-4+ requirements, the MAXIMUM NOACK volatility the oil can have is 13%. Thus, if the manufacturer of a diesel oil doesn't provide that data, I have no choice but to assume their NOACK is likely close to that maximum. Thus, I choose this MAX value as the default.

Likewise, if an oil manufacturer claims that their oil is of the SAE 5w30 viscosity grade, then it must have an HTHS score of no lower than 2.9 cSt. Thus, if a manufacturer doesn't provide that data, either they have the data and have chosen not to publish it (likely because it isn't that great) or they do NOT have the data, in which case they have no idea if their oil actually meets the requirements of the SAE 5w30 viscosity.

I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have at least run the tests and know that their oil meets the criteria for their listed viscosity. As a result, the only other logical conclusion is that their HTHS score must not be all that much higher than the required minimum. Thus, I use THAT value for their HTHS score.

I am more than willing to change this data for the ACTUAL data, if the manufacturer chooses to provide it.

Brand X Always Seems to Score at the Top

This is, of course, the most common "red flag" that gets people wondering about the validity of the data on the site. So, we may as well get it out in the open.

There are really only three plausible explanations for why a certain brand oil might fall near the top of the listings the vast majority of the time:

1. It's a really high quality brand that generally outperforms the competition
2. My scoring algorithm and/or specification weighting values are flawed
3. The scoring values are intentionally skewed to favor that particular brand, either to benefit site sponsors or to benefit the owner of "The Motor Oil Evaluator" in some way

So, let's focus on option #3 for the time being, then we'll discuss possibilities 1 and 2.

3. Scoring Intentionally Skewed to Favor Brand X

Unfortunately, many folks will initially make this assumption, and, I suppose, I cannot blame them (which is why this page exists). However, let me explain the primary reason why this would NOT be in my best interests:

CREDIBILITY - This site ONLY has value to me (the owner and operator of the site) if it builds credibility with visitors to the site. This is because the service itself is free. I make no money for people to USE the service. In fact, technically, I lose money since I have to pay for webhosting, bandwidth, advertising, the original programming of the site, etc.

The only way that I make money from the site is through the site sponsorships and secondary product/service sales (my ebook or other products and services I might recommend). BOTH of these income generating sources are COMPLETELY dependent upon my own credibility and the credibility of the site.

If users of the service do not find me or the site credible, they'll not be interested in reading my book, they will not place any value on my product/service recommendations, and they will be unlikely to click on the "Site Sponsorship" links. If nobody clicks on the "Site Sponsorship" links, my site sponsors won't be with me long. Thus, the thousands of hours and thousands of dollars that I have invested in this website would be all for nothing.

My credibility and the credibility of the site in general are of CRITICAL importance if I want this site to be a success. Thus, I cannot afford to skew my scoring results in favor of a particular brand oil. This would be completely transparent to visitors/users of the site, and I would quickly lose credibility with them.

2. Scoring Algorithm or Weighting Values Flawed

Another possibility is that the scoring results are not INTENTIONALLY skewed, but are still inaccurate because of a serious flaw in my scoring algorithm or my specification weighting values.

I suppose the above IS possible, although I do not believe it to be so. First of all, the scoring algorithm is completely based on comparing an oil's ACTUAL specification values against the AVERAGE specification values for the rest of the oils in that viscosity category.

So, each oil will actually receive a "score" for each specification independently. For instance, if a 10w30 oil has an HTHS score which is higher than the average HTHS score for the other 10w30 oils in the databae, then it's HTHS quality score would be greater than 1. If it's HTHS score were equal to the average, it's HTHS quality score would be 1. If lower than the average, it's HTHS quality score would be lower than 1.

This is a very simple and reliable means of evaluating the comparative quality of an oil in each particular specification category, and ONLY compares an oil against other oils of the same viscosity, eliminating the "apples to oranges" comparison problem of comparing oils of differing viscosities.

Once a calculation is made for the quality score of an oil for each independent specification, then those individual specification quality scores are combined to offer a TOTAL quality score. Each individual specification quality score is multiplied by a "weighting value" (discussed in a moment) and is then added or subtracted from the total quality score, depending upon whether a higher or lower score is better for that particular specification.

For instance, the LOWER the NOACK score the better. Therefore, a higher quality oil will have a NOACK quality score that is LESS than 1, since it's actual NOACK score will be LESS than the average. As a result, since a lower NOACK is better, but we want are TOTAL quality score to be compared on a HIGHER is better scoring system, the NOACK quality score is actually subtracted from the TOTAL quality score.

Depending upon how mathematically inclined you are, this will either make complete sense to you or will have completely confused you. However, the point is, that the individual specification quality scores are "weighted" based on their importance to oil quality for that particular viscosity, and then they are combined to provide for a TOTAL quality score.

This was the most objective way I could come up with for calculating a quality score for each oil.

THE DEFAULT VALUE EFFECT - Some might question the choice to use "default values" in the database, suggesting that they skew the scoring of the oils. My response would be three-fold.

ONE: It is impossible to do a scoring calculation WITHOUT using default values. If defaults were not used, no calculations could be done. And, since each manufacturer chooses to disclose or "hide" different data, I can't simply eliminate certain specifications from the database to avoid the issue.

TWO: The specifications I've chosen to include ALL represent data that ALL oil manufacturers should have in their database - they HAVE to in order to indicate that their oils meet certain API or SAE viscosity classification requirements. Thus, it is reasonable to expect manufacturers to provide this data and FAIR to assess the default MIN/MAX values for those specifications they choose to hide.

THREE: In my opinion, manufacturers that choose to hide this data deserve to get a "0" for those specifications. Consumers deserve to KNOW the quality of the products they are purchasing, and, with oils, one of the best ways is to compare the technical specifications. If manufacturers will not provide the basic data for consumers to make educated comparisons (data that they MUST have in their possession to claim adherence to API/SAE classifications), they deserve to get "knocked".

However, since SOOOOOO many oil manufacturers leave a great deal of data OFF of their specification sheets, this oil comparison service would be pretty useless if I entered a "0" every time a manufacturer didn't provide the data. Thus, I've tried to be as fair as possible, at least giving them default MIN/MAX specification values as required by the API/SAE classifications that the manufacturer says they meet.

It seems to me only fitting that oil manufacturers that choose to disclose their data typically end up with higher quality scores. After all, the fact that they choose to disclose the data logically implies that they recognize the quality of their products compared to the rest of the industry and are not afraid to go "head to head" with the competition.

So, if your "favorite" oil seems to have what you consider to be a disproportionately low quality score or rank, check to see how much "RED" you see in their data. The more red you see, the less data they provided on their spec sheet.

Then, if you see quite alot of red, ask yourself the simple question: "Why are they not willing to provide that data on their spec sheets? Are they really offering the high quality product that I thought they were offering, if they are not even willing to let me see the data?".

SPECIFICATION WEIGHTING VALUES - Why use weighting values at all? Doesn't that inherently open me up to criticism of "favoritism"?

Yes, I suppose it does. But, on the other hand, NOT weighting the individual specifications more or less heavily than the rest would provide for inaccurate quality scoring. You see, if I DON'T provide different weighting to different specs, than the algorithm assumes that each spec is equally important for all viscosities. This simply isn't true and would lead to inaccurate scoring.

Consider this example. I'm looking to purchase a 0w30 motor oil, and I come to "The Motor Oil Evaluator" website in order to compare my options. WHY do I likely want to purchase a 0w30 oil? Chances are, I'm looking for cold weather performance. Under most circumstances I'm NOT going to be looking for a 0w30 oil for high temp performance. Thus, it is only reasonable that the quality score for a 0w30 oil should place more emphasis on those specifications that evaluate cold temperature performance.

Likewise, if I'm looking to purchase an SAE 70 motor oil, it's clear that I have NO interest in cold temperature performance, but will likely be VERY concerned about high temperature, high shear performance. Thus, flashpoint, NOACK and HTHS scores will be of critical importance to me and the quality score for an SAE 70 motor oil should place HIGH emphasis on those specs with little or no emphasis on cold temp specs such as pour point and CCS.

Weighting values are necessary to effectively quantify the quality of a particular viscosity oil. AND, default weighting values must be provided to simplify the use of the service. MANY visitors to this website have NO idea what most of the specs mean. They just want to know what the best quality oils are.

I don't want to alienate those users by forcing them to supply their own weighting values for quality scoring. Since they don't know what many of the specs mean, they would have no idea how to properly weight the different specs to provide a useful quality score. Thus, I provide default weighting so that they can simply sort the listing by quality score and be done.

At the same time, for POWER USERS I provide a simple to use feature which allows ANY user to modify those initial default weighting values in any way they like, thus COMPLETELY changing the quality scores for the oils, based upon THEIR OWN ideas of which specs are most valuable for evaluating the quality of a given viscosity oil.

For instance, maybe someone is looking for a 0w20 motor oil for RACING purposes. Thus, they know they want 0w20 for the low friction characteristics, but they want to choose the 0w20 oil that will provide them with the best high temp / high stress protection possible. Thus, they might choose to adjust the specification weighting values for 0w20 oils to place more emphasis on HTHS, flashpoint and NOACK scores.

The point is, I've done my very best to accommodate both power users and newbies so that ALL visitors to the site can effectively compare the motor oils that will best fit their application, without having to worry that my own personal bias toward any particular brand will skew the results.

IGNORE THE SCORING ALTOGETHER - For those that STILL believe my quality scoring method is intentionally or UNintentionally skewed in favor of particular brands, there is always the option of ignoring the scoring/ranking columns altogether. You can even completely hide them from view, if you like, and ONLY view the actual specification data scores. You don't HAVE to pay any attention to my scoring values at all, thus eliminating me from your quality comparisons altogether.

1. Some Brands REALLY ARE Better

The simple fact is, you wouldn't be on this site to begin with if you didn't believe that certain oils performed better than others. After all, why compare the technical data at all if you don't actually believe there is a difference in quality from one oil to another?

Thus, if the above is true, SOME oil brand HAS to show up at the top of the list. That's the nature of a database table. There has to be a record at the top.

In addition, we all know that quality companies produce quality products, and when we find a quality product, typically we choose to continue to purchase OTHER products from that same manufacturer, expecting similar quality.

So, it's not as if it would be all that surprising to see a particular brand name (or multiple brand names) of oil show up near the top of the list for MANY different viscosities. After all, if the company has the know-how and the willingness to produce a quality product in ONE viscosity, chances are that same technical know-how and tendency toward quality will "run off" into other viscosities as well.

So, the truth is, it's logical to assume that particular brand names will tend to show near the top of the listings, no matter what viscosity you're looking at, simply because they are a company that focuses on quality. I know that's a rare thing to find these days, so people often become skeptical. But, the truth is, there ARE still companies out there that believe in quality, and those types of businesses will ALWAYS "rise to the top".

Final Thoughts on the Subject

I have done my absolute best to provide a website that offers EVERYONE an easy way to find the best oils for their vehicles and equipment. Whether you're a newbie who really doesn't yet know what the specs mean (in which case my default quality rankings will really come in handy) or you're a seasoned pro that knows exactly what all the specs mean and knows exactly which specs will be most important for your application (in which case, you can easily adjust the specification weighting values to COMPLETELY change the oil rankings and quality scoring), you'll find a useful tool for comparing motor oils.

Whether you trust that I'm on the up and up or not, you can always IGNORE my scoring and ranking values altogether and simply use this service to compare the ACTUAL specification data yourself. It will still, literally, save you HOURS (if not even days or weeks) of time and effort trying to dig up the specification data for oils you're considering and then compile all that data into some useful table for comparison.

So, I hope that you see that I'm really going out of my way to eliminate as much potential bias as possible, and, it is in my best interests to do everything in my power to maintain my credibility by NOT intentionally or UNintentionally skewing the data to favor one brand or another, regardless of who my sponsors are.

One Last Bit to Chew On

The sponsors that I have for this site came on AFTER I had already compiled my data and established my quality scoring algorithm and default weighting values. I didn't find my sponsors first and then tailor my scoring to benefit them. I developed my database and scoring mechanisms FIRST. The sponsors that this site has have come to be AFTER THE FACT, because they see that my service has validated what they have already been telling their customers - their brand is the better brand.

It is in their best interests to find a THIRD PARTY to validate their claims. What better way to do that than to find a website (which they have) that compiles all of the data and proves conclusively that their oil is the better brand?

IT'S ONLY NATURAL - It would make no sense for an oil distributor to sponsor this site if our data showed their oil to be of poor quality. So, you're not going to find site sponsors for brands that do not show up near the top of the listings. That would be silly. It would be a waste of THEIR money.

In addition, I don't really want my website to be associated with an oil brand that my own data shows is a poor quality oil. Why would I want them as a site sponsor? It only connects my website and my business with a low quality product. Thus, even if they WANTED to sponsor the site (which would be foolish on their part), I wouldn't allow an oil company or distributor to sponsor "The Motor Oil Evaluator" website, simply because I don't want to be associated with their company.

IN THE END - there's not really much I can say that is going to completely convince you that I'm on the up and up. All I can do is present you with the facts here, and you'll have to make your own decisions regarding the value of the information provided on this site.

Hopefully, you'll recognize that I'm completely sincere in trying to provide balanced, objective information and data to help you make the most educated decision possible regarding your selection of oil for your vehicles and equipment. However, in the end, that decision will be completely up to you.

Thanks for taking the time to read through this page, and I hope that you'll continue to use the site and the services that it provides to consumers looking to find the highest quality motor oil for their particular application.