# Tegger's real-world oil consumption

Page 3 of 5
• posted on June 8, 2010, 7:02 pm
jim beam wrote:

Take a deep breath and exhale slowly before you melt into a blob of gurgling green goo.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 12:15 am

You said this: "The correct method is easy. If you summed how much make up oil you added in total plus how much less than full it was at the time of oil change, you would get a number that represents the total consumption over the entire 42000 miles. You then make the calculation on that total consumption and total miles."
Firstly, I never said I was doing a test over the whole 42,000 miles. I said I was doing ~1,000 mile tests twice within every batch of oil, which was roughly every 3,000 miles.
Secondly, doing it /your/ way results in a number that's about 1/2 of one-percent different from the number you'd get when doing it /my/ way.
My raw numbers say: 17,892 miles within the test periods. 10.817 quarts consumed (AKA "required to top-up to original level").
So doing it your way (as you describe above): 17892 / 10.817 = 1654 miles.
Doing it my way (averaging the extrapolated mi/qt): 21425 / 17 = 1663 miles.
Comparing the two: 1654 / 1663 = 0.9945, or 0.55% difference.
--
Tegger

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 2:00 am
Tegger wrote:

Yes, That is what you said. And repeating it again doesn't make it any less goofy or any more accurate.

How would you know what result doing it the right way would give you? You didn't even come close to using any of the several methods I suggested.
What about all the discrepancies in your data? Are you just going to pretend they are not there for everyone to see?

That isn't doing my way. What you are doing is what is known as a flim-flam. If you are going to try to pull off a mathematical flim-flam, you could at least have taken the care to make the numbers agree between your two sets of data. Those discrepancies kinda exposes the whole thing don't ya think?
-jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 2:12 am
On 06/08/2010 07:00 PM, jim wrote:

good point - you don't /have/ a way.

whut? bullshit, fabricate and bluster are all "methods"?

whut about the discrepancies in /your/ data, asshole? whut, you don't have any data???

so where are your numbers, asshole?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 10:02 am

Hear that loud scraping sound, boys and girls? That's the sound of "jim" frantically backing-and-filling.
He's been caught in a giant mistake, and won't admit it.
He said: "2) Averaging miles/quart for driving intervals of different lengths does not give an accurate average. Lets take some example numbers to see why:
A- drive 1000 mi .5 quarts down on the dipstick = 2000 mi/qt B- drive 1500 mi 1.2 quart down on the dipstick = 1250 mi/qt     -------------------------------------------------------- Average of A and B = 1625 mi/qt"
The giant problem with "jim's" criticism of my work is that he has chosen as examples precisely the sort of data that you would NEVER include in statistics: Anomalies. Plus his sample size is impossibly tiny.
I then said: "I suspect that, as the dataset grows ever larger, that the difference between your first method and your second will lessen greatly, and will eventually disappear. That's why sample-size is so critical to any sort of statistics."
And with half-a-percent difference between methods, I am right. 1663 versus 1654. Half-a-percent.
--
Tegger

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 11:32 am
Tegger wrote:

What is the mistake to which you refer?

That was not a mistake. The statement " Averaging miles/quart for driving intervals of different lengths does not give an accurate average." was a correct statement. It is not mathematically valid to calculate the average in that manner if the mileage intervals are of different lengths. I suggested taking some elementary remedial math courses if you can't understand why it is invalid. This is stuff you should have learned in about the 6th grade if yo had been paying attention. The key point is that it will produce an invalid average when you have mileage intervals of different lengths.     The original data you posted had mileage intervals of widely varying lengths. After I pointed that out you posted an excel file with new data where the mileage intervals are clearly not the same as in the original PDF file. You keep ignoring all requests for an explanation of why the mileage intervals in your PDF file are different than the mileage intervals shown in your excel file.

No you are as usual completely off track. It has nothing to do with sample size or anomalies. I chose examples that was similar to the original data you posted where the mileage intervals are not consistently the same length. It is the difference in length of intervals that was evident in your original data that made it an invalid operation to average the miles/quart.
4 days ago I said:
[quote] I see intervals of 2550 1200 1430 1390. So what is one to make of that given the statement that the oil was being checked at 1000 mile intervals? [end quote]
I still want to know what the answer to that question is. After I made that statement you posted new data in an excel file. The new data has mileage intervals that are all different from the intervals shown in the PDF file. I can't find a single interval in your excel file that agrees with the intervals sown in the original PDF file. I have asked several times what is the explanation for the altered data that you are now claiming to make your calculations from. Why does the data you are now making calculations from not agree with the original data you posted?

No you are still dead wrong. What you have is doctored data that serves no purpose but to obscures reality. A grade school child could do a better job of keeping track of your oil consumption and come up with a more reliable and accurate number than you have.
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 1:29 pm
On 06/09/2010 04:32 AM, jim wrote:

so where are /your/ numbers, asshole?
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 1:39 pm
jim beam wrote:

Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb for a little while. The big people will play with you again when were done.
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 1:54 pm
On 06/09/2010 06:39 AM, jim wrote:

but your [ex] wife tells me are not "big people", asshole.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 2:13 pm
jim beam wrote:

That's nice...... What are the other imaginary friends saying?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 2:31 pm
On 06/09/2010 07:13 AM, jim wrote:

your ex-wife is imaginary??? then why did she leave you? could it be because you're a useless blowhard know-nothing asshole, asshole?
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 3:25 pm
jim beam wrote:

Ask your little imaginary friends to help with the story telling. And stop picking at your nose and ass or they will start to bleed.
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 9:19 pm

You have very serious reading-comprehension problems. Go and read, again, the text on the PDF chart.
--
Tegger

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 9, 2010, 10:19 pm
Tegger wrote:

Yes I have told repeatedly that I can not comprehend your data in the PDF file because it contradicts the data in the excel file. Could you please explain why the mileage data does not agree in both files. The mileage intervals shown in the PDF are different than the XLS file. Your refusal to explain the discrepancies makes these studies look like they are fraudulent. The only explanation I can come up with is you have doctored the XLS data to get the result you wanted to see. Of course you couldn't doctor the data in the PDF file because that is already published. So now you have two files that don't agree.
Your PDF labels the numbers at the bottom as "mileage (odometer) at time of check"
In that chart you have what is labeled a first reading at 321,771 miles and a second reading at 323,206 miles. That is an interval of 1435 miles. I don't see any interval in the Excel file that is even close to 1435 miles. Can you please explain this discrepancy.
-jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 10, 2010, 2:49 am

<sigh>
I shall try, again, to explain this to you. I will do so by quoting, again, the text of the PDF: "One (approx) 1,000-mile check is done within each 1,500-mile half of the 3,000. Actual covered mileage varies within each check interval."

That's true, it /is/ already "published". On my own Website. I can doctor it anytime I wish. In fact, I have already done so, thrice, in order to elaborate and clarify the explanatory text. You were the impetus for those changes, so take a bow.

I have clarified that. It now says: "Odometer reading in miles at time of check" There is now a new listing below that: "(actual mileage covered during the test interval)"

<sigh>
I shall try, yet again, to explain this to you. I will do so by quoting, yet again, the text of the PDF: "One (approx) 1,000-mile check is done within each 1,500-mile half of the 3,000. Actual covered mileage varies within each check interval."
Because my criteria are as rigorous as they are, I am unable to provide a running tally that accounts for every single mile. Some days I'm at the bottom of the driveway because my wife got home first. Some days I don't park in the driveway. Some days I'm out of the house at 6:00AM and am not inclined to check the oil before I go. I take my initial reading when I am absolutely convinced that all criteria have been met. This means a week or more may go by before I am able to take an accurate measurement and start the test.
I refuse to insult people online, but you are so very obstinately abrasive that I'm finding it difficult to keep from doing so.
--
Tegger

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 10, 2010, 1:11 pm
Tegger wrote:

That is not a statement that reveals much detail. I see from your data that a first check is made at 321,771 miles and that a second check is made at 323,206 miles. Those two checks are 1435 miles apart. You have stated that at each check you put the measured amount of make-up oil in the engine. You also said when you filled it after the second check it brought it back to the same level as after filling at the first check. Up to now you have never mentioned anything about any other additional oil checks that are not recorded on the PDF or adding any other make-up oil.

You can't just change the data whenever you feel like it and then expect that everyone will take your study to be credible.

That statement mentions only two oil checks per oil change interval. Your PDF chart has a record of the odometer mileage when those two checks were made. What you are now suggesting is there were additional oil checks that can't be seen by looking at the PDF chart? You said you added oil after the first check. And stated you added oil at the second check that brought the level to the same point as when you added oil at the first check. How is that possible? If you don't know how much was used between the first and second check how can you fill it up to the same level? What about the oil that was used in the 400 miles between the first and second interval?

I think you are fooling yourself. You are sweating over tiny details that don't matter much and overlooking the things that substantially alter the accuracy of the results.

That's not true, You have an odometer that is keeping a running tally of every single mile. All you have to do is keep track of how much oil was used over the entire 3000 mile oil change interval. Keeping a running tally of the amount of oil consumed is a simple, easy and accurate method of determining oil consumption'      What you are doing is much more difficult and grossly inaccurate than keeping a running tally. The fact that you don't appear to understand that is baffling. The procedure you are using is the root cause of why your data has the wild fluctuations. Those wild fluctuations are just artifacts of a badly designed study. An accurate accounting of the oil consumed would not show those fluctuations in consumption.

All you need to do to get an accurate picture of the engine's oil consumption is an accounting of all the oil used at the end of the oil change period and the mileage traveled during that oil change period. You don't really know how much oil your engine used in each oil change period. Instead of knowledge of how much oil was consumed per OCI, what you have is data from a badly designed study that obscures how much oil was actually used during each 3000 miles period.

What was wrong with the measurement at the end of the first period as a basis for starting the next period?
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 10, 2010, 2:20 pm
On 06/10/2010 06:11 AM, jim wrote:

so where are your numbers, asshole?
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 10, 2010, 3:35 pm
jim beam wrote:

How in f**k would I have any numbers for the OP's oil consumption????
You are so mind numbingly stupid it is really really frightening. Go rent the movie "Idiocracy" to get a good look at yourself.
I have been saying over and over that bad numbers are much worse than no numbers at all. Your religious belief in piles and piles of BS numbers has a lot to do with why you are so ignorant and stupid. You go bury yourself in numbers until your eyes glaze over and then tell yourself "Gee with all these numbers I mutht be really really smart".
Having a huge pile of numbers that represent dipstick reading is a retarded way of figuring out oil consumption.
If what you are asking is how much oil do my vehicles use. The answer is so damn little that I can't really tell how much. Thinking about it now - it is probably close to 15 years since the last time I added any make up oil to any vehicle I own. I have never added any makeup oil to my lawnmower either. But my Roto-Tiller - now that is a different story. I use that maybe 3 hours a year at the most and it eats half a quart of oil and gallon of gas. it's been doing that for 30 years - ever since I bought it for 25 bucks.
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 10, 2010, 6:07 pm
jim beam wrote:

I did and the numbers didn't add up. You didn't do that. Instead your eyes glazed over and you mumbled, "Oh look at all the pretty numbers"

Sure I could do that, if he wants to ship his car half way across the continent.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on June 10, 2010, 6:32 pm
On 06/10/2010 11:07 AM, jim wrote:

don't put false words in my mouth, asshole.

no, /you/ record /your/ numbers from /your/ school bus asshole. after you've stopped sniffing the seats and have washed your hands.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• Share To

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.