Originally Posted by usual_suspect

I wasn't trying to debate the merits of one standard over another or defend either study. I just wanted to know why he thinks we should believe that these test methods are so different (in real terms) that he can interpret the results as polar opposites.

My point is that he discounted (mocked) the first comparo on the basis that the scar test didn't represent the real conditions in an engine, yet proudly posts this 4 ball test. Last I checked, I don't have 4 ***** rubbing inside my engine either.

Originally Posted by usual_suspect

A couple of weeks ago someone else posted a similar wear test and this was your reaction ...


Were you correct then, or are you correct now?

Originally Posted by redlude97

I don't understand his responses either, that why I put quotes around "bogus" because those are his words and not mine. I was just trying to provide some type of reasoning behind his tirade

Originally Posted by usual_suspect

My point is that he discounted (mocked) the first comparo on the basis that the scar test didn't represent the real conditions in an engine, yet proudly posts this 4 ball test. Last I checked, I don't have 4 ***** rubbing inside my engine either.