Stromzilla
Seaman Apprentice
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Messages
- 47
Some of you may have a problem with the following thread so I'm giving you fair warning - if you're on oxygen, turn it on/up, if you are on medication use it, if you're bouncing off the walls from too much caffiene come back later, and if you're on a sugar high just wait a while before engaging.
Provoker #1: Create an all new specification called TCW4. This specification will be modeled after the TCW3 specification. However, it will show performance improvements across all categories with a serious improvement in 1 particular category. This specification will supersede TCW3 but will not eliminate it. So if your application calls for a TCW3 specification then you can use either a TCW3 or 4.
COMMENTARY: I've long felt that TCW3 was a marginal specification especially in one particular category. If you've torn apart outboard powerheads as I have I think you'll be able to guess the category. There must be hundreds of brands of oil that meet the current TCW3 spec. If I have it my way I'm guessing 75% or more of the current TCW3 oils would not be able to qualify to the new TCW4 spec. This spec would be for "old" 2-stroke technology meaning not for Direct Injection. Don't worry guys - for those of you that like your $1.25/qt oil you'll still be able to get it but it'll have to be as a TCW3 oil. Why am I doing this? It's a lousy specification in part because it got caught up in politics. When you have the hen guarding the henhouse things like that happen. Put me on the specification committee and I'll kick some booty and make the next specification right.
Provoker #2: Create a TCW5 specification. This specification will be targeted for the Direct Injection applications. The motor required for the qualification of an oil to this spec will have to be either an Optimax or Etec...we can decide that later. I suspect the same categories as used in the TCW3/4 specifications could be used. Allowable levels of performance in the specified TCW5 categories would be similar to the TCW4 spec. The key difference between TCW4 and 5 will be in what motor has to be used during the qualification process.
COMMENTARY: We need a new spec for the Direct Injection motors. TCW3 min/max requirements simply won't cut it. Because of the 2 oil flow rates for the Etec's we may need a 5a and a 5b to cover the 2...not sure on that one. Or we could force it to the lean-mode only but then that would upset the XD-50 users. TCW4 won't cut it because it'll be the wrong motor during the qualification process. Put me on the committee for this specification and I'll make it right
Let me know your thoughts. Keep it clean and let's not have any personal attacks. We're just having some fun. I am serious about my feeling towards the TCW3 specification though. I don't know who was a part of that specification when it was created but I'm willing to venture that more than a handful of oil manufacturers had something to do with it.
Provoker #1: Create an all new specification called TCW4. This specification will be modeled after the TCW3 specification. However, it will show performance improvements across all categories with a serious improvement in 1 particular category. This specification will supersede TCW3 but will not eliminate it. So if your application calls for a TCW3 specification then you can use either a TCW3 or 4.
COMMENTARY: I've long felt that TCW3 was a marginal specification especially in one particular category. If you've torn apart outboard powerheads as I have I think you'll be able to guess the category. There must be hundreds of brands of oil that meet the current TCW3 spec. If I have it my way I'm guessing 75% or more of the current TCW3 oils would not be able to qualify to the new TCW4 spec. This spec would be for "old" 2-stroke technology meaning not for Direct Injection. Don't worry guys - for those of you that like your $1.25/qt oil you'll still be able to get it but it'll have to be as a TCW3 oil. Why am I doing this? It's a lousy specification in part because it got caught up in politics. When you have the hen guarding the henhouse things like that happen. Put me on the specification committee and I'll kick some booty and make the next specification right.
Provoker #2: Create a TCW5 specification. This specification will be targeted for the Direct Injection applications. The motor required for the qualification of an oil to this spec will have to be either an Optimax or Etec...we can decide that later. I suspect the same categories as used in the TCW3/4 specifications could be used. Allowable levels of performance in the specified TCW5 categories would be similar to the TCW4 spec. The key difference between TCW4 and 5 will be in what motor has to be used during the qualification process.
COMMENTARY: We need a new spec for the Direct Injection motors. TCW3 min/max requirements simply won't cut it. Because of the 2 oil flow rates for the Etec's we may need a 5a and a 5b to cover the 2...not sure on that one. Or we could force it to the lean-mode only but then that would upset the XD-50 users. TCW4 won't cut it because it'll be the wrong motor during the qualification process. Put me on the committee for this specification and I'll make it right
Let me know your thoughts. Keep it clean and let's not have any personal attacks. We're just having some fun. I am serious about my feeling towards the TCW3 specification though. I don't know who was a part of that specification when it was created but I'm willing to venture that more than a handful of oil manufacturers had something to do with it.
