Draft 08/06/01 jar1 Draft Addendum to the Statistical Summary of the Mack T10 Precision/BOI Matrix Including IR Oxidation

Draft 08/06/01 jar2 Summary This is a preliminary analysis. Data are not available yet for used oil viscometrics. A draft analysis of the IR Oxidation numbers is presented in this draft. It is not a consensus analysis. Method 2 IR at 300 hours benefits from using the -0.8 power transformation. Method 5 IR at 300 hours benefits from a natural logarithm transformation. Both IR measures were strongly correlated with each other and with delta lead.

Draft 08/06/01 jar3 Summary (continued) Labs and stands within labs were significant for both IR measures. Technology had a significant effect for both IR measures. Base Oil had a significant effect for Method 2 IR. Observations with large Studentized residuals were seen for both IR measures. Oil means and standard deviations are given for potential use in LTMS.

Draft 08/06/01 jar4 Data Set Table 1 shows the design for the matrix. All operationally valid data with the exception of CMIR are included. The T10 Task Force decided to eliminate CMIR from the analysis. –This was an early test in Lab B on Oil A which had high silicon and aluminum in the used oil. It also had high ring weight loss with low cylinder liner wear. The lab ran Oil A again with non-anomalous results. The matrix remains intact as planned. IR Oxidation numbers using Method 2 and Method 5 from the SwRI analyses of samples at 300 hours have been added.

Draft 08/06/01 jar5 Table 1. Mack T10 Precision Matrix Plan

Draft 08/06/01 jar6 Table 2. Mack T10 Precision Matrix Data from TMC 07/16/01 (IR from Joe Franklin 08/03/01)

Draft 08/06/01 jar7 Transformations Box-Cox procedure was applied using all matrix data. Delta lead benefits from a natural logarithm transformation. Method 2 IR at 300 hours is best raised to a power of -0.8 for analyses. Method 5 IR at 300 hours likes a natural logarithm transformation. No data transformations are indicated for other responses analyzed.

Draft 08/06/01 jar8 M2IR Summary of Model Fit Model factors include Laboratory (A,B,D,F,G), Stand within Laboratory (A1,A2,G1,G2), Technology (X,Y,Z), Base Oil (1,2,3) and Technology by Base Oil interaction. Technology, Base Oil, Lab, and Stand within Lab were significant. –Root MSE from the model was (13 df). –The R 2 for the model was –Figure 1 illustrates the least squares means by oil. –Figure 2 summarizes least squares means for technologies and base oils. –Figure 3 summarizes least squares means for labs and stands within labs. –Stand within Lab significance was driven by the two stands in Lab G which were significantly different from each other. –Power transformation was appropriate. –The test of Oil E in stand G2 had a large Studentized residual.

Draft 08/06/01 jar9

10 Figure 2 Technology and Base Oil Least Squares Means for tM2IR

Draft 08/06/01 jar11 Figure 3 Lab and Stand within Lab Least Squares Means for tM2IR

Draft 08/06/01 jar12 Ln(M5IR300) Summary of Model Fit Model factors include Laboratory (A,B,D,F,G), Stand within Laboratory (A1,A2,G1,G2), Technology (X,Y,Z), Base Oil (1,2,3) and Technology by Base Oil interaction. Technology, Lab, and Stand within Lab were significant. –Root MSE from the model was.3215 (13 df). –The R 2 for the model was –Figure 4 illustrates the least squares means by oil. –Figure 5 summarizes least squares means for technologies. –Figure 6 summarizes least squares means for labs and stands within labs. –Stand within Lab significance was driven by the one stand in Lab G which was significantly different from all others. –Natural logarithm transformation was appropriate. –The second test of Oil A in stand G2 had a large Studentized residual.

Draft 08/06/01 jar13

Draft 08/06/01 jar14 Figure 5 Technology Least Squares ln(M5IR)

Draft 08/06/01 jar15 Figure 6 Lab and Stand within Lab Least Squares Means for ln(M5IR)

Draft 08/06/01 jar16 Correlations Among the Criteria

Draft 08/06/01 jar17 Oil Least Squares Means and Standard Deviations