This from Anglo-American Oil (Joe Gibbs/Driven) :
I spoke to Lake Speed who is the senior oil guy at Driven and he has seen this report and he is not worried about the apparent low rating of his oil, as
he disputes the real world accuracy of the tests and the interpretations that have been made.
A lot of labs use fairly standardised tests to report on oils and these can skew the relevance of the data produced . There is much weight placed throughout the document on the
TBN values of the oil as an example. This is a measure of the ability of the oil to cope with high acid levels and was a valid test when there were high sulphur levels in pump fuels as these produced sulphuric
acids which would cause corrosion. Modern fuels are now all low sulphur, so high TBN values are no longer a key performance measure for an oil.
These standardised tests identify zinc levels but not the actual type of zinc product being used in the oil. The different types work in different ways, some are there to last a long drain period
others have shorter life span but give better protection, so it depends on what the oils have been formulated to do as to how effective the zinc content is.
Lab results are one thing, but Driven develop and fine tune the oil formulations in actual engines doing wear analysis and performance measurements and have been doing this for the last 15 years.
Attached is a development report where Driven ran dyno power runs using different oils with the same spec engine, changing to a new cam for each oil and the measuring the wear rates and
power produced. This shows that the Driven products perform very well and better that some of those brands include in the lab tests that on paper are better.