So Many Bearing Tests Trying To Prove Best Oil ?

[kschachn]

OK, so it doesn't measure lubricity then?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
If you want to be exactly technical, this machine, as has already been established measures the resistance encountered by the bearing. In this case, lubricity and resistance have an inverse relationship. I.E.: the higher the resistance, the lower the lubricity. That, compared to the scar on the bearing, qualifies lubricity of oils and liquids. I don't have a PhD in physics, but that is the basic operating principle of this test.

 

[jk_636]

are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument or do you have a point. Lubricity is a quality that can only be measured by testing its impact on the materials around it. That is why this test is used, by everyone except amsoil, to test the oils capacity for function.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
by everyone except amsoil, to test the oils capacity for function.


We had a thread not long ago where Amsoil used the 4 ball wear test to prove it had the best oil.

 

[kschachn]

You are the one who said "These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity." I'm asking how you measure lubricity so I can then relate them to PCMO and see how it is legitimate.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument or do you have a point. Lubricity is a quality that can only be measured by testing its impact on the materials around it. That is why this test is used, by everyone except amsoil, to test the oils capacity for function.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
You are the one who said "These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity." I'm asking how you measure lubricity so I can then relate them to PCMO and see how it is legitimate.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument or do you have a point. Lubricity is a quality that can only be measured by testing its impact on the materials around it. That is why this test is used, by everyone except amsoil, to test the oils capacity for function.


I have explained it more than enough already. If you don't understand by now, it is due to instigation and not education.

Don't take my word for it. Drain the oil out of your motor and drive around the block. Maybe that is the ultimate test of lubricity.

 

[zray]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
OK,

So the thing is, the guys providing answers above are not hotrodders running high lift cams with big springs placing very high pressure on the cam, especially a flat tappet cam........."




I'm using flat tappet cams in all my cars. Some of them see extreme duty. That doesn't mean I'm going to fall for the scar bearing hocus pocus. Might as well fil up the crankcase with Slick 50 and be done with it. No thanks. My engine stay together very nicely with Mobil 1 15w-50 & Mobil 1 0w-40. I'd be crazy to walk away from what has been working very well for nearly 20 years.

Z

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: JSRT4
Thanks for all of the replies, that puts things in perfect perspective. I appreciate the info.

Nice to know about Pert shampoo, it might make a good engine flush, lol , j/k

I've always been suspicious of these kind of tests, it is good to have other opinions on this. I hope this wasn't regarded as a dumb post, thanks for not shooting me down if it was.

Not a dumb post at all, you wouldn't believe how any many people these snake oil companies hook with that test.
You can have any result you want just manipulate the test as needed.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Marco620
Well said Trav. I should use netrogena t gel as it has a bunch of zinc

Selsen blue has a lot too. I was getting a bald spot from too many u turns under the bed sheet and and it grew back in no time when it had zinc protecting it.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components. Easy to understand. Amsoil has had this campaign out for years to try and discredit these tests, but that is only because their products perform so poorly in these tests. Amsoil has a shady advertising history and this is no exception. For those who dispute them, keep in mind that the major oil manufacturers, including SOPUS use them in their QA and R&D process. They wouldn't waste time and money in machinery that didn't work or produce accurate results.


They use them because they are a cheap machine, compared to all of the other tests that cost considerable money...the machine that they use isn't the one armed bandit, or the 4 ball, it's generally a reciprocating machine that represents ring/liner. (Cameron Plint test...used to best represent cross head protection, if that's any relevance to your engine).

And they don't use it for certification, they use it for screening additives that MIGHT be useful in their oil formulations.

If API could tell how useful a lubricant was by a timken tests or 4 ball, do you honestly think they would have expensive engine based tests (to see how an oil performs in an engine).

Amsoil don't need other people to discredit them...using these tests as "proof" of their oil's performance does enough for their reputation without detractors...here we took an actual, certificated oil, and we beat it in a 4 ball...we therefore "meet and exceed API performance".

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
These type of tests have merit when done professionally AND used in context to describe, explain, and yes, demonstrate. Describing the use of additives such as Zinc, as in Head and Shoulders, Molybdenum, zddp,penetro,friction modifiers and even differences in base stocks to a degree, is applicable here.
When used as a prop unto itself is when it gets blurry.


salesrep, I DO agree...the force can be used for good and bad.

I admit, I bought a lot of additives back in the day because of one armed bandit performances at hot rod shows...they were all MLM type players, same as are around.

Worst use of the machines that I saw in industry was when we had a reputable blender/additive supplier do some very very good work on dewatering a hydraulic system (fibreboard press) that had suffered sea water ingress in shipping. They vacuum/heat/fullers earth treated the oil and system, the replenished the additives.

However, at one point I found them with the machine in the purchasing department, having the purchasing officers grabbing grease off the stores shelves, then proving how they needed to replace their "poorly performing" greases (like Mobil SHC220) with their "wonder grease", that didn't need to be synthetic, because look how it performs.

I grabbed the press grease, which was a suspension of ptfe and moly in PAO, and they cried foul, because they "meant normal grease".

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: salesrep
These type of tests have merit when done professionally AND used in context to describe, explain, and yes, demonstrate. Describing the use of additives such as Zinc, as in Head and Shoulders, Molybdenum, zddp,penetro,friction modifiers and even differences in base stocks to a degree, is applicable here.
When used as a prop unto itself is when it gets blurry.


salesrep, I DO agree...the force can be used for good and bad.

I admit, I bought a lot of additives back in the day because of one armed bandit performances at hot rod shows...they were all MLM type players, same as are around.

Worst use of the machines that I saw in industry was when we had a reputable blender/additive supplier do some very very good work on dewatering a hydraulic system (fibreboard press) that had suffered sea water ingress in shipping. They vacuum/heat/fullers earth treated the oil and system, the replenished the additives.

However, at one point I found them with the machine in the purchasing department, having the purchasing officers grabbing grease off the stores shelves, then proving how they needed to replace their "poorly performing" greases (like Mobil SHC220) with their "wonder grease", that didn't need to be synthetic, because look how it performs.

I grabbed the press grease, which was a suspension of ptfe and moly in PAO, and they cried foul, because they "meant normal grease".
No purchasing department should ever be allowed to purchase plant equipment without the plant engineering department's approval. We lost a lot of valuable generation time($10,000 and hour) because a buyer replaced GE supplied filter elements with knock off filters that allowed debris to clog up the screens for main control valve servos. Some one should have been canned for this. Still smarting about that after more than two decades.

 

[Shannow]

Yeah, I have one very similar.
Replacement filter elements for the turbine bypass system (0.001" orifice in the balance piston), which had the pleat join stapled with 3-4 staples down the join.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components.

With what units, or is it a dimensionless constant for which you can provide the derivation? What about the error analysis?

As we've seen here many times, friction modifiers aren't exactly the same as antiwear compounds.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jk_636
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components.

With what units, or is it a dimensionless constant for which you can provide the derivation? What about the error analysis?

As we've seen here many times, friction modifiers aren't exactly the same as antiwear compounds.


It is hilarious how petty some of you are. I say that it "measures lubricity" instead of "measures the effects of lubricity" and people want to jump all over it. For goodness sakes, I wont post from a cell phone in short hand anymore.

To make a long story short, the machine is not only accurate, but is used by the top oil manufacturer worldwide. I think that is more than enough to prove that its results are valid. If it is good enough for SOPUS engineers, its good enough for me.

 

[Garak]

Okay, how does one measure the effects of lubricity, and how does one quantify them in units or a dimensionless constant? The question is still valid. I can quantify gravity, or the effects of gravity, mathematically, no matter how you want to slice the language. It's already been explained here time and time again that taking one [dubious] test and using it to rank motor oils is very silly.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jk_636
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components.

With what units, or is it a dimensionless constant for which you can provide the derivation? What about the error analysis?

As we've seen here many times, friction modifiers aren't exactly the same as antiwear compounds.


It is hilarious how petty some of you are. I say that it "measures lubricity" instead of "measures the effects of lubricity" and people want to jump all over it. For goodness sakes, I wont post from a cell phone in short hand anymore.

To make a long story short, the machine is not only accurate, but is used by the top oil manufacturer worldwide. I think that is more than enough to prove that its results are valid. If it is good enough for SOPUS engineers, its good enough for me.


It isn't petty. You simply don't understand what you are representing. If you did, you wouldn't be using the language/terminology that you are tossing around in this thread (and others), nor would you be getting huffy about being unable to properly defend it.

It has been explained properly several times the amount of value that can be ascribed to this type of test. Shannow's explanation above was succinct and concise. Either you don't understand what he has said or you are simply unwilling to entertain the idea that your perception of what it demonstrates is seriously skewed. Either way, we aren't getting anywhere fast on the topic.

 

[tig1]

Here is a link from XM concerning testing engine oil on one of these machines.

https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from XM concerning testing engine oil on one of these machines.

https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple


And this is the sort of machine that the oil companies use in their SCREENING tests.



Note the absolute lack of similarity to either the 4 ball or timken machines...and the measurables (volume loss, asperity reduction) that they gain from the test.

Cheaper than tearing down a new sequence IVA engine every time you want to test a new additive blend.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from XM concerning testing engine oil on one of these machines.

https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple


Summary of Mobil 1s reply: Royal Purple is better (as verified through testing) but they could cause corrosion (unverified accusation). you heard it here folks, it came straight from the horses mouth. If you want a good oil, use M1 if you wan the best oil, RP is just a short drive away. now that I have had my point substantiated, everyone on this forum who doubted RP owes my an apology, or letter of surrender. Your own company admitted it. And now that I have tackled this challenge, it is time to take on Fram...

 

[kschachn]

What about the whole lubricity testing thing being very legitimate?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Summary of Mobil 1s reply: Royal Purple is better (as verified through testing) but they could cause corrosion (unverified accusation). you heard it here folks, it came straight from the horses mouth. If you want a good oil, use M1 if you wan the best oil, RP is just a short drive away. now that I have had my point substantiated, everyone on this forum who doubted RP owes my an apology, or letter of surrender. Your own company admitted it. And now that I have tackled this challenge, it is time to take on Fram...