So Many Bearing Tests Trying To Prove Best Oil ?

[Oil Changer]

You don't know how to read or your severe case of fanboyism blinded you, or both. Furthermore, you are disingenuous for only quoting a snipit.

Question: “Does Mobil 1 have less oil film strength than Royal Purple? I have seen many times the friction test of oils using the machine that tests the oil film, test result shows that Royal Purple has more friction protection that Mobil 1 does, seeing these results makes me think that Mobil 1 is lacking some benefits, therefore Royal Purple has the better protection of all.”

Answer: "There are certain oils in the market today that use EP (extreme pressure) additives in their engine oil that are really designed for gear oils and not engine oils. Extreme pressure additives are typically not used in engine oils for a number of reasons, but the most important reason is that they can cause engine corrosion over time. The rigs being used in these demonstrations are primarily designed for industrial applications like gear oils where extreme pressure is a necessary and important performance feature. These demonstration rigs have very little to do with modern engines, which is why market leading oils in the industry perform poorly in these tests."

Good luck with Fram.

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...

 

[Oil Changer]

"Lubricity"! Hahahaha!!! I hope the "jk" in his screen name means "just kidding".

Originally Posted By: kschachn
What about the whole lubricity testing thing being very legitimate?

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
What about the whole lubricity testing thing being very legitimate?



I'm wondering why j/k doesn't fill the crankcase with Pert; it has the same lubricity as RP plus it can also clean and deodorize the oil passages...

 

[tig1]

Perhaps the reason EP additives are added to some oils is to show a better test result on these irrelevant machines for engine oil testing and the marketing it brings.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: 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...

How did you come to that conclusion? Mobil did not admit anything--they pointed out that RP includes additives that could be corrosive and that the bearing test is not applicable to motor oil. You seem to be reading something into Mobil's response that is not there.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: 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...

How did you come to that conclusion? Mobil did not admit anything--they pointed out that RP includes additives that could be corrosive and that the bearing test is not applicable to motor oil. You seem to be reading something into Mobil's response that is not there.


+1. JK assumes XM, Sopus, and the other major oil producers do not know how to formulate an oil that would pass these irrelevant bench test

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: 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...

How did you come to that conclusion? Mobil did not admit anything--they pointed out that RP includes additives that could be corrosive and that the bearing test is not applicable to motor oil. You seem to be reading something into Mobil's response that is not there.


Yup, a severe case of something here either blocking the ability to comprehend what is read or a simple unwillingness so strong that things being read are distorted to align with the preconceived viewpoint.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cheaper than tearing down a new sequence IVA engine every time you want to test a new additive blend.


And the simpler wear testers are cheaper than that abortion you showed in the video. What is that thing doing with all those shafts and compartments? Why is all that complexity needed?

How is the consumer going to do any testing if you say the minimum acceptable test rig cost 100K? or whatever.

These simple wear testers are cheap enough for guys like you or me to buy.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Yup, a severe case of something here either blocking the ability to comprehend what is read or a simple unwillingness so strong that things being read are distorted to align with the preconceived viewpoint.


This is how the discussions go awry. Don't you think that statement is a bit insulting? And it cuts both ways. The established people here are unwilling to think outside the box.

What I got from the Mobil statement is there is not anything wrong with using EP additives. It's that overuse causes corrosion. What if others are used that do not cause corrosion. And it's being discussed here all the time. Instead of using a heavy concentration of ZDDP which is corrosive, there are other things such as moly, and advanced polymers that can be used. Current research for better boundary lubrication additives.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cheaper than tearing down a new sequence IVA engine every time you want to test a new additive blend.


And the simpler wear testers are cheaper than that abortion you showed in the video. What is that thing doing with all those shafts and compartments? Why is all that complexity needed?

How is the consumer going to do any testing if you say the minimum acceptable test rig cost 100K? or whatever.

These simple wear testers are cheap enough for guys like you or me to buy.


The "abortion" is what the oil companies feel is necessary to make a representative test of what it is that they are trying to achieve...sliding, rubbing, reciprocating, loaded/unloaded...

Don't you think if they could do it with a Timken/4 ball that they would ?

Surely if the consumer wanted to do some testing, the very very first thing would be "is the test relevant and representative" ?

If not, then what is the point wasting your time and money on even the cheapest test ?

Smear a vinyl floor with the lubricant, and time how long it takes the dog to fall over on it...surely SOPUS has some vinyl flooring in their lab.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Perhaps the reason EP additives are added to some oils is to show a better test result on these irrelevant machines for engine oil testing and the marketing it brings.

tig1, I can guarantee that they do.

The grease supplier that I was referring to earlier put large doses of EP additives in their grease, then used the timken to "prove" to the purchasing department why their grease was "better"...absolutely clear in their motivations there.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 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)


"better" ?

What you meant to say is that

"Royal Purple have proved that their engine oil is a better gear oil than Mobil's engine oil is. Royal Purple's marketing department are in hysterics as to why people would want their engine oil to be a better gear oil, but that's marketing for you."

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Surely if the consumer wanted to do some testing, the very very first thing would be "is the test relevant and representative" ?


It's all a matter of opinion. The bearing test has two pieces of metal rubbing against each other. Your abortion has 2 pieces of metal rubbing against each other. An engine has 2 pieces of metal rubbing against each other.

It's your job as a representative of the industry to make things so complex you keep everyone in the dark and confused. I know you're an intelligent inquisitive person and that makes me even more disappointed.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cheaper than tearing down a new sequence IVA engine every time you want to test a new additive blend.


And the simpler wear testers are cheaper than that abortion you showed in the video. What is that thing doing with all those shafts and compartments? Why is all that complexity needed?

How is the consumer going to do any testing if you say the minimum acceptable test rig cost 100K? or whatever.

These simple wear testers are cheap enough for guys like you or me to buy.



The consumer shouldn't need to do any testing. Why should that burden be on them? Oils pass a long list of verification protocols to ensure that they provide adequate protection for your equipment. The consumer need do no additional testing for the vast majority of applications out there.

The only exceptions to that are performance builds that:

A) have looser clearances than stock and experimentation/tracking viscosity may be necessary
B) Have vastly increased power output over stock which may require a heavier lubricant
C) Due to B, have much higher than stock oil temperatures which may again, require a heavier lubricant
D) Are a flat tappet build with extremely fast ramps and high lobe lift that requires additional levels of ZDDP for adequate protection. There are already a plethora of oils on the market targetted at this type of application (AMSOIL Z-Rod, Joe Gibbs, M1 5w-50/15w-50....etc).

Most of the people that fall in the above category are doing tear-downs anyway. So the perceived "value" of one of these testing rigs is then again reduced, as it doesn't replicate the conditions found in an engine and these individuals are already tracking the real conditions encountered through actual disassembly and inspection.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

What I got from the Mobil statement is there is not anything wrong with using EP additives. It's that overuse causes corrosion. What if others are used that do not cause corrosion. And it's being discussed here all the time. Instead of using a heavy concentration of ZDDP which is corrosive, there are other things such as moly, and advanced polymers that can be used. Current research for better boundary lubrication additives.

ZDDP, soluble moly, and advanced polymers are not EP additives. They are anti-wear additives. The two are different.

A properly designed and operating engine does not generate pressures high enough to need an EP additive.

Ed

 

[jk_636]

This is hilarious. I come back and everyone is up in arms about oil testing, lubricity and what not.

Here is the moral of the story. What makes a great gear oil? Lubricity. What makes a great motor oil? You guessed it, lubricity! A machine that can test the effects of lubricity can undoubtebly be a great asset to any manufacturer looking to create oils that provide extra protection. Apparently Im not the only one that thinks so. Just ask any of the big oil manufacturers...

And as for those "extra additives that may cause corrosion," is a bunch of bull. Additives like zinc, moly, calcium, titanium, sodium etc. are not going to cause corrosion to any engine, ever. Mobil 1s response: They have a higher film strength, but we will make up some slanderous claim and hope most people will beleive it. I use Mobil 1. Great oil, but Im willing to admit that there are some better oils out there. And apparently, they are willing to admit it as well.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: edhackett

ZDDP, soluble moly, and advanced polymers are not EP additives. They are anti-wear additives. The two are different.


Not that different if at all. The principle is the same. Creating a layer on the metal surface by some means to act as a sacrificial surface.

The statements you guys make. You sound like a lawyer. A properly designed....blah blah...

Hotrodders are on the fringes of "proper" design pushing the envelope especially where camshafts are concerned. Nothing wrong with an EP agent.

Why don't we hear of people pulling engines apart and finding evidence of corrosive effects if these EP additives are so detrimental.

I can make a case that a camshaft sees higher loads per square inch than a differential.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Yup, a severe case of something here either blocking the ability to comprehend what is read or a simple unwillingness so strong that things being read are distorted to align with the preconceived viewpoint.


This is how the discussions go awry. Don't you think that statement is a bit insulting? And it cuts both ways. The established people here are unwilling to think outside the box.


If you followed the previous MMO discussions with him, you'd find it less insulting. He doesn't want to discuss possible merits vs potential detractors nor the idea as to the amount of value to be properly ascribed. He doesn't want to discuss anything. He wants to drop a deuce and expects everybody to just accept the statement as fact with nothing to back it up. That's not how it works.

That's why I appreciated Shannow's view on the topic, as he brought forth real evidence as to the value of the testing. Whether you feel that this should be a useful rig for consumers or not (as per your previous statement) of course ties-in here, but at least we have something to discuss: where this fits-in in terms of the overall testing/validation process and subsequently what its overall value is when the major manufacturer usage is for additive validation early in the blending process.

Basically, despite the fact that we (you, myself, Shannow, Garak...etc) may have adversarial views on some of this stuff, at least it is a discussion.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
What I got from the Mobil statement is there is not anything wrong with using EP additives. It's that overuse causes corrosion. What if others are used that do not cause corrosion. And it's being discussed here all the time. Instead of using a heavy concentration of ZDDP which is corrosive, there are other things such as moly, and advanced polymers that can be used. Current research for better boundary lubrication additives.


Yup! For sure, I agree. That's exactly what I take away from the Mobil statement as well, that the overdosing on EP additives may be detrimental. Nothing about using them in moderation though.

Which then begs this question regarding their use: If, in moderation, they provide the appropriate level of wear protection; a synergistic balance with the other additives used, then what "advantage" is there in using levels that are gear oil level if that level of pressure is never experienced in an engine? I would say there isn't one. It would seem levels of that volume would be used to do well on a particular test, like the one in question, which doesn't correlate with their effectiveness in an actual engine.

IMHO, that's why it is wise to view a lubricant as a blend of components designed to do well in all conditions it is going to encounter. And due to that, why focusing on one particular metric, especially one demonstrated by a bench test designed for initial evaluation of additives, may not be the best course of action for assessing lubricant performance for a given application.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
This is hilarious. I come back and everyone is up in arms about oil testing, lubricity and what not.

Here is the moral of the story. What makes a great gear oil? Lubricity. What makes a great motor oil? You guessed it, lubricity! A machine that can test the effects of lubricity can undoubtebly be a great asset to any manufacturer looking to create oils that provide extra protection. Apparently Im not the only one that thinks so. Just ask any of the big oil manufacturers...

And as for those "extra additives that may cause corrosion," is a bunch of bull. Additives like zinc, moly, calcium, titanium, sodium etc. are not going to cause corrosion to any engine, ever. Mobil 1s response: They have a higher film strength, but we will make up some slanderous claim and hope most people will beleive it. I use Mobil 1. Great oil, but Im willing to admit that there are some better oils out there. And apparently, they are willing to admit it as well.


https://books.google.ca/books?id=gMP8BAA...ion&f=false

Quote:
Tribology of Reciprocating Engines: Proceedings of the 9th Leeds–Lyon



Quote:

FRICTION WITH CORROSION

First we study the influence of ZDDP on wear in a friction test in the presence of corrosion, we used the two solutions:

1. n-dodecan + H2SO4 + succinimide (emulsion)
2. n-dodecan + H2SO4 + succinimide + ZDDP (emulsion)

The measurements of the wear scar diameter on the pin reveals an increase of the wear with the addition of ZDDP: W.S.D. = 200 um for solution 1, W.S.D. = 300um for solution 2.

After the tests, the surfaces are found corroded as described previously. Then, this increase of wear of the pin can be attributed to a corresponding increase of the surface roughness due to the fatal influence of ZDDP which encourage surface corrosion. Indeed, the presence of the corrosive medium leads to the degradation of ZDDP [2] to form sulphurous products (H2S, RSH, .etc.) which are responsible of a subsequent severe corrosion. Otherwise, one can also think to an effect of corrosive medium on the processes of reaction film formation which is fully described elsewhere [5], [10]; but at this stage, we have no evidence for this effect.


*SNIP*

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS

The corrosive sulphuric medium in diesel engines operating on residual fuels has been simulated by two different systems:

- sulphur dioxyde (SO2) dissolved in oil with water vapor (corresponding to in service conditions).
- sulphuric acid solution condensed and dispersed in the oil phase (starting and stop)

6.1. In these conditions, the results of the static corrosion of graphite lamellar cast iron surfaces is found independent of the nature of the corrosive medium: in all cases, the phosphide eutectic, which is harder, is not attacked, and the whole result is an increase of roughness of the polished metallic surface. However, we noted that the kinetic of corrosion is greater in the presence of sulphuric acid. The effect of the presence of ZDDP in the solution is clear: the corrosion is made more severe certainly due to a complex chemical degradation process of the anti-wear additive.


http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28714/using-wrong-oil

Quote:

"What are the consequences of using an oil with anti-wear additives (ZDDP) in a steam turbine where it is recommended to use turbine oil?"

1. The polar nature of ZDDP will affect the air release, foaming and demulsibility characteristics of the oil. In other words, it is more likely to foam and retain air and water in suspension. This increases the risk of a wipe.

2. ZDDP hydrolyzes into hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid. Because water is always a risk in steam turbines, this is a concern.

3. While much less so than EP oil, ZDDP-based anti-wear oil can corrode babbitted surfaces.

4. ZDDP also might interfere with rust and corrosion inhibition.

 

[OVERKILL]

Too late to add this to the above:

That last one above is only partially applicable to IC engine use but I thought interesting.

Oils are a balancing act, carefully blended to yield proper levels of performance in a wide range of areas. This is why there are so many tests that evaluate oil performance as part of even the most basic approval process and why extensive OEM testing regiments are employed as well to further evaluate key characteristics of these lubricants.

Like chlorine in drinking water, which is safe in moderation but poisonous at elevated levels, the same is the case for various additives used in engine oils. Oils used in a differential for example are not compatible with various yellow metals used in certain manual transmissions. These transmissions then often spec either ATF or a specific MTF fluid. So while one might think that the EP performance of Delvac 1 75w-90 gear lube may be beneficial for their old gearbox which specifies that grade, using it may cause serious issues with the various surfaces made from metals not found in a diff.

With engine oils it is even more complex an issue as different engines use different materials for bearings (tri-metal vs bi-metal) and the product needs to deal with acidic combustion byproducts that can react with various components of the oil. Also, particularly for a short-tripper or winter use, the ingress of moisture into the lubricant needs to be considered as well, and water again reacts with various components and can cause adverse reactions.

This is why we have tests like the Seq-IVA, which evaluates "cold oil" performance. And why just dosing a lubricant with an additive that does well in a simple bench test is simply not enough and may in fact mislead people into believing that product is superior when in fact, in their usage profile, it may be vastly inferior to a more broadly tested OTS product that doesn't ace whizz-bang test "R".