Originally Posted By: Koz1
The conclusion says the bench tests don't accurately predict wear rates in a Sperry Vickers vane pumps test setup, the physical properties are so different that they were not taken into correlation properly, it said the tests didn't even correlate properly with each other.
It talked about load carrying and wear properties, tribocontact geometry, using TAN for wear indication, accelerated tests are not indicators for actual in service wear . I don't see where its says reduced frictional drag does not correlate to lower wear.
Please show me my errors.
Which para is your reference for your statement.
Thank You.
Ref
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
As I said:
* the quoted test is NOT AN IC ENGINE TEST...just like the 4 ball wear, the 1 armed bandit, and the Rat504 papers. It's a gear/hydraulic test.
* the quoted test isn't very good at predicting the field that it's specified in, making it's applicability to engines even more specious;
The test is a boundary lubrication test, which is where hydrodynamics have broken down, either intentionally, because hydrodynamics simply isn't possible like camshafts etc. or the viscosity is too low to support hydrodynamics.
And for that there ARE industry standard tests for wear such as the sequence IV, which is actually representative of what happens in an engine, because it IS IN an engine.
You may well be convinced that a 4 ball/1 armed bandit variant is applicable to engine wear, but a little time looking at the UOAs of oils that did well in Rat504s tests, or are advertised on their 4 ball tests versus those that did poorly will show how well it correlates.
Only other reason that I can see for ENEOS using it, and the conclusion that it results in less wear, is if they are recommending it for hydraulic application...but they seem to be targeting motor vehicle users, and seem to be convincing some.