Lubrication Engineers 8130?

[mojo]

There were several postings noting that the Falex gives good correlation with the Sequence IIIE engine dynamometer test.

" The Falex Pin and V-block does have a nice correlation to high
temperature camshaft wear as in the Sequence IIIE engine test".


When laboratory bench tests are found that correlate with either single or multicylinder engine tests, there usually is a paper published in SAE or STLE that gives the evidence of such correlations. I do not recall seeing any such paper and would like to know if any thing has been formally published. There is an active group in the ASTM D2 Technical Committee B on Automotive Lubricants that is trying to collect data on such tests and would be most interested in such data. The need for laboratory bench tests that can eventually replace the highly expensive engine sequence tests has been a long sought goal of both the oil producers and engine manufacturers.

 

[The_Oz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Dinwiddie:
Hi Oz,
First I hope I understand you question. You are wondering why LE uses the Falex test on their engine oils when it is in the group 1 test group which seems to not be the best type of test. If this is correct then I can help you understand why it seems to be that way. In this paragraph they talk about "boundary or mixed lubrication regimes" They did not talk about Hydrodynamic lubrication (a system of lubrication in which the shape and relative motion of the sliding surfaces causes the formation of a fluid film having sufficient pressure to separate the surfaces). Boundry and mixed lubrication regimes are more prevelant in gear oil or rolling bearing applications, and as such one would be better off using the SRV bench test. For engine oils the Falex test (Hydrodynamic lubrication) is not only a good test but very accurate at one loading tooth equal to .0000556 of wear at the test pin and vee blocks. The test can also be done at different levels of pressure. The LE tests were done at 350lb for a five minute break-in-peroid and then increased to 600lb and maintained for the 15 min test. Some of the oils that failed siezed so I guess that might be more than hydrodynamic, heck that's more than boundry.

This was what was posted in an above post. In his conclusion he said, "Group 1 machines (4-ball, Falex, Timken, Reichert) do not provide an adequate emulation or simulation of real contacts subject to boundary or mixed lubrication regimes. It is not necessary to emulate the mechanics of the contact in order to provide an adequate bench test simulation for assessment of lubricant/additive performance. A third generic group of bench test machines is identified. These machines are primarily simulators and not emulators. These machines provide better experimental control and more flexibility than the latter two Groups. This allows greater insight into the processes taking place within the contact zone."

Boundry Lubrication is a condition of lubrication in which the friction between two surfaces in relative motion is determined by the properties of the surfaces and by the properties of the lubricant other than viscosity or (extreme pressure additive like in gear oils).

KD

---

Thanks Kevin,

Yes, you did read my post correctly. However, I still fail to realize the importance of the Falex test especially if it is to be used as an assumption that, if an oil fails it, it means it will automatically fail under Group 2 or Group 3 testing.

Bob seems to suggest that an engine does not always experience hydrodynamic lubrication:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/states of lubrication.html

I personally believe that the failed oils will behave differently under boundary lubrication....after all, it doesn't seem to suggest that the Falex shows any indication of the strength of an oil's additive makeup (ie. EP additives, etc).

Am I off my rocker here, fellas?

Oz

P.S. Wasn't there someone here who suggested that even shampoo can pass the 4-ball test? Thus, making Amsoil's claims about better wear protection null and void.

 

[Kevin Dinwiddie]

Good morning Oz,
Yes if an oil failed the Falex Hydrodynamic test then it should also fail both the group 2 and 3 type tests that test in mixed and boundary.

The Falex test can also be run as Falex step test method. This method tests for 60 seconds at 250 lb increments. If an oil is tested at 250 lbs (60 sec.) and passes then it is tested at 500 lbs. (60 sec). If it fails at 500 lbs then it passed at 250 lbs. This test will be run in 250 lb cycles until it fails (new oil each 250 lb test). When an oil failed it was in boundary film, it seized. When we tested it was at a break-in period of 5 min at 350 lbs and tested for 15 min at 600 lbs. Because this simulates what a big rig pulling 80,000 lbs up a 10% grade might see. As you can see the results that were posted on this site were simulated for real life use and not to see what poundage the oils would take for EP status. Just for your info the LE oil will pass the step test method at 1,750 lbs and most other oils will only pass at 1,000 lbs . This shows the high quality base oil and additive package that LE uses in their oils, because base oil alone will not help increase the Extreme Pressure quality of an oil.

Bob is right in saying that in engines you sometimes see mixed lubrication film. As you can see by the above paragraph the Falex test can test for that as well.

I’ve not seen an engine oil tested on an SRV or FZG test rig before. These test rigs are for slow moving gear oil type applications that evaluate EP qualities and additives for gear oils. The 4-ball, Timken, and Falex tests are all used for engine oils. LE used the Falex because of its accurate and repeatable test results.

I’ve never tested shampoo in a 4-ball test rig but I can say that Amsoils products are much better than most oils on the market. There are a few oils that shine above the others LE, Amsoil, Royal Purple, Schaeffers are some of them. They cost more but perform better resulting in less wear longer oil life, less oxidation, etc. They do this with different base oils and additive packages. Each company uses something different but the end result seems to be the same, you get what you pay for.

I hope this helps
Merry Christmas
Kevin D.

Also the test results that were posted above are all old spec oils (CG-4) I believe LM (Lance) has the results for the new oils (CH-4). CI-4 info is in the works (EGR oils only).

 

[pedaltothemetal]

Now this all makes sense. These companies that shine above the others LE, Amsoil, Royal Purple, Schaeffers must have some savy oil engineers that put together an oil that is way above the strength of the over the counter products. Guess you do get what you pay for. I don't tow 80000 lbs, but running 450rwhp/485rwtq at the strip will give me peace of mind over the possiblity of spun bearings.

 

[L8274]

If I read this right the,

LE 8800
Pennzoil Long Life
Delvac 1300S
Valvoline premium Blue are Kings Of the Hill in this very tough test.
Some are miserable failures at least in this revealing test.
Or is the test tough enough to whip most oils ,in which it did to a large part of them .

 

[INDYMAC]

Has there been any updating or recent data available for current engine oil comparisons on the market? I use LE products: LE 8130 specifically for engine oil, LE 1605 for gear oil, and LE L-X 2300 for fuel additive. I've been very impressed so far, to say the least.

I realize that Kevin has moved on from LE, but maybe another rep can step in for him with comparable knowledge of the field. Thanks.

 

[fpracha]

hi Kevin, if you see this can you please recommend if we should use LE8800 or LE8130 or LE8530 in honda civic prosmatic model 2010 ? Should we expect any mileage variations from LE8800 to LE8130 and LE 8530, respectively ?

thanks!

 

[INDYMAC]

I'm not sure if Kevin will ever see this post again fpracha. But I recently switched from 8130 to 8530 in my wife's 09 RAV4 V-6 (2GR-FE). So far, after about 2000 miles, I think the 8130 offers better fuel economy based on the computer average readout per tank. The only reason that I switched to 8530 was for warranty purposes (5W30 recommended but can use 10W30 in a pinch). The UOA I did previously on 8130 was exceptional:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post2282436

I'll probably test the 8530 when it's done with the second fill. I hope this helps.