Results may surprise you, especially for some conventionals.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-tech-...-test-data.html
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-tech-...-test-data.html
Motor oil testing on about 50 oils
- Thread starter another Todd
- Start date
- Status
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Agreed. The next post after that from 63Mako sums up a big part of what I think:
'How do you develop the sacrificial layer that ZDDP builds up with extreme pressure and heat over an extended period of time in a 30 second test? You are doing a film strength test and in post after post claiming it is a test of antiwear additives. There is no way the ZDDP can be activated and generate the sacrificial layer needed to protect flat tappet cam and lifter surfaces in a 30 second test so you are not testing antiwear additives. If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted. They started a sticky for this. Use it instead of reposting long drawn out threads with incorrect assumptions based on incorrect protocol for extreme pressure antiwear testing."
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Agreed. The next post after that from 63Mako sums up a big part of what I think:
'How do you develop the sacrificial layer that ZDDP builds up with extreme pressure and heat over an extended period of time in a 30 second test? You are doing a film strength test and in post after post claiming it is a test of antiwear additives. There is no way the ZDDP can be activated and generate the sacrificial layer needed to protect flat tappet cam and lifter surfaces in a 30 second test so you are not testing antiwear additives. If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted. They started a sticky for this. Use it instead of reposting long drawn out threads with incorrect assumptions based on incorrect protocol for extreme pressure antiwear testing."
Geeez, I hadn't seen this before, but it looked interesting, thought Id pass it along. I'll keep links to myself from now on.
No mention of M1 0w-40. How did that oil get missed. I found ultra in quarts at a shell station on the east side. I should buy it all since I cannot find it anywhere else.
The testing criteria seems odd.
The testing criteria seems odd.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
Geeez, I hadn't seen this before, but it looked interesting, thought Id pass it along. I'll keep links to myself from now on.
no one kicked your dog, no need to feel bad.
Its just you posted a repost of a very "wrong" in many ways oil test that ends up being misleading.
Geeez, I hadn't seen this before, but it looked interesting, thought Id pass it along. I'll keep links to myself from now on.
no one kicked your dog, no need to feel bad.
Its just you posted a repost of a very "wrong" in many ways oil test that ends up being misleading.
Last edited:
Isn't this test the "right hand bandit"? If so, I saw a video somewhere, probably on youtube, showing how one can make toothpaste outperform top of the line oils using this test.
Last edited:
Anything you post here will generally be picked apart. I found it interesting none the less.
I noticed for common off the shelf type oils, the Castrol FST (Fluid Strength Technology) did very well. I wonder if this test is similar to what Castrol is basing their "strongest film strength) advertising on, relevant or not?
All the Castrols did very well. No matter Castrol will still get no love around here hah hah.
Thanks for posting!
I noticed for common off the shelf type oils, the Castrol FST (Fluid Strength Technology) did very well. I wonder if this test is similar to what Castrol is basing their "strongest film strength) advertising on, relevant or not?
All the Castrols did very well. No matter Castrol will still get no love around here hah hah.
Thanks for posting!
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Isn't this test the "right hand bandit"? If so, I saw a video somewhere, probably on youtube, showing how one can make toothpaste outperform top of the line oils using this test.
If that's the testing method it's not representative on what really happens in an engine. The 4 ball test is a better testing method and its basically useless.
Oil is so much more than just dealing with pressure like cams pushing the rocker arms.
How does this test translate to cylinder ring lubrication,and the zddp activation comment is a good one too.
Isn't this test the "right hand bandit"? If so, I saw a video somewhere, probably on youtube, showing how one can make toothpaste outperform top of the line oils using this test.
If that's the testing method it's not representative on what really happens in an engine. The 4 ball test is a better testing method and its basically useless.
Oil is so much more than just dealing with pressure like cams pushing the rocker arms.
How does this test translate to cylinder ring lubrication,and the zddp activation comment is a good one too.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Agreed. The next post after that from 63Mako sums up a big part of what I think:
'How do you develop the sacrificial layer that ZDDP builds up with extreme pressure and heat over an extended period of time in a 30 second test? You are doing a film strength test and in post after post claiming it is a test of antiwear additives. There is no way the ZDDP can be activated and generate the sacrificial layer needed to protect flat tappet cam and lifter surfaces in a 30 second test so you are not testing antiwear additives. If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted.
Jim, first off wouldn't an oil that has film strength immediately out of the bottle be of any benefit? Why should I buy an oil that needs to go through heat and extreme pressure before it begins to protect when I can buy an oil that protects immediately?
Second, you claim that in post after post I claim it is a test of antiweatr additives. Wrong. I usually don't post on antiiwear additives because I don't know enough about them. Please show me these post after posts that you claim are mine.
Third, you state that "If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted", Um, HELLO, I was the OP, there was no question here. In a different thread (where I also posted this link) I stated what I would do. But, everybodys opinions here are just that, and often there is disagreement, sometimes it is knowledgable individuals correcting the misinformed, sometimes it is blowhards just mouthing off. I generally think when it's blowhards they tend to attack others (like your post) rather that just provide their input.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Agreed. The next post after that from 63Mako sums up a big part of what I think:
'How do you develop the sacrificial layer that ZDDP builds up with extreme pressure and heat over an extended period of time in a 30 second test? You are doing a film strength test and in post after post claiming it is a test of antiwear additives. There is no way the ZDDP can be activated and generate the sacrificial layer needed to protect flat tappet cam and lifter surfaces in a 30 second test so you are not testing antiwear additives. If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted.
Jim, first off wouldn't an oil that has film strength immediately out of the bottle be of any benefit? Why should I buy an oil that needs to go through heat and extreme pressure before it begins to protect when I can buy an oil that protects immediately?
Second, you claim that in post after post I claim it is a test of antiweatr additives. Wrong. I usually don't post on antiiwear additives because I don't know enough about them. Please show me these post after posts that you claim are mine.
Third, you state that "If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted", Um, HELLO, I was the OP, there was no question here. In a different thread (where I also posted this link) I stated what I would do. But, everybodys opinions here are just that, and often there is disagreement, sometimes it is knowledgable individuals correcting the misinformed, sometimes it is blowhards just mouthing off. I generally think when it's blowhards they tend to attack others (like your post) rather that just provide their input.
The only thing re. Castrols is the GTX has moly listed, but in real life Castrol would not spend that kind of money. The close you get to Moly
is the cheaper Titanium in Edge.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Anything you post here will generally be picked apart. I found it interesting none the less.
I noticed for common off the shelf type oils, the Castrol FST (Fluid Strength Technology) did very well. I wonder if this test is similar to what Castrol is basing their "strongest film strength) advertising on, relevant or not?
All the Castrols did very well. No matter Castrol will still get no love around here hah hah.
Thanks for posting!
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Anything you post here will generally be picked apart. I found it interesting none the less.
I noticed for common off the shelf type oils, the Castrol FST (Fluid Strength Technology) did very well. I wonder if this test is similar to what Castrol is basing their "strongest film strength) advertising on, relevant or not?
All the Castrols did very well. No matter Castrol will still get no love around here hah hah.
Thanks for posting!
Thanks for taking time and the thought that we can use info. For some who are a wee bit unsure of themselves you can get negative input. Either way through all of this guys like you make visiting this site interesting. Ignore the others.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Agreed. The next post after that from 63Mako sums up a big part of what I think:
'How do you develop the sacrificial layer that ZDDP builds up with extreme pressure and heat over an extended period of time in a 30 second test? You are doing a film strength test and in post after post claiming it is a test of antiwear additives. There is no way the ZDDP can be activated and generate the sacrificial layer needed to protect flat tappet cam and lifter surfaces in a 30 second test so you are not testing antiwear additives. If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted.
Jim, first off wouldn't an oil that has film strength immediately out of the bottle be of any benefit? Why should I buy an oil that needs to go through heat and extreme pressure before it begins to protect when I can buy an oil that protects immediately?
Second, you claim that in post after post I claim it is a test of antiweatr additives. Wrong. I usually don't post on antiiwear additives because I don't know enough about them. Please show me these post after posts that you claim are mine.
Third, you state that "If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted", Um, HELLO, I was the OP, there was no question here. In a different thread (where I also posted this link) I stated what I would do. But, everybodys opinions here are just that, and often there is disagreement, sometimes it is knowledgable individuals correcting the misinformed, sometimes it is blowhards just mouthing off. I generally think when it's blowhards they tend to attack others (like your post) rather that just provide their input.
Chill, Todd. That wasn't me talking about you. Did you notice the quotation marks around that section? If you go back to the post you linked to on the Corvette forum, you will see I was quoting the post right after it by a member THERE, '63Mako, who had a comment that summed up my first impressions of the info. May preamble sentence to it, I thought, makes it clear I was quoting.
To answer your question first question, film strength before activation is of some use but I wouldn't use that as any primary basis for making a judgement on oil.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Been posted here several times in the past.
The relevance to real life conditions of the test he uses is somewhat questionable.
Agreed. The next post after that from 63Mako sums up a big part of what I think:
'How do you develop the sacrificial layer that ZDDP builds up with extreme pressure and heat over an extended period of time in a 30 second test? You are doing a film strength test and in post after post claiming it is a test of antiwear additives. There is no way the ZDDP can be activated and generate the sacrificial layer needed to protect flat tappet cam and lifter surfaces in a 30 second test so you are not testing antiwear additives. If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted.
Jim, first off wouldn't an oil that has film strength immediately out of the bottle be of any benefit? Why should I buy an oil that needs to go through heat and extreme pressure before it begins to protect when I can buy an oil that protects immediately?
Second, you claim that in post after post I claim it is a test of antiweatr additives. Wrong. I usually don't post on antiiwear additives because I don't know enough about them. Please show me these post after posts that you claim are mine.
Third, you state that "If you are as intelligent as you think you should answer the question posted", Um, HELLO, I was the OP, there was no question here. In a different thread (where I also posted this link) I stated what I would do. But, everybodys opinions here are just that, and often there is disagreement, sometimes it is knowledgable individuals correcting the misinformed, sometimes it is blowhards just mouthing off. I generally think when it's blowhards they tend to attack others (like your post) rather that just provide their input.
Chill, Todd. That wasn't me talking about you. Did you notice the quotation marks around that section? If you go back to the post you linked to on the Corvette forum, you will see I was quoting the post right after it by a member THERE, '63Mako, who had a comment that summed up my first impressions of the info. May preamble sentence to it, I thought, makes it clear I was quoting.
To answer your question first question, film strength before activation is of some use but I wouldn't use that as any primary basis for making a judgement on oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
The only thing re. Castrols is the GTX has moly listed, but in real life Castrol would not spend that kind of money. The close you get to Moly
is the cheaper Titanium in Edge.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Anything you post here will generally be picked apart. I found it interesting none the less.
I noticed for common off the shelf type oils, the Castrol FST (Fluid Strength Technology) did very well. I wonder if this test is similar to what Castrol is basing their "strongest film strength) advertising on, relevant or not?
All the Castrols did very well. No matter Castrol will still get no love around here hah hah.
Thanks for posting!
I don't think all Titanium additives are the same. Castrol's lists theirs as "patent pending", they use it in their top tier synthetic and they heavily advertise the Titanium additive as well. Mobil's titanium is used in their entry level oil and they don't even mention they use it. Since Castrol has something going on patent wise I'm inclined to believe there is a difference between the two.
The only thing re. Castrols is the GTX has moly listed, but in real life Castrol would not spend that kind of money. The close you get to Moly
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Anything you post here will generally be picked apart. I found it interesting none the less.
I noticed for common off the shelf type oils, the Castrol FST (Fluid Strength Technology) did very well. I wonder if this test is similar to what Castrol is basing their "strongest film strength) advertising on, relevant or not?
All the Castrols did very well. No matter Castrol will still get no love around here hah hah.
Thanks for posting!
I don't think all Titanium additives are the same. Castrol's lists theirs as "patent pending", they use it in their top tier synthetic and they heavily advertise the Titanium additive as well. Mobil's titanium is used in their entry level oil and they don't even mention they use it. Since Castrol has something going on patent wise I'm inclined to believe there is a difference between the two.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Chill, Todd. That wasn't me talking about you. Did you notice the quotation marks around that section? If you go back to the post you linked to on the Corvette forum, you will see I was quoting the post right after it by a member THERE, '63Mako, who had a comment that summed up my first impressions of the info. May preamble sentence to it, I thought, makes it clear I was quoting.
To answer your question first question, film strength before activation is of some use but I wouldn't use that as any primary basis for making a judgement on oil.
Jim, my sincere apologies, I didn't notice the quotation marks and didn't read comments beyond the "test data". Thanks for the repies.
Chill, Todd. That wasn't me talking about you. Did you notice the quotation marks around that section? If you go back to the post you linked to on the Corvette forum, you will see I was quoting the post right after it by a member THERE, '63Mako, who had a comment that summed up my first impressions of the info. May preamble sentence to it, I thought, makes it clear I was quoting.
To answer your question first question, film strength before activation is of some use but I wouldn't use that as any primary basis for making a judgement on oil.
Jim, my sincere apologies, I didn't notice the quotation marks and didn't read comments beyond the "test data". Thanks for the repies.
Last edited:
Jim, you sure seem to know a lot about lubes and filters. What bypass filters do you use?
- Status
