Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
The difficulty is in taking this tool and applying it to cam lobes, rings, etc. that also experience mixed lubrication. There are some problems in how the tribochemical barrier is set up on the 540rat machine vs. internal engine parts. Still, mixologists need some way to quickly prove an improvement for a specific formula to be tried out and will turn to this.
How do you "prove an improvement" with a one armed bandit (style) test, when the "improvement" is irrelevant to nearly every engine on the road ?
as a mixologist ?
As stated in the first couple of times that this "research" was posted, if you are exploring the property claimed to be resisting wear, you have overcooked, overbaked, and overdone your engine.
First premise is that the cams wore out because it overcame the film strength of the oil...given that it's a race engine, and it's pointless to design a race engine to survive 200k miles, it will be built to the required level of endurance...i.e. NOT 200k miles...it's reasonable that the cam is built to the extreme, but it's a cam, and presumably the cam manufacturer has made a number of them that don't fail in that manner.
Say the race engine turns 4M revolutions in a 10 hour racing life...that's 2M valve opening events per lobe (warm-up and yellow flags wear out a different part of the cam)...drag engines can be measured in straight thousands...
...versus a street engine required to turn 500M revolutions, or 250M cam opening events.
The herzian loading of the dirt track engine is probably more than double that of the street engine (think RPM, ramp angles, over the nose spring pressure)
You can't build a street engine with the herzian pressures of a race engine, or the cam/follower will fall to pieces through fatigue at some point. (and you certainly won't build a race engine with street car pressures, or you won't fill the cylinders, won't rev, and will have a face full of dirt)
Take the race cam of hardened steel, versus a street engine of cast iron, sintered metal (or a small engine of plastic)...the allowable stresses for the hardened steel are way more than the other two generally accepted street offerings, and I'd say a little more than the plastic mower cams...the allowable stresses are therefore even lower.
And the stresses are shared between the components via the oilfilm.
The street engine will never see a cam/lifter interface pressure that approaches even the bottom of the list presented in the article.
The article is titled "MOTOR OIL “WEAR PROTECTION” RANKING LIST".
It's not a wear protection ranking list, unless you are running the dirt track engine mentioned in the opener...
In every one of your, mine, most BITOGer's it has absolutely nothing to do with "wear", as you aren't at that contact pressure...ever...how is it measuring an improvement on something that's not even there..."for the mixologist" ?
The Lucas climbing gear thing is measuring an "improvement" in a "property" also...but it doesn't mean squat to your street engine.
And adding the advertised additive, did we mention the additive, because there's a really important additive, does absolutely nothing to reduce "wear" (the title of the article), when nearly every engine, of every reader here will not be testing even the lowest rated oil to the contact pressures that the "wear" is measured at in the test.
It would certainly make Sequence IV a whole lot cheaper to not have to use real engines, and use a variant of the one armed bandit...and somehow the industry have missed that (except for a few boutiques and additive companies)
