So Many Bearing Tests Trying To Prove Best Oil ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
316
Location
ONTARIO,CANADA
I've been trolling the internet for the last while and come across quite a few oil "tests" , where people use bearings under pressure to convince viewers how well a certain oil works. Royal Purple tends to be one common oil that tests out well in these experiments.

To the untrained eye they seem legit, but how well to such tests equate to the quality of a motor oil ?. I know Amsoil pushes the size of wear scars on their 4 ball tests, but is there a relationship between wear scars on bearings and the ability of an oil to provide reduced wear ?. I just picked out two such tests, but there are hundreds out there, some seem to be done well and many do not.

Example links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tt-VKe8Oaw

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf



Thanks for reading, and any replies on this.
 
Last edited:
If you are trying to find which engine oil offers low speed highly loaded gearboxes the best protection, then the test is relevant.

If you are trying to determine how good an engine oil is, it's a sideshow gimmick that doesn't tell you bupkis about which oil will protect your engine.

If you get to that type of contact in your engine (and you don't in any form of normal operation), it's game over
 
I have ran pennzoil/quaker state synthetics and for cost effectiveness works for me. Redline or Amsoil might perform better but its not cost friendly. I would check oil specs, find reviews from people on a certain oil, and try new oils for three runs and do a voa, a run, then on your last do a uoa.
 
Keep in mind Pert shampoo does very well in this test. Would you put it in your engine?
As Shannow said its a test better suited to gear oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
"........If you are trying to determine how good an engine oil is, it's a sideshow gimmick that doesn't tell you bupkis about which oil will protect your engine.

If you get to that type of contact in your engine (and you don't in any form of normal operation), it's game over


Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I have been saying the same thing for as long as the scratched ball test has been around. What the heck does that have to do with the operating environment of ANY internal combustion engine ?

Nothing, of course.

But I do have to give some credit to the advertising doofus who thought it up. I hope he gets a dime for each bottle of RP or whichever snake oil is using that gimmick.

Z.
 
Originally Posted By: JSRT4
To the untrained eye they seem legit, but how well to such tests equate to the quality of a motor oil ?

Poorly enough that you can ignore them and regard anyone pushing them with suspicion.


Originally Posted By: JSRT4
I know Amsoil pushes the size of wear scars on their 4 ball tests, but is there a relationship between wear scars on bearings and the ability of an oil to provide reduced wear ?

Amsoil seems to be the only party with any credibility that thinks so.


Originally Posted By: JSRT4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tt-VKe8Oaw

Poorly executed, irrelevant, misleading... I would call this fractally unreliable.


Originally Posted By: JSRT4
http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf

Bunk.

To the magazine's credit, they retracted it with an apology.
 
These type of tests have merit when done professionally AND used in context to describe, explain, and yes, demonstrate. Describing the use of additives such as Zinc, as in Head and Shoulders, Molybdenum, zddp,penetro,friction modifiers and even differences in base stocks to a degree, is applicable here.
When used as a prop unto itself is when it gets blurry.
 
Thanks for all of the replies, that puts things in perfect perspective. I appreciate the info.

Nice to know about Pert shampoo, it might make a good engine flush, lol , j/k
smile.gif


I've always been suspicious of these kind of tests, it is good to have other opinions on this. I hope this wasn't regarded as a dumb post, thanks for not shooting me down if it was.
 
Last edited:
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components. Easy to understand. Amsoil has had this campaign out for years to try and discredit these tests, but that is only because their products perform so poorly in these tests. Amsoil has a shady advertising history and this is no exception. For those who dispute them, keep in mind that the major oil manufacturers, including SOPUS use them in their QA and R&D process. They wouldn't waste time and money in machinery that didn't work or produce accurate results.
 
Is lubricity something that can be measured?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components. Easy to understand. Amsoil has had this campaign out for years to try and discredit these tests, but that is only because their products perform so poorly in these tests. Amsoil has a shady advertising history and this is no exception. For those who dispute them, keep in mind that the major oil manufacturers, including SOPUS use them in their QA and R&D process. They wouldn't waste time and money in machinery that didn't work or produce accurate results.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Is lubricity something that can be measured?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity. Lubricity is vital to the protection engine components. Easy to understand. Amsoil has had this campaign out for years to try and discredit these tests, but that is only because their products perform so poorly in these tests. Amsoil has a shady advertising history and this is no exception. For those who dispute them, keep in mind that the major oil manufacturers, including SOPUS use them in their QA and R&D process. They wouldn't waste time and money in machinery that didn't work or produce accurate results.


Obviously it isn't that black and white. But you can measure the effects of lubricity or lack thereof. You can also measure resistance.
 
Well I was mostly asking what the units were for lubricity. If that test is a measure of it, then how do I know what is good, better or best?

If you have units and values, what lubricity value would meet the requirements for my BMW M60 engine? Do ExxonMobil, Castrol, SOPUS, or anyone publish lubricity values for their various PCMOs? How do I know which oils would be better and which would meet the specifications for my engines? Do BMW, Toyota, Ford or anyone publish required lubricity specifications?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Obviously it isn't that black and white. But you can measure the effects of lubricity or lack thereof. You can also measure resistance.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well I was mostly asking what the units were for lubricity. If that test is a measure of it, then how do I know what is good, better or best?

If you have units and values, what lubricity value would meet the requirements for my BMW M60 engine? Do ExxonMobil, Castrol, SOPUS, or anyone publish lubricity values for their various PCMOs? How do I know which oils would be better and which would meet the specifications for my engines? Do BMW, Toyota, Ford or anyone publish required lubricity specifications?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Obviously it isn't that black and white. But you can measure the effects of lubricity or lack thereof. You can also measure resistance.


I know that you are looking at this very tongue in cheek but as you well know, these companies do not publish all the information for all of their products. Some manufacturers (such as Royal purple) publish the effects of lubricity (as a wear scar on the bearing) but that is it. Oil companies (as with most companies) are not 100% transparent with what they do. Feel free to YouTube some of these things and you will see the SOPUS lab where they use the phalax for R&D
 
To measure lubricity? I'm only asking because you said "These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity."

So you are saying that ExxonMobil and Castrol (for example) do measure PCMO lubricity with these machines, and that they know what lubricity values are better or most appropriate for their oils? Is there a standard testing regimen for lubricity that is followed?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I know that you are looking at this very tongue in cheek but as you well know, these companies do not publish all the information for all of their products. Some manufacturers (such as Royal purple) publish the effects of lubricity (as a wear scar on the bearing) but that is it. Oil companies (as with most companies) are not 100% transparent with what they do. Feel free to YouTube some of these things and you will see the SOPUS lab where they use the phalax for R&D
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
To measure lubricity? I'm only asking because you said "These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity."

So you are saying that ExxonMobil and Castrol (for example) do measure PCMO lubricity with these machines, and that they know what lubricity values are better or most appropriate for their oils? Is there a standard testing regimen for lubricity that is followed?


35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
keep in mind that the major oil manufacturers, including SOPUS use them in their QA and R&D process. They wouldn't waste time and money in machinery that didn't work or produce accurate results.


but do they use them for motor oil development, or for gearbox oils?

I have a torx screwdriver, but I don't use it with philips head screws.
 
OK,

So the thing is, the guys providing answers above are not hotrodders running high lift cams with big springs placing very high pressure on the cam, especially a flat tappet cam. If the oil winning the bearing test protects as well as the other oils in other categories, I don't see why not. Why not have more boundary layer protection than you need?
 
If you want to be exactly technical, this machine, as has already been established measures the resistance encountered by the bearing. In this case, lubricity and resistance have an inverse relationship. I.E.: the higher the resistance, the lower the lubricity. That, compared to the scar on the bearing, qualifies lubricity of oils and liquids. I don't have a PhD in physics, but that is the basic operating principle of this test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top