So Many Bearing Tests Trying To Prove Best Oil ?

[turtlevette]

This is what you do OVERKILL. You overwhelm a thread with lots of stuff, lots of statements, opinions and data too.

I don't think you can compare the yellow metal problem in transmissions with engines. Time passes and the more aggressive minds find new things to improve technology. I guess Mobil finally started using ti in their EP oils but it seems that they are being drug into new things kicking and screaming along the way.

You really think RP, Redline Amsoil and others are going to put things in their oil that will destroy a customers engine? I don't think so. And I think we'd know by now if there were any problems with their strategy to put EP additives in motor oil. But good try with the scare tactics. You put a lot of time and effort in your long and detailed posts. And I am learning from some of it.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: edhackett

ZDDP, soluble moly, and advanced polymers are not EP additives. They are anti-wear additives. The two are different.


Not that different if at all. The principle is the same. Creating a layer on the metal surface by some means to act as a sacrificial surface.

Yes, the principle is the same, but the range of heat and pressure where they are effective is different. EP additives are not effective at the temperatures and pressures found in an internal combustion engine.

Quoting Afton Chemical:
Quote:
Extreme pressure agents react with metal surfaces during operation at elevated temperatures, creating a protective coating that can withstand extreme heat and pressure. The coating protects two mating metal surfaces from scoring and seizing. Antiwear agents perform in a similar manner, but tend to operate under lower loads and pressures.

Extreme pressure agents are used in gear oils, other power-transmitting fluids, load bearing greases, and metalworking fluids. They are usually supplemented with antiwear additives to make them effective across a wide range of conditions.

Many effective extreme pressure agents and antiwear additives are corrosive to metals, so they’re typically formulated to balance protection with corrosivity.


http://www.aftonchemical.com/SOLUTIONS/L...wearAgents.aspx

Ed

 

[jk_636]

Overkill I hope you have some cheese to compliment all this whine. What in the Sam heck are you talking about? No one here is dropping a deuce, and if you dont like my opinions, then disregard them. Much like everyone else here does when they disagree on a given topic. Furthermore, my opinions are based in just as much fact as anyone else here. If I was to substantiate my arguments with nothing more than "I said so" your point would hold some validity. But that is most assuredly not how it works here. You are getting upset over civil discourse on an online forum. My god man if you are going to cry every time someone disagrees with you then don't flood a thread with useless information, rather find someplace where everyone agrees with you. Perhaps back in Kahnaydia. Oh and Mobil 1 agrees with me, so that means I must be on to something...

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
EP additives are not effective at the temperatures and pressures found in an internal combustion engine.

Ed


Last time I used my IR gun on the vette's diff, I got about 190 F. That's about what the engine oil runs.

I think there is some overlap between EP and AW.

 

[tig1]

JK,
I learn more from Overk1ll about more subjects than I can remember. He is a credit to this forum and I appreciate his input.

 

[jk_636]

Tig1 continue to enjoy his perspective. I wouldn't recommend anything else to those who enjoy reading the opinions of others. I respectfully disagree, but to each his own!

 

[demarpaint]

^^ Overkill has a wealth of knowledge, and he's willing to share it! ^^

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from XM concerning testing engine oil on one of these machines. https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
Summary of Mobil 1s reply: Royal Purple is better (as verified through testing) but they could cause corrosion (unverified accusation). you heard it here folks, it came straight from the horses mouth. If you want a good oil, use M1 if you wan the best oil, RP is just a short drive away. now that I have had my point substantiated, everyone on this forum who doubted RP owes my an apology, or letter of surrender. Your own company admitted it. And now that I have tackled this challenge, it is time to take on Fram...

How did you come to that conclusion? Mobil did not admit anything--they pointed out that RP includes additives that could be corrosive and that the bearing test is not applicable to motor oil. You seem to be reading something into Mobil's response that is not there.

+1. JK assumes XM, Sopus, and the other major oil producers do not know how to formulate an oil that would pass these irrelevant bench test


Oh and by the way, JK does not assume anything. Any oil producer worth there salt can come up with new
And better formulas, as they do every year. The difference is that some oil companies create PCMOs that well exceed API requiremts and some choose to only meet them.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ Overkill has a wealth of knowledge, and he's willing to share it! ^^


Though I don't share your enthusiasm and disagree thoroughly with the "knowledge" he shares, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and the ability to express those opinions is what makes this site a great place for automotive discussions.

 

[GMBoy]

The only "bearing test" I care about is the one inside my engine. From what I can tell - any oil meeting certifications for your car is just FINE. Me, personally, I use Mobil 1 and Redline products and sleep well at night

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Here is the moral of the story. What makes a great gear oil? Lubricity. What makes a great motor oil? You guessed it, lubricity!

QDP, a great gear oil is also a great motor oil, and vice versa, right?

Turtlevette: edhackett knows precisely the difference between AW, EP, and FM modifiers. There certainly can be points of overlap, but they are delineated for a reason.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
This is what you do OVERKILL. You overwhelm a thread with lots of stuff, lots of statements, opinions and data too.

I don't think you can compare the yellow metal problem in transmissions with engines. Time passes and the more aggressive minds find new things to improve technology. I guess Mobil finally started using ti in their EP oils but it seems that they are being drug into new things kicking and screaming along the way.


I think you'll find Mobil and SOPUS tend to move in parallel on the additives side of things due to the Infineum relationship. Their additive packages are different from the other blenders. I don't think better/worse, just different. So what we may see as late adoption may in fact just be the natural progression for that vs Lubrizol-based addpack blenders for example

And yes, I do tend to post "lots of stuff" but hey, its a good discussion! Gets me thinking.


Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You really think RP, Redline Amsoil and others are going to put things in their oil that will destroy a customers engine? I don't think so. And I think we'd know by now if there were any problems with their strategy to put EP additives in motor oil. But good try with the scare tactics. You put a lot of time and effort in your long and detailed posts. And I am learning from some of it.


Never said that. My point is simply that if you put an EP additive in an engine oil to score well on a particular test, you may not be doing any better by the customer than a blender that doesn't. I doubt any of them are using toxic levels of EP additives, though Royal Purple's "synerlec" additive package has insanely high levels of sulphur in it which has caused debate on here before (and garnered the nickname "Royal Sulphur" LOL!).

It isn't a scare tactic as much as something to provoke some thought regarding the validity/applicability of the test and why somebody might put enough EP additive in their product to "ace" this particular test when their competition has more than enough protection in their product for the same applications but doesn't do as well on the bench test.

Mobil's point about EP products being potentially detrimental in a PCMO is noted, but as you said, I doubt any of them are using these at a level that would yield that issue. So while it is perhaps a wise cautionary stance I think the message in the big picture is that the performance of EP additives in a PCMO is more or less irrelevant unless your engine consists of an EP bench test

I would also question whether oils specifically geared toward high performance applications (AMSOIL's Z-Rod, Joe Gibbs, Redline...etc) have any EP additives. IIRC, they just have elevated levels of ZDDP and moly.

 

[GaleHawkins]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The only "bearing test" I care about is the one inside my engine. From what I can tell - any oil meeting certifications for your car is just FINE. Me, personally, I use Mobil 1 and Redline products and sleep well at night


So true. The friction it takes to stop the motor on these Youtube videos are apples and oranges to a vehicle engine. If one's engine has friction that Mobil 1 can not handle then one has an engine that is beyond being of value any longer.

I have even backed away from synthetic motor oil based on PAO's but lean towards motor oils that is based on hydrotreated/hydrocracked hydrocarbons because Group V esters can fight cleaners like Auto Rx and additives like Archoil AR 2300 series of crankcase cleaners as well as Archoil AR9100 additive used by many especially with the Ford injectors with the Stiction issue.

Groups I-V motor oil info.

I do not use Auto RX crankcase cleaner because I prefer the Archoil AR9100 option because it is easier to use, has added nano technology antifriction properties PLUS it cost less but the below from Auto RX web site explains how PAO based motor oils can fight with Group V type engine oils.

http://www.auto-rx.com/sludge-oil-burning.shtml


Archoil states "NOTE: If using a synthetic PAO leave in a minimum of for 4-5000 miles" where the min is 3K miles in the non Group IV motor oils concerning their AR2300 cleaner that is part of the AR 9100 additive it seems.

In the engines we change we typically use Rotella T6 5W-40 gas/diesel non Group IV synthetic motor oil or we use MotorCraft 5W-20/30 Semi Synthetic Blend (SM specs) if using our Quick Lube service center. Our engine age range is 1976-2007.

Late 2014 we moved to using the Group V Archoil AR 9100 for both the gentle cleaning and nano antifriction features at each oil change. The added cost is $12 on a 5 quart motor oil capacity engine. I reached this decision after first studying the subject back in 2013 and due to our mix of old gas and diesel engines. I bought enough to treat 28 gallons of new motor oil so when it is all used up in a few years I will rethink the use of AR9100.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The only "bearing test" I care about is the one inside my engine. From what I can tell - any oil meeting certifications for your car is just FINE. Me, personally, I use Mobil 1 and Redline products and sleep well at night


So true. The friction it takes to stop the motor on these Youtube videos are apples and oranges to a vehicle engine. If one's engine has friction that Mobil 1 can not handle then one has an engine that is beyond being of value any longer.

I have even backed away from synthetic motor oil based on PAO's but lean towards motor oils that is based on hydrotreated/hydrocracked hydrocarbons because Group V esters can fight cleaners like Auto Rx and additives like Archoil AR 2300 series of crankcase cleaners as well as Archoil AR9100 additive used by many especially with the Ford injectors with the Stiction issue.

Groups I-V motor oil info.

I do not use Auto RX crankcase cleaner because I prefer the Archoil AR9100 option because it is easier to use, has added nano technology antifriction properties PLUS it cost less but the below from Auto RX web site explains how PAO based motor oils can fight with Group V type engine oils.

http://www.auto-rx.com/sludge-oil-burning.shtml


Archoil states "NOTE: If using a synthetic PAO leave in a minimum of for 4-5000 miles" where the min is 3K miles in the non Group IV motor oils concerning their AR2300 cleaner that is part of the AR 9100 additive it seems.

In the engines we change we typically use Rotella T6 5W-40 gas/diesel non Group IV synthetic motor oil or we use MotorCraft 5W-20/30 Semi Synthetic Blend (SM specs) if using our Quick Lube service center. Our engine age range is 1976-2007.

Late 2014 we moved to using the Group V Archoil AR 9100 for both the gentle cleaning and nano antifriction features at each oil change. The added cost is $12 on a 5 quart motor oil capacity engine. I reached this decision after first studying the subject back in 2013 and due to our mix of old gas and diesel engines. I bought enough to treat 28 gallons of new motor oil so when it is all used up in a few years I will rethink the use of AR9100.


If you use a quality synthetic oil for the life of the vehicle you won't need "gentle cleaning and nano anti friction features". This sounds like another snake oil deal to me. No offense, but stuff like this is ranked along side with teflon additives.IMO

 

[kschachn]

Nice, bring the additive Archoil into the discussion.

But hey why not. Maybe Archoil shows excellent lubricity. Whatever that is.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The only "bearing test" I care about is the one inside my engine. From what I can tell - any oil meeting certifications for your car is just FINE. Me, personally, I use Mobil 1 and Redline products and sleep well at night


So true. The friction it takes to stop the motor on these Youtube videos are apples and oranges to a vehicle engine. If one's engine has friction that Mobil 1 can not handle then one has an engine that is beyond being of value any longer.

I have even backed away from synthetic motor oil based on PAO's but lean towards motor oils that is based on hydrotreated/hydrocracked hydrocarbons because Group V esters can fight cleaners like Auto Rx and additives like Archoil AR 2300 series of crankcase cleaners as well as Archoil AR9100 additive used by many especially with the Ford injectors with the Stiction issue.

Groups I-V motor oil info.

I do not use Auto RX crankcase cleaner because I prefer the Archoil AR9100 option because it is easier to use, has added nano technology antifriction properties PLUS it cost less but the below from Auto RX web site explains how PAO based motor oils can fight with Group V type engine oils.

http://www.auto-rx.com/sludge-oil-burning.shtml


Archoil states "NOTE: If using a synthetic PAO leave in a minimum of for 4-5000 miles" where the min is 3K miles in the non Group IV motor oils concerning their AR2300 cleaner that is part of the AR 9100 additive it seems.

In the engines we change we typically use Rotella T6 5W-40 gas/diesel non Group IV synthetic motor oil or we use MotorCraft 5W-20/30 Semi Synthetic Blend (SM specs) if using our Quick Lube service center. Our engine age range is 1976-2007.

Late 2014 we moved to using the Group V Archoil AR 9100 for both the gentle cleaning and nano antifriction features at each oil change. The added cost is $12 on a 5 quart motor oil capacity engine. I reached this decision after first studying the subject back in 2013 and due to our mix of old gas and diesel engines. I bought enough to treat 28 gallons of new motor oil so when it is all used up in a few years I will rethink the use of AR9100.


If you use a quality synthetic oil for the life of the vehicle you won't need "gentle cleaning and nano anti friction features". This sounds like another snake oil deal to me. No offense, but stuff like this is ranked along side with teflon additives.IMO


This couldn't be farther from the truth. You can take mediocre oils and increase their lubricant, protection and cleaning properties through the use of additives. I'm not familiar with arch oil but MMO, Riselone, Tufoil, Mos2 etc would definetely fall into this category.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Nice, bring the additive Archoil into the discussion.

But hey why not. Maybe Archoil shows excellent lubricity. Whatever that is.


As if you didn't know what lubricity is. Gale if these additives work for you, then keep on using them. There are many here and on other forums (myself included) who utilize aftermarket additives with great success. You will meet a lot
Of resistance when discussing them here, but who cares. It's not their motor right?

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
The only "bearing test" I care about is the one inside my engine. From what I can tell - any oil meeting certifications for your car is just FINE. Me, personally, I use Mobil 1 and Redline products and sleep well at night


So true. The friction it takes to stop the motor on these Youtube videos are apples and oranges to a vehicle engine. If one's engine has friction that Mobil 1 can not handle then one has an engine that is beyond being of value any longer.

I have even backed away from synthetic motor oil based on PAO's but lean towards motor oils that is based on hydrotreated/hydrocracked hydrocarbons because Group V esters can fight cleaners like Auto Rx and additives like Archoil AR 2300 series of crankcase cleaners as well as Archoil AR9100 additive used by many especially with the Ford injectors with the Stiction issue.

Groups I-V motor oil info.

I do not use Auto RX crankcase cleaner because I prefer the Archoil AR9100 option because it is easier to use, has added nano technology antifriction properties PLUS it cost less but the below from Auto RX web site explains how PAO based motor oils can fight with Group V type engine oils.

http://www.auto-rx.com/sludge-oil-burning.shtml


Archoil states "NOTE: If using a synthetic PAO leave in a minimum of for 4-5000 miles" where the min is 3K miles in the non Group IV motor oils concerning their AR2300 cleaner that is part of the AR 9100 additive it seems.

In the engines we change we typically use Rotella T6 5W-40 gas/diesel non Group IV synthetic motor oil or we use MotorCraft 5W-20/30 Semi Synthetic Blend (SM specs) if using our Quick Lube service center. Our engine age range is 1976-2007.

Late 2014 we moved to using the Group V Archoil AR 9100 for both the gentle cleaning and nano antifriction features at each oil change. The added cost is $12 on a 5 quart motor oil capacity engine. I reached this decision after first studying the subject back in 2013 and due to our mix of old gas and diesel engines. I bought enough to treat 28 gallons of new motor oil so when it is all used up in a few years I will rethink the use of AR9100.


In over 40 years in this business i have seen literally dozens of friction reducing additives come and go, every single one of them promised some sort of miracle.
They all had graphs, charts, test, documents and testimonials, non of them did much of anything but drain the wallet. Some were actually harmful.

Tens of thousands of engines make it hundreds of thousands of miles or outlive the body with nothing but regular maintenance and engine oil in the sump, they stay clean too.

 

[kschachn]

You give me far too much credit, I have no idea what lubricity is. I don't know how you measure it, I don't know what it's measurement values are, I don't know how much is required for my vehicles/engines, I don't know what the values are for any of the oils I buy or see in the stores, and I don't know how much is too little nor do I know if you can have too much.

I use M1 0W-40 for my BMW. Should I increase the lubricity or is it lubricious enough already?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
As if you didn't know what lubricity is. Gale if these additives work for you, then keep on using them. There are many here and on other forums (myself included) who utilize aftermarket additives with great success. You will meet a lot of resistance when discussing them here, but who cares. It's not their motor right?

 

[Clevy]

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.



What.
Those absurd tests have 0 relevance to lubricity and are only a measure of extreme pressure performance.
Which means they are more relevant if testing a gear oil and have absolutely nothing in common with an internal combustion engine.
I think these marketing tactics are complete nonsense and anyone who believes there is any similarity to an internal combustion engine needs to get a CAT scan to see if there's anything going on up there.
If you want to test an oils ability to protect an engine then use an engine,measuring wear parts before and after.
It's just that simple. Anything else is misleading and an inaccurate representation of truth.
Even though I'm not a Mobil fan at least they use actual cars and run them like a person would then do a tear down such as the Vegas cab testing and that Mercedes they used as a test mule.
At least it's a real test mule and not some stupid 4 ball test or an absurd one armed bandit.
As already mentioned pert plus does well in these types of tests. Who's first in trying it in an engine.
Try it out 636 since you actually believe their relevance. Since you actually feel they are indicative of something you should have no issues with trying out pert in one of your motors.
After all those test are just such great indicators of performance

Gimme a break

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You can take mediocre oils and increase their lubricant, protection and cleaning properties through the use of additives. I'm not familiar with arch oil but MMO, Riselone, Tufoil, Mos2 etc would definetely fall into this category.


It is purported by pundits such as yourself that these additives provide benefits X, Y and Z. However, there is never any actual proof provided, and by proof I mean the results of standardized testing regiments that would actually stand up to the scrutiny of the API, ACEA or an OEM, that indicates that this is the case.

As it stands, all major oil manufacturers and OEM's advise against dosing their products and engines with additional additives.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Nice, bring the additive Archoil into the discussion.

But hey why not. Maybe Archoil shows excellent lubricity. Whatever that is.


As if you didn't know what lubricity is. Gale if these additives work for you, then keep on using them. There are many here and on other forums (myself included) who utilize aftermarket additives with great success. You will meet a lot
Of resistance when discussing them here, but who cares. It's not their motor right?


You have yet to define "lubricity" as you use it.

Lubricity according to Wikipedia is as follows:

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Lubricity is the measure of the reduction in friction and wear by a lubricant. The study of lubrication and wear mechanisms is called tribology.


Please explain how lubricity is measured using a bench test that doesn't replicate conditions found inside an engine? How does that evaluate the reduction of friction? How does that evaluate the reduction of wear?

There are actual standardized tests for both of those things. Friction and wear. Multiple tests actually. This isn't one of those tests.

If we were to state that this test evaluates the lubricity of a gear oil or grease we'd be closer to the mark as there would be some correlation there. The test utilized by AMSOIL (the 4-ball wear test) is a valid screening tool for gear lubes and is used by the majors for that purpose. There is another version of that test for evaluating greases.

Surprisingly enough, the tests used to evaluate various lubricants correspond with their intended use. That is, tests used to evaluate and screen engine oils correlate well with and replicate the conditions found in actual engines. Tests used to evaluate transmission fluids are again, designed to replicate the conditions found inside transmissions. Often times, real engines and transmissions are even used! imagine that

The same goes for gear oils and greases.

So when somebody takes a gear oil or grease test and applies it to an engine oil it isn't surprising that the results wouldn't represent the actual performance of the product in its intended application. If we wanted to know how it fared in a 5-speed or a diff, then yes, perhaps the results hold some merit (as Shannow pointed out).

Also, regarding the part I underlined, your own recent UOA with respect to your MMO dosing that led to much discussion certainly would cause somebody to question your "success" with that particular product.