So Many Bearing Tests Trying To Prove Best Oil ?

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I thought that the matter of opinion was just understood around here. Apparently it isn't. Perhaps that is why so many here like to argue when someone makes a statement without clarification

I have presented evidence that this particular test holds no relevance to engine oils in engines.

You have stated that it is, then cried conspiracy with nothing to back your statements.

You attacked my credibility, then ignored my response, while providing nothing credible to back your own statements of fact. (people see through that you know

)

Wheel out the facts...we'll listen and comment.


Hold on, Im in the process of designing a triple compartmentalized engine. Imagine how much better it would run if I could keep MMO, PCMO and Zmax running at the same time...

Originally Posted By: kschachn
So when you stated "These tests are very legitimate. They measure lubricity", that's just an opinion?

Originally Posted By: jk_636
No, you have fervently attempted to discredit both myself and the test we have been discussing. I attempted to engage all here in useful discourse, then abandoned it once I lost interest in trying to convince you of otherwise. I don't particularly care what you believe. If you like the test, great. If not, that's fine to. I am not here to uselessly argue with strangers (or "experts") on a forum. There are more productive conversations here to take part in.


Im really done with juvenile arguments. Im out, you guys take it from here. Perhaps everyone will now agree with you and you can finally get your jollys.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jk_636
You may as well just stop. You lost all credibility at 3 engine compartments. 3 engine compartments

Look at what is required for bearings, pistons/rings, and valvetrains, and they are very different requirement...you've even agreed with turtlevette a post or two ago that cams needed more.

Look at big diesels, where they have the space to run separate compartments for bearings and pistons/crossheads...are you saying that their designers lack credibility ?

In a car, you have one sump to do all things...it's a compromise that works well, even with oils that don't perform well on the one armed bandit...because the test is meaningless to the life of IC engines.


I was reading about some of the new variable displacement oil pump, some designs are using different flow and pressure for various parts of the engine at the same time.
This makes perfect sense, at idle and low RPM operation the cam could benefit more flow then it gets with old style conventional oil pump designs.

It seems you are correct, the manufacturers are looking at the engine as if it were compartmentalized and developing a lubrication strategy to address those areas as individuals.
Cylinder head area, cylinder and piston lubrication and cooling, timing chain tensioners and the crankshaft bearing area. Turbo bearings flow and post shut down lubrication can also be addressed.
These new pumps are ECM controlled with multiple sensors throughout the engine.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I feel (note feel, from the small number of failures that I've seen) that there's something wrong with engines that waste cams...misaligned lifter bores (seen one of them), poor metallurgy, or overly aggressive profiles for the area under the curve...

The EP oils may help in a marginal case, but agree that they may.

We also have to remember if we're looking at racing applications using racing oils, they've loaded up on ZDDP and cut down on detergents to the point we wouldn't dare use them in a daily driver. I wouldn't see any problems with using RP, Red Line, or an HDEO in my F-150 if I were a little concerned over the cam. But, the guys wanting to make the engine last through the race will be using the race blends from those companies and others, where a dedicated race oil is applicable.

 

[BrianC]

Quote:
Im really done with juvenile arguments. Im out, you guys take it from here. Perhaps everyone will now agree with you and you can finally get your jollys.


Bottom line is, high pressure wear tests aren't used in developing ANY PCMO specs. (see the link to Afton Chemicals I post earlier in this thread) They are used to establish preliminary results of specific anti wear additives. The 4 ball wear test is used in some compressor oil specs and Ford Mercon V ATF. The Timken Wear test is used in a Gear oil spec. They do not represent the combined effectiveness of additive packages in modern oil formulations. So RP and Amsoil can tout their tests all they want. They simply are not a part of any PCMO specs.

That is not to mean RP and Amsoil aren't great products, they are, just their Marketing is abit.. ahhhh, touting Specs that are for the most part irrelevent.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: BrianC
Quote:
Im really done with juvenile arguments. Im out, you guys take it from here. Perhaps everyone will now agree with you and you can finally get your jollys.


Bottom line is, high pressure wear tests aren't used in developing ANY PCMO specs. (see the link to Afton Chemicals I post earlier in this thread) They are used to establish preliminary results of specific anti wear additives. The 4 ball wear test is used in some compressor oil specs and Ford Mercon V ATF. The Timken Wear test is used in a Gear oil spec. They do not represent the combined effectiveness of additive packages in modern oil formulations. So RP and Amsoil can tout their tests all they want. They simply are not a part of any PCMO specs.

That is not to mean RP and Amsoil aren't great products, they are, just their Marketing is abit.. ahhhh, touting Specs that are for the most part irrelevent.


Bottom line is that you should do a little more research. Shell uses a variant of the lubricity test in developing motor oils AND researching new additive packs. I have said it before and will say it again. Tests like this are valid and are used by engineers in refineries to ensure they produce high quality PCMO with additives that can handle extreme conditions. All the proof any of us need is right in this video. Watch the video, you may just learn something starting at 4:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUr7-Ug1Uqc

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
All the proof any of us need is right in this video. Watch the video, you may just learn something starting at 4:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUr7-Ug1Uqc


You might learn something at 6:28...are you worried about the crossheads in your engines ?

I'm not personally all that concerned about my crossheads, BUT the crosshead wear simulation is based on the Cameron Plint Test, and has NOTHING to do with the 1 armed bandit...it's reciprocating wear, with a TDC/BDC under boundary with hydrodynamic in the middle, not a screeching stalled wheel on cylinder.

Keep watching another 10 seconds, where they say that it's a SCREENING test...

So is a screeching stalled wheel on a cylinder still "accurate" when compared to the Shell rig ?

Or the one in my previously linked video ?

Not at all.

 

[BrianC]

Quote:

Bottom line is that you should do a little more research. Shell uses a variant of the lubricity test in developing motor oils AND researching new additive packs. I have said it before and will say it again. Tests like this are valid and are used by engineers in refineries to ensure they produce high quality PCMO with additives that can handle extreme conditions. All the proof any of us need is right in this video. Watch the video, you may just learn something starting at 4:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUr7-Ug1Uqc


Yes I've seen that video. I believe they said that machine was developed to emulate specific actual engine conditions to screen new formulations. Saves BIG BUCKS not having to teardown engines to see the results.

Obviously, Shell doesn't use the Timken load test or the 4 ball test for engine oils. Why? could it be they don't emulate actual engine conditions.

 

[dlundblad]

As long as the API spec correlates with your vehicles year, I don't think your engine would know the difference.

That being said, I still don't have the courage to run store brand no name budget oils.

 

[jk_636]

Quote:


Obviously, Shell doesn't use the Timken load test or the 4 ball test for engine oils. Why? could it be they don't emulate actual engine conditions.


Obviously this machine is of similar design and concept, just a newer version that is more accurate than its predecessor. It doesn't mean the last one was bad, it just means this one is better.

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
As long as the API spec correlates with your vehicles year, I don't think your engine would know the difference.

That being said, I still don't have the courage to run store brand no name budget oils.

I can agree with that. I could not ever see myself running no name engine oils either. Unless it was in an engine that was just going to burn or leak it.