Valvoline -Cameron Plint test vs Mobil 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
38,072
Location
NJ
Ashland is claiming 40% more anti wear film.

http://www.valvoline.com/our-products/motor-oil/full-synthetic-max-life

Sorry this was already posted
frown.gif
 
I am currently using it in both of my cars. Got it at a good price at Walmart but I have been back a few times since and have not seen it so I might have to try something else on my next OCI.
 
If wear was a concern for you, Valvoline says that Maxlife has the better antiwear chemistry vs regular Synpower.

I checked the back of the bottles in the store, I think it is interesting the regular white bottle, red bottle Maxlife, and the synthetic Maxlife say they exceed European. Japanese, and North American wear requirements, but it is not on the Synpower bottles.
 
Originally Posted By: njohnson
If wear was a concern for you, Valvoline says that Maxlife has the better antiwear chemistry vs regular Synpower.

I checked the back of the bottles in the store, I think it is interesting the regular white bottle, red bottle Maxlife, and the synthetic Maxlife say they exceed European. Japanese, and North American wear requirements, but it is not on the Synpower bottles.


I'd really like to know which European wear requirements VWB exceeds.
 
Originally Posted By: CapitalTruck
No way man. Check the PI sheet, it has seal conditioners. I don't need that [censored]. I'd rather just use regular Valvoline synthetic.


All oils have seal conditioners. Maxlife and other HM oils just have a pinch more.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
What's the pass/fail limits of the Cameron Plint test in the API and ACEA test sequences ?


I could be wrong but this test does not sound like something they do.
 
There is a Dow chemical paper here. It sounds, much like the four-ball test, that it might be useful in screening a lubricant, rather than actually assessing performance. Of course, if someone knows better, I'm all ears. Also, I wonder what the error bar is in this situation, too.
wink.gif
Also, this test measures the coefficient of friction, not any thickness of AW films, either. I'm not sure what Valvoline is trying to claim, other than making a claim so complex that it's meaningless to someone outside the field.
 
^ great post/link Garak.

This is telling:

"Most of the respondents cite the challenge
of correlating bench screening
tests to real-world engine tests such as
automobile fleet trials. “Screening tests
are notoriously unrepresentative of real-
world operations."
 
There's an optical method with a spherical ball on a glass disk, and the glass disk rotating ans a look through the glass disk which uses the tested fluid and some bookend references to measure the elasthydrodynamic "film" thickness.

Could be that EHD film thickness (see Gohkan's EHD thread of a few days ago)

But Garak's point is completely valid, that these are typically screening tests, before a formulation is actually tested in expensive test procedures and engines.
 
http://nanovea.com/linear-wear-test

Quote:
Linear Wear Friction Process:
The linear wear friction test reproduces the linear reciprocating motion found in many real-world tribology mechanisms. A flat, pin or ball tip is loaded onto a test sample with a precisely known weight and at a specific position from the center of rotation. As the sample start rotating, the tip creates a linear wear track. Friction coefficient is accurately measured during the test by the deflection of a load cell which is precisely calibrated. Friction forces are recorded for both forward and backward movements of the stroke. Wear rates for the tip and the sample are calculated from the volume of material lost during the test. Depth can be recorded, during the test, using an accurate LVDT or an optical pen sensor attached to the loading arm. A wide variety of testing are possible including varying radius and speed during the test.

Standards:
• ASTM G133 • ASTM G171• ASTM F732


http://www.falexint.com/en/standard-tests-by-machine/cameron-plint-te-77-machine-tests

Quote:

CAMERON PLINT (TE 77) MACHINE TESTS
ASTM Methods

G133 -05(2010) Standard Test Method for Linearly Reciprocating Ball on Flat Sliding Wear

G181 -04(2009) Standard Practice for Conducting Friction Tests of Piston Ring and Cylinder Liner Materials Under Lubricated Conditions
 
Originally Posted By: buster
^ great post/link Garak.

This is telling:

"Most of the respondents cite the challenge
of correlating bench screening
tests to real-world engine tests such as
automobile fleet trials. “Screening tests
are notoriously unrepresentative of real-
world operations."



Typical oil industry advertising tricks. Show me the engine tear downs proving the oil is doing a better job and I'm all eyes and ears.
 
There is no "Cameron-Plint" test method. There is a Cameron-Plint test machine which can be run in myriad ways to achieve whatever it is you are trying to achieve. Stroke, frequency, load, temperature, oil flow rate, surface materials and other factors can be controlled. All the C-P machine does is offer a reliable and repeatable way of quickly and cheaply testing whatever parameters you are researching; it doesn't appear in any ACEA/API/OEM specifications. It's a good screening tool for fundamental development.
 
I can't believe that their marketing folks thought it was appropriate to use the abbreviation "FSwMT".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top