Recent Topics
Changing method of Warfare
by expat
3 minutes 46 seconds ago
Motul 8100 5w40, 5,500 miles, 2002 WRX (stg 4/18G)
by TedMeyer
31 minutes 41 seconds ago
2010 Jettas
by ET16
39 minutes 40 seconds ago
Kerosene/Diesel Transmission Flush
by dsmith41
Today at 06:33 PM
P215/60R15 need 4 new
by FL-400S
Today at 06:06 PM
Canadian Troops should take their Weapons Home
by Falken
Today at 06:00 PM
Wolfs Head synthetic?
by wemay
Today at 05:40 PM
Fram Ultra - Subaru Forester 9k miles, 10months
by Nate1979
Today at 05:39 PM
Pennsylvania Oil Lease?
by BBrier
Today at 05:21 PM
I am filing suit against Carter Fuel Systems
by DoubleWasp
Today at 03:37 PM
Smart Thermostats
by OVERKILL
Today at 03:26 PM
make your own coil pack removal tool cheap!!
by raaizin
Today at 03:14 PM
Newest Members
Mike_T13, spau, FLYNAVY, ArtGarcia, 12e
51662 Registered Users
Who's Online
123 registered (01rangerxl, 2009Edge, 05LGTLtd, ag_ghost, 77GrandPrix, 808Soldier, 8 invisible), 1773 Guests and 166 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51662 Members
64 Forums
221073 Topics
3494555 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#3121234 - 09/11/13 07:38 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: volk06]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11606
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: volk06
The ZDDP bonds to the engine surfaces. This shows that a lot of zinc is sometime detrimental to protecting an engine.

Except that his test in no way could show that. It's not like he had an extraordinarily high ZDDP oil in contact with engine components long enough to display cam spalling. Besides, that's already been demonstrated and we don't need it to be shown again even if that were his goal.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3121280 - 09/11/13 08:32 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
Brybo86 Online   content


Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 740
Loc: Chicago, IL
I would like to see a list of typical pressure levels in an engine. if a 100,000 psi film strength oil is needed because of the engine design then by all means use it. But what if the pressure in the engine never passes 75,000 psi? then is any oil over 75k perfectly good? or is higher always better?
_________________________
08 Honda Accord EX-L 2.4L Amsoil SS 0w20 102k
01 Kymco People 50
95 Lexus LS400 Amsoil SS 0w30 172k
95 Yamaha Jog
86 Kawasaki 454Ltd Rotella 15w40 16k

Top
#3121291 - 09/11/13 08:44 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: Shannow]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29196
Loc: NJ
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's not a 1 arm bandit, but we can't show you what it is....and has about the same relevance to what goes on in an engine as one.

If you are exploring film strength, you've lost the lubrication game in a street engine.

Plus some of his concluding statements have zero relevance to the test regime, or the apparent advertorial for an oil additive.


+1
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#3121354 - 09/11/13 09:58 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
Gabe Offline


Registered: 02/22/11
Posts: 1416
Loc: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's not a 1 arm bandit, but we can't show you what it is....and has about the same relevance to what goes on in an engine as one.


To me, this sounds a little like it.

Quote:
The “dynamic wear testing under load” I use, is intentionally designed to find the SPECIFIC LIMIT of each individual oil’s “Load carrying capacity/film strength”, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. Or in other words, to determine each oil’s “wear protection capability” psi value, which can be compared to any other oil tested on the same equipment. The results that come out of my testing are NOT my opinion, and they are NOT my theory. They are the FACTS that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the tests.

Performing “dynamic wear testing under load”, is the ONLY TYPE OF TESTING that will provide accurate data regarding an oil’s film strength. Dynamically testing motor oil under load, is the same concept as dynamically testing an engine under load on a dyno. That is the only way to truly find accurate performance data of a motor oil, or of an engine.

Top
#3121363 - 09/11/13 10:09 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 4275
Loc: Michigan
All that writing, and never once does he define what he means by "high" and "low" zinc content.

And he seems to be unaware that Phosphorous is the parameter that is used to track zddp content.

He also doesn't seem to realize that there are differenct types of zddp. Some are activated at low temperatures and some activate at high temperatures. I wonder if his test procedure took that into account.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#3121369 - 09/11/13 10:18 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29196
Loc: NJ
^ good points!
_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#3121375 - 09/11/13 10:28 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: Shannow]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 15128
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
That's good, because the types of cars that you are likely to be able to drive with those oils has nothing to do with the testing either...

Could be testing unicorn snot for sleigh grease really.


Exactly. Imagining that Chrysler's SRT group chose Ultra because it's the BEST oil is just another nail in his coffin.

Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3121386 - 09/11/13 10:41 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
JOD Offline


Registered: 09/10/09
Posts: 3144
Loc: PNW/WA
I'll give him credit for one of the most ironically-named article titles I've seen in quite a while.

Top
#3121408 - 09/11/13 11:15 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
doitmyself Offline


Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 4740
Loc: MI
One (of many) red flags in the article for me is that he is ranking oil quality based on one single parameter. That's as foolish as ranking oils according to just TBN level, pour point, or whatever.

His number 10 oil, Motorcraft 5W50 has a very well established reputation of shearing to 40 grade or lower in very few miles of use. While the shearing may not reflect use results, it's still not a good trait for a "best oil".

I do give him credit for crafting a very good sales pitch (for the uninformed).

Top
#3121411 - 09/11/13 11:17 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
This is a good example of the difference between listening to a mechanic / someone who is mechanically inclined vs a true engineer / expert in their field.

Drawing any conclusions out of this would be a mistake. I am sure you could run a test that shows lighter oils are better and another test that shows heavier oils are better.

But before relying on any test, you should be asking yourself if it is the right test!

Top
#3121441 - 09/11/13 11:42 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
SlipperyPete Offline


Registered: 09/20/12
Posts: 334
Loc: Missouri (MO)
I don't know about the validity of his conclusions, nor do I care. His qualifications are at least on par with most people who post here, and his conclusions seem no more incredible than some of those reached in other areas by some of our most prolific posters.

I guess the best thing is to consider the information you read on the internet might come from someone who knows just enough about the topic at hand to be dangerous, whether the topic is calcium, oil grades, or OCI's.

Top
#3121443 - 09/11/13 11:43 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: Tom NJ]
2010_FX4 Offline


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 3101
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Quote:
those who know me personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by posting data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear...


Yes I can see that 540RAT would not want to jeopardize his reputation or integrity! LOL

Tom NJ

approved
_________________________
2010 F-150 FX4......M1 0W-20 SN EP + FU......(Last OC @ 136.7K)
2014 Explorer LTD....KENDALL GT-1 0W-20 SN + MC....(Last OC @ 15.0K)

Top
#3121846 - 09/11/13 06:17 PM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: doitmyself]
NMBurb02 Online   content


Registered: 09/12/12
Posts: 1331
Loc: Crowntown, CA
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
One (of many) red flags in the article for me is that he is ranking oil quality based on one single parameter. That's as foolish as ranking oils according to just TBN level, pour point, or whatever.

His number 10 oil, Motorcraft 5W50 has a very well established reputation of shearing to 40 grade or lower in very few miles of use. While the shearing may not reflect use results, it's still not a good trait for a "best oil".

I do give him credit for crafting a very good sales pitch (for the uninformed).

Another of the many reg flags is that he spends so much time upfront defending his testing methods and conclusions before providing any data. Name drop much?
_________________________
2002 Chevy Suburban 1500, G-Oil 5W-30, Napa Gold FIL 4805
2006 Pontiac Grand Prix GT, Valvoline ML NG 10W-30 +MMO, Puro PureOne PL10111

Top
#3122285 - 09/12/13 06:43 AM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: buster]
bluesubie Offline


Registered: 08/04/03
Posts: 1857
Loc: NJ
Yay! He referenced Ed Hackett's 15(?) year old university research paper.

Quote:

...My data has also been validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:
...
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection...

Hey Ed! Where are you? I miss that old paper. Although, I don't recall whether or not you had an issue with a sticking CAPS LOCK key at the time. LOL

Comments?
popcorn

-Dennis
_________________________
'04 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
Motul X-cess 5W-40 | OEM Honeywell filter

Top
#3122578 - 09/12/13 12:21 PM Re: Tech Facts, Not Myths [Re: bluesubie]
brave sir robin Offline


Registered: 05/20/06
Posts: 134
Loc: California
As the owner of an older car I frequent lots of forums. I have seen this article linked many times. The test this guy came up with is to (very)roughly simulate the conditions of a flat tappet valve train and that's it. The conclusions he reached seem to favor newer style oils which actually makes sense...duh.

If people on here can honestly tell me that if someone hopped into doc's delorean and took a case of any SN rated 5-30 oil back to 1965 then ran it in their chevelle that it would cause ANY part of the engine to wear out faster than normal(for the 60's) then you are one bullheaded individual.

We have seen voa's of some of the old school oils and none of them seem particularity impressive in any way with most having zddp levels that are not insanely higher than the levels today.
The manufactures themselves have said that zddp is old tech. There are other ways to improve wear protection (titanium "new" zddp etc..)
_________________________
Baby carrots are trying to turn me gay

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >