Timken Machine Bearing Test

[Lapithes]

What's the consensus on here about oil additive demonstrations, where a company demonstrates their product's engine protection using a Timken Machine? Some of the posts I've read on here support this test as being applicable to an internal combustion engine, whereas others stated it's an old snake oil salesman's trick.

For instance, a BG MOA demonstration (one additive I had some interest in) was filmed by the company and includes the Timken Machine test, as well as an engine running without oil (one that ran without oil over 90% of it's life). It looks pretty amazing, but I'd like some more information on whether or not people here believe in what the videos show. If this product is so great, wouldn't the oil companies be offering the same type of protection with their motor oils (which in the videos do poor in the Timken test)?

 

[Clevy]

Pert plus does really well in that bearing scoring test.

 

[tinmanSC]

It's the one armed bandit of the automotive world.

 

[zloveraz]

It's entertaining but thats about it.

Exposing the Bandit!

 

[TechnoLoGs]

Unreliable test. Not indicative of the real world, where engines have oil.

 

[zloveraz]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Pert plus does really well in that bearing scoring test.


And Head & Shoulders...

 

[sprintman]

Interesting way to test different oils. I remember when M 1 Supersyn came out replacing the Trisyn and I threw some of the new 0W40 at a Timken at an oil seminar. It exceeded the best result seen by the operator and we broke the shaft and burnt the motels carpet in the demo room. Supersyn turned out to be a much better oil in UOA tests than Trisyn so there was some correlation

 

[Mystic]

Well I would believe the guy from Amsoil before I believed the guy from BG and you notice the BG demonstration used the 'one armed bandit.'

I have seen these machines used at state fairs and even by a guy promoting gun oils.

 

[Shannow]

It's perfectly applicable for testing engine oils, at that exact spot in the engine where you have a spinning wheel in a bath rubbing axially along a stationary hardened metal cylinder, under variable pressure.

Unfortunately, there aren't any places in an engine where that occurs

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's perfectly applicable for testing engine oils, at that exact spot in the engine where you have a spinning wheel in a bath rubbing axially along a stationary hardened metal cylinder, under variable pressure. Unfortunately, there aren't any places in an engine where that occurs


That sums it up nicely. FWIW, 'real world' tests don't have to be done in a lab and the best tests are probably not done in a lab.

Suppose you had an oil additive you wished to test for some property or other. How about using a fleet of school buses or police cars? Divide the group in half, put the additive in one half of the test vehicles but not the other. Keep records of fuel usage, UOAs, maintenance records, etc. Most serious fleet operators keep these records anyway.

After 3 months or 6 months or even a year, you should have a very good idea of whether the additive had any effect at all... helped... harmed... was cost effective. One major problem with this methodology is that it is not photogenic - the mad-men won't like it.

As for the machine, it's very photogenic. But not much else.

 

[Mystic]

When the oil companies test motor oils they do lab testing and engine sequence testing but they often test motor oils in fleets of vehicles, often their own vehicles. And then they can take the used motor oil back for lab testing. They also often test in taxi fleets because that is considered severe service. The used oil can then be lab tested.

Some third party products have undergone a sort of informal fleet testing. For example MMO has been around for decades and has been used as both a fuel system supplement and added to motor oil to clean engines.

After I learned a lot about the 'one armed bandit' testing machine whenever I see that kind of testing anywhere I walk away. In the video above it is obvious that Amsoil does not consider that kind of testing genuine and I would believe what Amsoil says before I would believe some oil supplement maker. Amsoil is a legitimate motor oil company. The four ball testing might be better.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
When the oil companies test motor oils they do lab testing and engine sequence testing but they often test motor oils in fleets of vehicles, often their own vehicles. And then they can take the used motor oil back for lab testing. They also often test in taxi fleets because that is considered severe service. The used oil can then be lab tested.


Right. Oil companies and automakers test things and they have big bucks to spend and engineers to oversee the tests. For the producer of an additive, testing is problematic. How much can they afford to spend testing a product whose sales volume will never be that great? A smart additive maker should try to get a fleet to do some testing - it could be a win-win situation. That assumes that the additive has any value.

MMO was a popular fuel additive in flat-head engines - particularly stationary engines (e.g. oil-well pump jacks, generators, etc.). Flat-head engines are no longer in vogue, but MMO got a new lease on life in the late 60's - during the era of smog pumps and burned valves. It's not hard to test the benefit of MMO as a fuel additive. As an oil additive, it has a lot of competition.

 

[Mystic]

The safest thing to do is to stay with products made by well known oil companies. Name brand gasoline available at gas stations might be better than getting some unknown gasoline at some discount facility. And a name brand oil such as Valvoline or Pennzoil or Mobil 1 or whatever certainly is better than some strange brand of motor oil that somebody might find at a food market. Pennzoil makes a fuel system cleaner-Gummout Regane. Chevron makes Techron. And Redline makes a fuel system cleaner. It is probably safe to use fuel system cleaners like those. And some engine flushes such as Amsoil's engine flush and Valvoline's engine flush should be safe to use if used as directed. Amsoil and Valvoline are obviously legitimate companies.

Beyond that there are some products such as MMO that have been available for decades and seem to work-at least they are still around after many decades and the FTC has not fined the companies making these products for false advertising. Kreen is made by Kano Labs and I assume Kano Labs knows something.

But I have no use for a product where the testing is done on a Timken Machine (one armed bandit). After what I have learned I walk away from demonstrations with that piece of equipment. It is too easy to fake results. The big oil companies have the resources to actually test, in the lab and the field, their products.

So any name brand motor oil that meets all necessary requirements should get the job done. The VOAs and UOAs here might help use decide between brands.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's perfectly applicable for testing engine oils, at that exact spot in the engine where you have a spinning wheel in a bath rubbing axially along a stationary hardened metal cylinder, under variable pressure.

Unfortunately, there aren't any places in an engine where that occurs


Party pooper.

Rain on my parade, will ya?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Suppose you had an oil additive you wished to test for some property or other. How about using a fleet of school buses or police cars? Divide the group in half, put the additive in one half of the test vehicles but not the other. Keep records of fuel usage, UOAs, maintenance records, etc. Most serious fleet operators keep these records anyway.

There still is a problem with fleet tests. There are too many variables. The biggest, messiest variable is the driver. In my fleet experience, some drivers were harder on fuel than others. Some are much harder on equipment than others.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's perfectly applicable for testing engine oils, at that exact spot in the engine where you have a spinning wheel in a bath rubbing axially along a stationary hardened metal cylinder, under variable pressure.

Unfortunately, there aren't any places in an engine where that occurs


Party pooper.

Rain on my parade, will ya?

Well, to act as the devil's advocate, a solid lifter on a Cam is pretty close.

I didn't buy it, but I have seen some (at the time) impressive 'One armed Bandit' demos.
The bandit is too simplistic.
but they were likely using Chlorinated Paraffin in some form.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Suppose you had an oil additive you wished to test for some property or other. How about using a fleet of school buses or police cars? Divide the group in half, put the additive in one half of the test vehicles but not the other. Keep records of fuel usage, UOAs, maintenance records, etc. Most serious fleet operators keep these records anyway.

There still is a problem with fleet tests. There are too many variables. The biggest, messiest variable is the driver. In my fleet experience, some drivers were harder on fuel than others. Some are much harder on equipment than others.


Sizable fleet, no problem... courtesy of statistics.

 

[Garak]

Have you ever noticed that oil companies only use fleet tests for these things for marketing purposes? In fairness, they are used to judge things such as OCI length and normalizing UOAs, but not to judge whether Brand X additive is going to save fuel.

Fleets have way, way too many variables. The error bars will exceed the claimed benefit of all but the most "optimistic" products. CAFE testing (and our Transport Canada testing up here) is NOT done by fleet testing for a very good reason.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Have you ever noticed that oil companies only use fleet tests for these things for marketing purposes? In fairness, they are used to judge things such as OCI length and normalizing UOAs, but not to judge whether Brand X additive is going to save fuel.


Maybe the additive or oil wasn't intended to save fuel but to extend the OCI or impact the UOA in some particular way. Extending the OCI, even by a small percentage, should be valuable to a fleet operator (but probably not to a consumer). Regardless, don't judge 'fleet testing' by how the ad men choose to use the results. More generally, don't judge anything by how the ad men choose to portray it.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Fleets have way, way too many variables. The error bars will exceed the claimed benefit of all but the most "optimistic" products. CAFE testing (and our Transport Canada testing up here) is NOT done by fleet testing for a very good reason.


Ehhhhh? The reason a fleet is a valuable test mechanism is that most of the extraneous variables do not really matter - they cancel out. If you had a large enough fleet, your results would be near certainty, even in a short test. A small fleet can yield valuable results if your time horizon is longer. It's nice to think you can control all the variables in a lab or a test bed, but this is probably wishful thinking. And even if you succeed in a controlled test, you may not know how your results will transfer to the real world.

 

[Lapithes]

One thing I noticed is that in the Amsoil video, they never moved the bearing to a new spot, whereas in the BG MOA video they did do this. When in the BG MOA video they moved the bearing to a new spot, the screeching noise was noticeably quieter with the additive than what you heard with oil only. When you watch the Amsoil video, you'll notice that they hold the arm down quite a bit longer than in the BG MOA test. I think it could be argued that Amsoil manipulated this test to their advantage. They need people spending their extra cash on their expensive oil, rather than buying engine oil additives.