Amazon Basics vs Mobil1 vs Valvoline conv. Simple test

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ka9mnx
isn't the one-arm-bandit test remotely relevant to a flat tappet cam/lifter?


No.

 

[ka9mnx]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
isn't the one-arm-bandit test remotely relevant to a flat tappet cam/lifter?


No.

Thank you OVERKILL and Virtus_Probi. One of my vehicles has a flat tappet cam but I stopped worrying about the oil I use years ago when I started learning about spring pressure/ZDDP and cam failures. I thought the test looked viable since it was a wheel (lobe) running against a bearing (lifter). But a lifter is rotating in the bore. The bearing is held stationary.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Sometimes the best tests are the simplest. The American Petroleum Institute had a test for barite that involves a Warn blender that has a replaceable blade that is weighed before and after you run it with barite in it. But, the the real condition is that the barite is in an oil well being drilled and the barite is in the drilling fluid. These types of are done all the time.

So, how does the API test the wear characteristics of oil?

Nope, the best tests are always those that properly characterize a desired parameter, give statistically significant results and are repeatable. It is completely irrelevant how easy or difficult the test may be.

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Sometimes the best tests are the simplest. The American Petroleum Institute had a test for barite that involves a Warn blender that has a replaceable blade that is weighed before and after you run it with barite in it. But, the the real condition is that the barite is in an oil well being drilled and the barite is in the drilling fluid. These types of are done all the time.

So, how does the API test the wear characteristics of oil?

Nope, the best tests are always those that properly characterize a desired parameter, give statistically significant results and are repeatable. It is completely irrelevant how easy or difficult the test may be.


So tell us about the Ksachachn motor oil anti-wear test.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Thanks for the post. This guy is great. Fairly convincing to stop worrying about the Amazon oil. I've also seen the work on penatrating fluids he's done.

So the synthetics showed less wear than the conventional? Oh, the humanity!




How is the last statement justified?


Watch his Oil Lubricity test. Sorry Dave. I know from your past posts, you are a conventional fan.

I'm sorry you don't understand if there is not indentical test for hundreds of thousands of miles with indentical maintaince and detailed logs with tear downs and measurements to make your wear statement accurate. Not YouTube videos.


Dave, you go ahead and design a wear test where the conventional oil wins. Otherwise.......

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So tell us about the Ksachachn motor oil anti-wear test.

My test? How about the answer Virtus_Probi gave you?

Why is it that every time this test comes up and it is shown to be worthless those who argue in favor of it become personal?

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
isn't the one-arm-bandit test remotely relevant to a flat tappet cam/lifter?


No.

Thank you OVERKILL and Virtus_Probi. One of my vehicles has a flat tappet cam but I stopped worrying about the oil I use years ago when I started learning about spring pressure/ZDDP and cam failures. I thought the test looked viable since it was a wheel (lobe) running against a bearing (lifter). But a lifter is rotating in the bore. The bearing is held stationary.


I'd say Overkill has a good point. A simple test approximating conditions can be very useful. It's done all the time. What is everyone afraid of here. OK, I have an engine that so far has 180,000 miles in real life. How many miles are required to satisfy your test?

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So tell us about the Ksachachn motor oil anti-wear test.

My test? How about the answer Virtus_Probi gave you?

Why is it that every time this test comes up and it is shown to be worthless those who argue in favor of it become personal?


Worthless.? I think not. That's the problem. And no it's personal.

 

[Snagglefoot]

I think the issues here are two synthetics seemed to out perform a conventional oil in wear and an Amazon / Walmart oil is giving results similar to a mainstream oil. The tests were very basic, no doubt but they are what they are. Useless. No way. Amusing? Yes, very.

 

[benjy]

for sure todays "synthetic" oils which most are group III Crude oils are superior to conventional as more cockroaches + waxes are removed by extreme processing. some tests are hard to duplicate but the oils in the freezer is simple + efficient IMO

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
I think the issues here are two synthetics seemed to out perform a conventional oil in wear and an Amazon / Walmart oil is giving results similar to a mainstream oil. The tests were very basic, no doubt but they are what they are. Useless. No way. Amusing? Yes, very.

Useless and worthless are accurate terms. This is a graph of the results from that other guy's similar test that is properly and accurately presented by ZeeOSix. Which one of these oils is outperforming the others?

it is in reality worse than this.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
I'd say Overkill has a good point. A simple test approximating conditions can be very useful. It's done all the time. What is everyone afraid of here. OK, I have an engine that so far has 180,000 miles in real life. How many miles are required to satisfy your test?

A simple test approximating conditions is only useful if the approximation of conditions relates to something significant. This test has two problems - it does not represent anything inside an ICE that is meaningful, and the results you obtain are statistically worthless. It fails at both.

And to answer your second question, sample size determination is something a statistician does for a living.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot

Sometimes the best tests are the simplest. The American Petroleum Institute had a test for barite that involves a Warn blender that has a replaceable blade that is weighed before and after you run it with barite in it. But, the the real condition is that the barite is in an oil well being drilled and the barite is in the drilling fluid. These types of are done all the time.

So, how does the API test the wear characteristics of oil?

As somebody who designs for a living and has to go through the ego-deflating pain of testing his own work, often the simplest tests are the ones most likely to fool you.
An overly simplified test setup mimicking something from the real world can give you rough answers very quickly, but I quite likely to omit some things that seem to be of little importance but can make the difference between success and failure.

This engine test is discussed often on here...
"Sequence IVA Test Method
The Sequence IVA test measures engine oil's ability to inhibit camshaft wear.
The Intertek test engine is a Nissan 2.3L, 3 valve per cylinder, 4 cylinder engine. The crankcase oil is subjected to 100 hours of continuous engine running, cycling from an 800 rpm idle period to a short 1500 rpm stage, and back again, 100 times, under very precise control of operating conditions. At the end of the test, the camshaft is removed and measured for wear. Each of the 12 camshaft lobes is measured in 7 places, and an average lobe wear is computed for the test. "


And where do we get to see the results?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by dave1251

Thanks for the post. This guy is great. Fairly convincing to stop worrying about the Amazon oil. I've also seen the work on penatrating fluids he's done.

So the synthetics showed less wear than the conventional? Oh, the humanity!




How is the last statement justified?




I'm sorry you don't understand if there is not indentical test for hundreds of thousands of miles with indentical maintaince and detailed logs with tear downs and measurements to make your wear statement accurate. Not YouTube videos.


Dave, you go ahead and design a wear test where the conventional oil wins. Otherwise.......



I don't have to I am not the one stating one is better for wear your the one who owns it. Go ahead prove your statement.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by dave1251


Dave, you go ahead and design a wear test where the conventional oil wins. Otherwise.......



I don't have to I am not the one stating one is better for wear your the one who owns it. Go ahead prove your statement.[/quote]

The metal sample with the conventional oil was scored worse than the samples with synthetic oil. I guess that's all we have for now.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Well I'll pick up and leave now, but I see the fellow on Project Farm worked pretty hard with what he had. I think all he wanted to do was to say the oil from Warren was worth buying and he already knew that it had SN and SN Plus approvals. He also wanted show that the Amazon Synthetic was a better oil than conventional in some ways. I know he didn't have a multi-million dollar budget but I thought he was pretty successful in bringing it to everyone's attention. Sorry if that didn't satisfy some of the experts on the forum!

 

[kschachn]

An even cheaper test would have been a taste test, and that would have had just as much relevance as the one he did perform.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So tell us about the Ksachachn motor oil anti-wear test.


That's the dumbest form of logical attack on BITOG at the moment.

IF the API had access to a simple test that in any way, shape or form was representative of (say camshaft wear during warmup), do you not think that they would adopt it instead of a complicated and expensive ENGINE test ?

Saying that something is wrong does not conflate with having to provide an alternate answer for scrutiny.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by kschachn
An even cheaper test would have been a taste test, and that would have had just as much relevance as the one he did perform.


I've heard that if you divide taste by colour you have a pretty good oil quality index...

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Shannow
I've heard that if you divide taste by colour you have a pretty good oil quality index...

Interesting, is that for the finished product or just for the base?

I wonder if there are any peer-reviewed papers on that index?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by dave1251


Dave, you go ahead and design a wear test where the conventional oil wins. Otherwise.......



I don't have to I am not the one stating one is better for wear your the one who owns it. Go ahead prove your statement.


The metal sample with the conventional oil was scored worse than the samples with synthetic oil. I guess that's all we have for now.

[/quote]


Which means not a thing.