Originally Posted by Diesel12
In my opinion they are comparable. They are both 100 hour tests. Just one is Low rpm/Load and one is High Rpm/Load/Temp
SEQUENCE IVA- 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.
SEQUENCE IIIG-The Sequence IIIG Test consists of a 10-minute operational check, followed by 100 hours of engine operation at moderately high speed, load, and temperature conditions.
Well your opinion doesn't really play into this. They are different tests, ergo, they aren't comparable. To be comparable, it needs to be the same test.
The IVA test is, of the two, the more difficult, since the temperature that is used is intentionally kept low to prevent the heat-activated additives from functioning. It is designed to replicate the conditions of an engine never getting warmed up; short-tripped, which is a bad condition for both the equipment and the lubricant. Specifically, this test is to measure camshaft wear.
Not only are the tests different, but the engines used are also different:
IIIG uses a GM 3.8L roller pushrod engine
IVA uses a Nissan I4 OHC 3-valve engine with sliding non-roller followers
An engine with roller lifters is going to exhibit less camshaft wear than one with sliding followers.
As I said, the tests aren't comparable.