One thing I learned, Motorcraft does not = Trop Arctic, and Chevron does not = Havoline. Interesting observation.
Oil Comparisons
- Thread starter Dick in Falls Church
- Start date
- Status
The TFOUT test showed interesting results
How could Pennzoil Platinum show much lower results then regular Pennzoil? Makes no sense.
These tests are lab tests, and are suppposed to show how well and oil would fair under certain real world conditions that are close to what an oil would see in a real engine.
Amsoil's main flaw or criticism has been oxidative thickenning. I don't care what Amsoil reps and sales people say, the oil does and did thicken a bit too much in SOME engines/cases and we have seen enough proof of that on BITOG.
If you were to believe their TFOUT #, Amsoil SHOULDNT thicken, yet they show the best TFOUT #. I've always questioned the test/number they show. It could just be that under this benchmark test, Amsoil does show well. Mobil 1 did also. But in real UOA's Amsoil has shown to thicken more so then M1.
How could Pennzoil Platinum show much lower results then regular Pennzoil? Makes no sense.
These tests are lab tests, and are suppposed to show how well and oil would fair under certain real world conditions that are close to what an oil would see in a real engine.
Amsoil's main flaw or criticism has been oxidative thickenning. I don't care what Amsoil reps and sales people say, the oil does and did thicken a bit too much in SOME engines/cases and we have seen enough proof of that on BITOG.
If you were to believe their TFOUT #, Amsoil SHOULDNT thicken, yet they show the best TFOUT #. I've always questioned the test/number they show. It could just be that under this benchmark test, Amsoil does show well. Mobil 1 did also. But in real UOA's Amsoil has shown to thicken more so then M1.
AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN
". Please stop with the 4-ball tests already! In a working engine, Amsoil will not provide 4 orders of magnitude less wear than Pennzoil or Chevron Supreme!!!!!"
This is the one in parts stores with various things. It means soo little in an engine! VERY DECEPTIVE as and end-user test.
But hey great marketing, where scientific method truth and engineering judgement are not required...
". Please stop with the 4-ball tests already! In a working engine, Amsoil will not provide 4 orders of magnitude less wear than Pennzoil or Chevron Supreme!!!!!"
This is the one in parts stores with various things. It means soo little in an engine! VERY DECEPTIVE as and end-user test.
But hey great marketing, where scientific method truth and engineering judgement are not required...
Per Big Oil:
Please show me your data!
But still better than the BIG OIL TV marketing which we know are 100% scientific and based only on engineering!
Please show me your data!
Unlike other who are no worrying about Havoline, I think you should be reflecting on these tests.
Havoline is well loved here based on real world experience in a wide variety of engines, with UOAs as documentation.
So how can these tests be meaningful if the results are so different from real world UOAs?
Are the test completely useless for predicting real world results? Or, are people fudging thier Havoline UOA posts?
Havoline is well loved here based on real world experience in a wide variety of engines, with UOAs as documentation.
So how can these tests be meaningful if the results are so different from real world UOAs?
Are the test completely useless for predicting real world results? Or, are people fudging thier Havoline UOA posts?
I have said this before: Lab tests do not always equal real world in many technologies. I don't think motor oil is an exception.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with Amsoil publishing test data showing an Amsoil product beating the competion per the test data.
What I do question is why did the Chevron/Havoline & Pennzoil conventional oils end up with 4 Ball Wear Scars 3x greater than the other conventional oils in the test?
4 Ball Wear Scars:
Pennzoil......1.800
Chevron.......1.800
Havoline......1.600
Motorcraft.......0.6500
Formula Shell..0.6500
Trop Artic.......0.600
Castro GTX.....0.600
Now, view this 4 Ball Wear Test Data, same ASTM D-4172 at 40 Kg, from Acheson Colloids for a PTF dispersion in base oil:
Pure Base Oil....1.060
Base Oil with
Collodial PTFE...0.740
Now, why does straight base oil, viscosity unknown, generate generate a wear scar of 1.060 in this ASTM-D4172 test and Chevron/Havoline & Pennzoil, with full AW add packages, score a 1.600/1.800 in the Amsoil D4172 tests?
Don't get me wrong - I like Amsoil products and hope to visit the facility in Superior, one of these summers when I'm on vacation in northern Wisconsin.
But if head-to-head comparisons are published, I think every effort should be made to make sure the data points are correct & squeaky clean!
asumeing same ASTM test method this just shows the lousy REPEATABILIY in different labs over a period of time, most wear test 4 ball and timken being perhaps the worst.
bruce
bruce
Quote: why such a difference between T/A and Motorcraft??? Are they not both syn blends by Conoco???
The numbers to me seem pretty close ( with the exception of the TFOUT test, an indicator for extended OCIs).
For example HT/HS viscosity 3.16 (T/A), and 3.05 (MC), 11 tenths of a centistoke...what does that mean, or equate to?
The numbers to me seem pretty close ( with the exception of the TFOUT test, an indicator for extended OCIs).
For example HT/HS viscosity 3.16 (T/A), and 3.05 (MC), 11 tenths of a centistoke...what does that mean, or equate to?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked