PYB better than PP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to the question.

Here is an excerpt from the ASTM D4742 Test:

Quote:
This test method is useful for screening formulated oils prior to engine tests. Within similar additive chemistry and base oil types, the ranking of oils in this test appears to be predictive of ranking in engine tests. When oils having completely different additive chemistry or base oil type are compared, oxidation stability results may not reflect the actual engine test result.

Other oxidation stability test methods have demonstrated that soluble metal catalyst supplies are very inconsistent and they have significant effects on the test results.
Thus, for test comparisons, the same source and same batch of metal naphthenates shall be used.



1. This is a bench test to be used before actual in situ engine tests.

2. The test is valid IF the same base oil and similar additive packages are used. It is NOT valid for different base oil and dissimilar additive packages.

3. Here is a way that one could influence the test. One can vary the amount of catalyst. So what is the catalyst?

Quote:
...utilizes a high pressure reactor pressurized with oxygen along with a metal catalyst package, a fuel catalyst, and water in a partial simulation of the conditions to which an oil may be subjected in a gasoline combustion engine.


A good independent test lab would use the same batch of catalyst and the same amount of catalyst for eact test run.

In my view,

A. The ASTM D4742 test is a valid Bench Test when used with similar base oils and additive packages

B. The ASTM D4742 test is a valid Bench Test when the catalyst used is the same batch and the exact amount of catalyst is used for each oil.

In my opinion, this test does not say anthing about mineral oils being better than synthetics or vice versa, and here is why. A mineral oil could have more or different anti-oxidants in its additive package which could influence the oxygen uptake rate.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GearheadTool
Originally Posted By: V8man
Amsoil is not gonna show a test where another oil is better than there oil.


+1

And you can't walk into a store and buy AMSOIL.

I have been buying Redline.. I wonder if you can get AMSOIL through Amazon.com? If so, I *may* switch.

...

Make of this post what you will, I just may switch to AMSOIL. I don't know all that much about it, and I question whether a NON-extended drain app is appropriate for an AMSOIL oil.


lol.gif


I find this post funny, in an ironic sort of way. Thanks for a morning chuckle.
 
Quote:
And you can't walk into a store and buy AMSOIL.

I have been buying Redline.. I wonder if you can get AMSOIL through Amazon.com? If so, I *may* switch.



So you may have to order Redline or Amsoil over the Internet. I am not sure what your point may be.
 
I completely agree with Molekule, this is NOT a good test to compare oxidation resistance.

For years, Amsoil had poor oxidation resistance and would always thicken out of grade, yet showed great TFOUT numbers. It's bogus IMO.
 
Quote:
Sounds like useless test?


Yes, pretty much. Just like the 4-ball wear, misleading marketing by Amsoil.

I'll try and dig up a good explanation in addition to what Molekule posted. I posted about this before.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
And you can't walk into a store and buy AMSOIL.

I have been buying Redline.. I wonder if you can get AMSOIL through Amazon.com? If so, I *may* switch.



So you may have to order Redline or Amsoil over the Internet. I am not sure what your point may be.


That's what I was saying, I just searched for it on Amazon.com and it was there, I actually enjoy getting motor oil that way and it is why I don't think I will ever use GC.. thanks!
 
Quote:
A TFOUT uses a metal catalyst for the test and different catalysts can be used. I think these different catalysts will react differently depending on the antioxidants (and combinations of antioxidants) used in the various motor oils. So, some antioxidants (and combinations of) will show better or worse results depending on the catalyst used. If a different catalyst was used it would likely produce a different ranking of the oils.



Quote:
"This test method is intended to be used as a bench screening test and quality control tool for lubricating base oil manufacturing, especially for re-refined lubricating base oils. This test method is useful for quality control of oxidation stability of re-refined oils from batch to batch.

This test method is useful for screening formulated oils prior to engine tests. Within similar additive chemistry and base oil types, the ranking of oils in this test appears to be predictive of ranking in engine tests. When oils having completely different additive chemistry or base oil type are compared, oxidation stability results may not reflect the actual engine test result.

Other oxidation stability test methods have demonstrated that soluble metal catalyst supplies are very inconsistent and they have significant effects on the test results. Thus, for test comparisons, the same source and same batch of metal naphthenates shall be used."

Looks like a useful test for its intended purpose, but not necessarily for comparing oils of different formulations.

Tom NJ


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2915831&#Post2915831
 
Originally Posted By: GearheadTool
Originally Posted By: V8man
Amsoil is not gonna show a test where another oil is better than there oil.


+1

And you can't walk into a store and buy AMSOIL.

I have been buying Redline.. I wonder if you can get AMSOIL through Amazon.com? If so, I *may* switch.

AMSOIL tests are ... weird.

That said, AMSOIL is good oil and COSTS LESS THAN REDLINE! 6-pack AMSOIL XL 0W-20, $61.99. http://www.amazon.com/0W-20-Synthetic-Mo...MSOIL+sso+0w-20

Would anyone trust this test.



Make of this post what you will, I just may switch to AMSOIL. I don't know all that much about it, and I question whether a NON-extended drain app is appropriate for an AMSOIL oil.


Amsoil has the nerve to actually criticize the "One Arm Bandit" test but they use the 4-ball wear? What a joke.
 
In the SEQ IIIG, PP would trounce PYB. PP > PYB in oxidation resistance. Ignore this garbage.
 
Originally Posted By: GearheadTool
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
And you can't walk into a store and buy AMSOIL.

I have been buying Redline.. I wonder if you can get AMSOIL through Amazon.com? If so, I *may* switch.



So you may have to order Redline or Amsoil over the Internet. I am not sure what your point may be.




That's what I was saying, I just searched for it on Amazon.com and it was there, I actually enjoy getting motor oil that way and it is why I don't think I will ever use GC.. thanks!

I've seen Amsoil at retail stores. Same goes for GC. GC is actually fairly easy to get locally.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
I completely agree with Molekule, this is NOT a good test to compare oxidation resistance.

For years, Amsoil had poor oxidation resistance and would always thicken out of grade, yet showed great TFOUT numbers. It's bogus IMO.



Correction, Amsoil didn't neceassarily have bad oxidation resistance, but a characteristic of their oils was to thicken up a bit, and this was during the time they released these TFOUT numbers.

Amsoil is high quality, marketing not so much at times.
 
Or you can read the full text of the TFOUT abstract yourself here:

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D4742.htm

Look, for what it's worth, it's marketing to influence the average Joe who isn't as critical or as informed as BITOGERs'.

The reality is oil companies and third-party manf. use technical and semi-technical tests or technical and semi-technical wording all the time to attempt to sway the public. Take it for what it is.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Or you can read the full text of the TFOUT abstract yourself here:

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D4742.htm

Look, for what it's worth, it's marketing to influence the average Joe who isn't as critical or as informed as BITOGERs'.

The reality is oil companies and third-party manf. use technical and semi-technical tests or technical and semi-technical wording all the time to attempt to sway the public. Take it for what it is.


Well said. Maybe I was too hard on Amsoil, but I just think it's a bit misleading. It's a bench test and you have to take it FWIW as you said.
 
Originally Posted By: webfors
Funny how old topics circle back on bitog... and still be amazingly relevant
grin.gif



My bad!
I should have searched first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom