quote:As far as I know there is no such thing as SM rated 0w30 Castrol Syntec. The only Syntec 0w30 Castrol sells is that made in Germany and it's API SL rated. As for the 4 Ball test, it belongs in a carnival sideshow, IMO, right next to the bearded lady and Lapchik the Barking Boy-Dog.
Originally posted by TooSlick: Well actually, that's the regular API/SM rated 0w-30 Syntec and NOT the GC/0w-30.
4-Ball Wear results for GC
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Gman,
It appears you are correct...the last time I checked at Autozone, they still carried the domestic 0w-30 Syntec as well as the imported stuff. However the Castrol website only shows the ACEA A3/B4 rated stuff.
The rest of my comments still stand about the Four Ball being an overtest. It is an accepted ASTM procedure for evaluating the antiwear performance of various lubricants. Basically what you're evaluating here is the effectiveness of the additive chemistry under boundary lubrication conditions. In this case the oil film is completely squeezed out from between the rubbing surfaces and the AW additives are providing a sacrificial layer that is continually being worn off and replenished.
TS
quote:I agree too. had a 89 mustang 2.3. a 94 merc cougar 4.6. a ranger 2.3 . now my dodge 4.7 and none of them burned any oil at all. all american companies
Originally posted by G-Man II:quote:Or my 97 Olds van with 160,000 miles on it. I have never had to add any oil between oil changes. And Made in the USA. Or my 99 Chrysler 300M with 71,000 miles on it. I have never had to add any oil between oil changes. Car made in Canada, engine Made in the USA. The notion that imports have the only engines that don't burn oil is a load of crapola.
Originally posted by Master ACiD: keep in mind this wouldnt be able to be done on a car that uses alot of oil, like 3mp's test. because he added so much makeup oiul it skewed the results, so this test would need to be done on something like an import, which doesnt use oil.
quote:Or my 97 Olds van with 160,000 miles on it. I have never had to add any oil between oil changes. And Made in the USA. Or my 99 Chrysler 300M with 71,000 miles on it. I have never had to add any oil between oil changes. Car made in Canada, engine Made in the USA. The notion that imports have the only engines that don't burn oil is a load of crapola.
Originally posted by Master ACiD: keep in mind this wouldnt be able to be done on a car that uses alot of oil, like 3mp's test. because he added so much makeup oiul it skewed the results, so this test would need to be done on something like an import, which doesnt use oil.
Patman
Staff member
quote:Agreed! My 98 Corvette uses no oil between changes, and I've owned many domestic cars which were exactly the same.
Originally posted by G-Man II: Or my 99 Chrysler 300M with 71,000 miles on it. I have never had to add any oil between oil changes. Car made in Canada, engine Made in the USA. The notion that imports have the only engines that don't burn oil is a load of crapola.
One additonal thing I would point out here is that the Four Ball Test only evaluates protection against mechanical rubbing wear. It does NOT tell you how well the oil protects against chemical wear from rust/corrosion. It is entirely possible that the GC does very well in this regard. This might be the main reason why it consistently shows lower iron levels than Mobil 1 in the same applications. As Terry mentioned, this test is also done with new oil and does not tell you how effective the AW additives are after the oil has been in service for several thousand miles. Again, this could well make a significant difference in wear rates.
Any individual ASTM bench test only gives you a very narrow perspective on how a lubricant performs in service.
quote:Very good point. As much as I knock this test, it is one test and I do think Amsoil deserves credit for at least testing against the competition.
Any individual ASTM bench test only gives you a very narrow perspective on how a lubricant performs in service
Buster,
I'd like to see the other top tier synthetics run that triple length, API Sequence IIIF test that Amsoil did on their 10w-30 and report the results.
I believe the only off the shelf syn that would pass after 240 hours is the Mobil 1, EP. In any event, that would be an excellent comparison point....
TS
quote:Didn't Ford's original 5w20 spec (WSSM2C153-H) require it (in addition to the GF-3 requirements) to pass a double length API Sequence IIIF test?
Originally posted by TooSlick: I'd like to see the other top tier synthetics run that triple length, API Sequence IIIF test that Amsoil did on their 10w-30 and report the results.
Who says busters obsession is the 'right answer'. I havn't seen a single thing here that says 4 ball isn't a valid test. Prove me wrong
quote:I think it's a perfectly valid test, but the real questions, at least for me, are: 1) what is it really testing?, 2) are the extreme pressure conditions upon which it appears to focus sufficiently reflective of the conditions typically found in an operating piston engine that the results can be used to meaningfully compare oils? Amsoil's assertion is that "the smaller the wear scar, the better the protection." Of course, this is ad copy, and must be read as such. The statement is 100% true within the narrow confines of the 4-ball test itself. In contrast, our UOA results seem to suggest (NB, I'm not saying they "prove") a very low correlation between 4-ball test results and actual, real world protection (case-in-point: all those great Havoline dino UOAs). Now, I'll gladly admit my own bias: I'm a GC groupie, but even with that on the table, you can still take from my UOA, and many others, that we're not seeing any indicators of GC wear being higher than similar Amsoil UOAs, let alone higher in proportion to GC's higher 4-ball results, as one might expect if the 4-ball were closely linked to real-world engine wear. What does this really mean? Terry -- you still out there??? This is, of course, a very complex question. I'm not professing to offer my opinion as irrefutable fact, just more to consider.
Originally posted by sprintman: Who says busters obsession is the 'right answer'. I havn't seen a single thing here that says 4 ball isn't a valid test. Prove me wrong
![[Cheers!]](/forums/graemlins/cheers.gif)
Pablo wrote: "after I make a suggestion, slowly things change - and I must say must say most of my suggestions come from ideas on BiTOG!"
In the Amsoil system, does that mean that BITOG will get some sort of percentage? ![[LOL!]](/forums/graemlins/lol.gif)
Good one gmorg - but as in life there are no rewards for pure ideas! And it isn't even like I've ever been recognized for suggestions that come to fruition.
![[Off Topic!]](/forums/graemlins/offtopic.gif)
Curious as to why you didn't cut and paste what I wrote? You have a repeated phrase, that I certainly didn't type....yet you have quote marks....
Curious as to why you didn't cut and paste what I wrote? You have a repeated phrase, that I certainly didn't type....yet you have quote marks....Pablo,
Sorry for the error. I did copy/paste, but I missed the first part of the quote. In my second attempt, I intended to only copy the part I missed but I apparently grabbed a little extra (must say). When I pasted, the redundancy was created. The least, little bit of proof-reading and I could have caught the error.
Please don't let my error affect the BITOG cut! ![[bowdown]](/forums/graemlins/bowdown.gif)
quote:Yes, but in fairness to Amsoil, their 10w30 after 240 hours had only increased in viscosity by approx 90%. The Sequence IIIF had a max vis increase of 275% after 80 hours. The WSSM2C153-H required a max vis increase of 200% after 160 hours.
Originally posted by 427Z06:quote:Didn't Ford's original 5w20 spec (WSSM2C153-H) require it (in addition to the GF-3 requirements) to pass a double length API Sequence IIIF test?
Originally posted by TooSlick: I'd like to see the other top tier synthetics run that triple length, API Sequence IIIF test that Amsoil did on their 10w-30 and report the results.
quote:I recall discussing Amsoil's published test results comparing Amsoil to Redline with Roy Howell of Redline some years ago. He told me that Amsoil's results were quite different (heavily favoring Amsoil of course) from the repeatable results that Redline got, using the same standardized testing methods from an independent lab (with no bias) in Belgium. He didn't make any accusations, but thought it very strange.
Originally posted by sxg6: because the test results are from amsoil. independant lab or not, i dont really trust them.
quote:It does not really matter Four or Five Ball Test.., Amsoil always (99.99%) number #1 in any kind of oil test on their graph. Having GC on their latest tests chart show us at least some of their marketing folks become a BITOG members.
Originally posted by TooSlick: One additonal thing I would point out here is that the Four Ball Test only evaluates protection against mechanical rubbing wear. It does NOT tell you how well the oil protects against chemical wear from rust/corrosion.
den_2,
I agree with the sentiment, but to be fair, Amsoil often comes in 2nd in at least one test. Currently it is the cold pour point.
http://www.amsoil.com/performancetests/g1971/index.aspx
quote:You are of course correct. I was just trying to add a little perspective. As a side note, here's a nice example of some independent testing: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000246;p=1
Originally posted by G-Man II:quote:Yes, but in fairness to Amsoil, their 10w30 after 240 hours had only increased in viscosity by approx 90%. The Sequence IIIF had a max vis increase of 275% after 80 hours. The WSSM2C153-H required a max vis increase of 200% after 160 hours.
Originally posted by 427Z06:quote:Didn't Ford's original 5w20 spec (WSSM2C153-H) require it (in addition to the GF-3 requirements) to pass a double length API Sequence IIIF test?
Originally posted by TooSlick: I'd like to see the other top tier synthetics run that triple length, API Sequence IIIF test that Amsoil did on their 10w-30 and report the results.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked