This test is not an obsession nor was it intended to bash Amsoil. I thought it was interesting that GC/Havoline, two of the best performing on BITOG, showed avg. wear scars. I guess those in the land down under just don't get it. I also thought it was intersting thata both of those oils were tested. Amsoil shows great results in the real world so it really doesn't matter anyway.
4-Ball Wear results for GC
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
As a rookie I'll beg forgivness for asking this.
Is this test more usefull for folks that use it along with many other tests when they are determining the final properties of an oil or when they might be formulating the composition of an oil? I'm guessing at this from the discussion.
Is it reasonable for me as a rookie to view it as a stand alone test that tells me very little when taken out of context as above?
My head is swimming trying to follow this discussion and if you please could you address my perspective on this?
I hope that I'm not the only one looking for a more simplified perspective here, but if I am...
Thanks if anyone can get down to my level. John
quote:IMHO, it may be a useful test to oil formulators in conjunction with a plethora other bench and live engine tests. Alone, targeted at the average consumer, it's marketing blather.
Originally posted by John Hilmer: Is this test more usefull for folks that use it along with many other tests when they are determining the final properties of an oil or when they might be formulating the composition of an oil?
One comment was the 4-ball wasn't a good test because it was so inexpensive to do. Low cost doesn't make it a bad test, nor does high cost assure a good test.
People that want independently conducted tests are only using accepted scientific method theory...that a test result must be reproduceable when done by others. This recognizes the inevitable bias that occurs in any test, which, simply put: Any test result observation is affected by the observer...even if the observer is a machine. Different machines are calibrated differently, different people are biased differently. There are all these variables inherent in any test, so, if these tests are repeated in many different labs, and the results are consistant, THEN you can put more and more faith in the results...until then, it's just numbers.
Perhaps a central issue is the presumption that even assuming the reliability/repeatability of the 4-ball test, that there is a direct correlation to metal wear, consistently, in every application. This is not reasonable, due to the variables of equipment design, how "hard" the equipment is used, temp. extremes, etc.
quote:And beyond this, there is an exceptionally low correlation between the 4-ball results for various oils and how they seem to perform, at least to the extent that "performance" can be measured by inexpensive UOA. Again, I don't doubt that the test has meaning, I just think that many people (including especially Amsoil marketing types) are ascribing a far broader, general meaning than it deserves.
Originally posted by mountravlr: Perhaps a central issue is the presumption that even assuming the reliability/repeatability of the 4-ball test, that there is a direct correlation to metal wear, consistently, in every application. This is not reasonable, due to the variables of equipment design, how "hard" the equipment is used, temp. extremes, etc.
Is there any one group of tests that more than one oil company agrees upon to evaluate the lab performance of their oil. It's probably good to know how your oil performs in the lab, but performance on the road is more important and much harder to measure. The 4-ball test for CG showed a bigger number than Mobil 1, but in our fleet operations we changed from Mobil 1 to Chevron Supreme Synthetic because of valve train wear in some vehicles, and the results we can measure show we went in the right directioin. The only 4-ball numbers I see for Cheveron are for the regular Chevron Supreme, not the Chevron Supreme Synthetic, which is really a GIII oil. We are gaining a lot of fiend wear data, but the owners of the data don't want any of it released, and you can see why. So, field data remains hard to get and qualify.
I think all oil companies have a boat load of data from fleet operations and Sequence testing from ACEA/API testing. Amsoil has a lot of data. Redline works closely with engine builders and race teams. Same with Mobil/Castrol/Shell. IMHO, the API/ACEA testing requirements are a good thing and says a lot.
The real problem is that the difference between the very best oil and the worst oil, is not growing as much as the makers of the best (expensive) oil would like. A small increase in performance of a given oil, in day to day driving, could almost double the cost of the oil. You could get better imporvements with driver training. A lot of data in our "boat load (buster's quote)" points to driving habits. If you have a vehicle in our fleet and it's getting better gas milage and longer brake and tire wear, you have an engine that shows far less wear and maintenance problems.
We took five cars that have the same driver all the time, drive the same routes and told the drivers we were testing a very expensive gas additive that would improve their mileage. A senior mechanic would administer the doses and we made sure that it was done when they were watching. They all got better mileage, consistantly better over a six month period. The additive, you ask. Gasoline, with a die in little lab sample bottles, six ounces each. Wear data in the real world on oil takes a lot of work.
Does all this mean that the 4-ball test might replace API ratings?
NO
4 ball is for gear oil and grease.
NO wear areas in a PC engine are close to a 4 ball in real life.
You can add <1.0% of a lot of different additves and BURY amsoil or anyone on a 4 ball test BUT it does not mean it will run a 7K OCI with NO problems.
bruce
Bruce,
I'd like to see oil companies report results from the actual API engine Sequence tests. But don't hold your breathe waiting for that to happen!
There is nothing unusual in the Amsoil additive package that generates great numbers on the four ball. In fact their latest additive chemistry looks very similar to the Mobil 1, EP if you take a close look.
TS
TS - I agree, where are all the tests from the other oil companies? Everyone screams at Amsoil for data. Amsoil provides data (not just 4-ball tests guys) and whammo - people wrongly scream "fraud!".
It's not nearly as bad as the big oil commercials on TV. Where are THEIR data?
It has to be very easy for some company to develope a product (oil) and sell it for the same price as the competition. All they have to do is put the oil in a catchy oil quart and it will sell. But to test it against the competition? Why? What if "some company's" oil actually turned out to be bad?
The fact that Amsoil tests their product tells me they have faith in what they sell. That is one reason why they have my business.
quote:I disagree. If Amsoil would just conduct random tests of the major brands in the segment, then they would have earned an enormous respect among the BITOGERs. The problem with Amsoil is that it carefully selects and then tunes the tests in order to make Amsoil oils look like a total standout product. Amsoil oils are great but NOT leaps and bounds above the competition. This tactic is worse than advertizing since everyone knows what advertizing stands for. Amsoil places its tests as the valid scientific data that objectively represents the real world performance. By including the 4-ball test in every single study of the motor oils Amsoil manipulates an average Joe who doesn't know any better. [ June 01, 2006, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: vad ]
Originally posted by OriginHacker21: But to test it against the competition? Why? What if "some company's" oil actually turned out to be bad? The fact that Amsoil tests their product tells me they have faith in what they sell. That is one reason why they have my business.
Amsoil's test are more honest than Castrol's commercial with it showing "sludged" engines barely going down the highway, or Mobil's commercial for Mobil 5000 being a "tough man's" oil.
Though every company is always going to use something as a sales tactic to get customers to buy their product.
Is that like Mobil 1's ad for Mobil 500 showing the new Corvette that comes with the real Mobil 1 as factory fill, a much more expensive oil. If I did not know better, I'd think Mobil 500 was a great by, after all it's what comes in the new Corvette as factory fill. And there it is on the shelf, what a buy.
I agree with both vad and JAG. Amsoil does make some stand out products, but oils today are so good, the differences are very small. Your group III's are every bit as good as the PAO/Ester blends up to a certain mileage point.
I give credit to Amsoil for testing against the competition. I don't like the 4-ball wear test and think it is misleading, but as others said, they all use bad advertising to some extent. Many times "bad advertising" works on people that don't know better. But for this particular case "SMALLER THE WEAR SCAR!!!" is NOT better when it comes to actual engines.
Discalimer: I do NOT work for or sell Amsoil oils. I don't put much thought into 4-ball wear results.
But Amsoil has and still does make some standout oils. One such oil that they used to make that was stellar was 5W-40, before it changed formulation to meet VW 505.01. [The new version is still an unknown to many and to me]. The old version was vastly less volatile and more oxidation resistant than M1 0W-40 and Valvoline Synpower 5W-40. I say that based on my testing of them, not from anything that Amsoil published. It was up there with the other 40 weight beast, Lubromoly 5W-40, but the Amsoil actually held it viscosity like few 5W-40 oils can (M1 5W-40 was the other one good at viscosity retention).
An oil they currently make that seems standout is the S3k 5W-30 oil. I haven't tested it but everything I've seen supports that conclusion. I'm open to new information that says otherwise.
My point is that Amsoil oils should not be thought of as a Mobil 1 with different additives. They often make some very unique oils. Even if they buy Mobil basestocks, what they end up being composed of sometimes is vastly different from what basestocks compose a M1 oil of the same or similar viscosity grade. Amsoil's priorities for the oil often are different than Mobil's, so they can end up with very different oils. Perfect example is old Amsoil 5W-40 vs M1 0W-40. The Amsoil oil was a "tank" while that latter is a long-drain, high fuel efficiency oil.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked