4-Ball Wear results for GC

[buster]

The latest Amsoil price catalog has 4-Ball wear results for GC.

Amsoil 0w-30 = .36

PP 5w-30 = .542

QS 5w-30 = .55

M1 EP 5w-30 = .619

GC 0w-30 = .634

Havoline 5w-30 = 1.646 LOL


It's been said this test relates to valvetrain wear. Have you ever seen GC show excessive valvetrain wear? I havn't. Goes to show how bogus this 4-ball wear test is in relation to actual engine wear. The Havoline results are funny, especially when you consider how good that oil is.

 

[bighead]

And OF COURSE the Crown Jewel of motor oil has such a lowww number..

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bighead:
And OF COURSE the Crown Jewel of motor oil has such a lowww number..

---

Who cares???

This test is irrelevant and being used as an advertizing gimmick as applied to the motor oils.
From Noria Publications

Q - "I have seen a number of lubricant manufacturers refer to the 4-ball wear scar test as an indicator of how well the oil will protect an engine.
Other larger companies tend to brush off the results of this test indicating that it isn't representative of actual engine conditions adding that because it is cheap to run, the results aren't worth much.
What are your thoughts on this?"


A - "The 4-ball test (ASTM D4172) is often used as a screening test for many different lubricant types that contain antiwear additives or similar base oil properties.
Other tribo-mechanical bench tests are often used as well, including the Timken Test (ASTM D2782) and the Pin and V-Block (ASTM D2670).
Because engines have different contact geometry, loads, metallurgy and speeds, numerous bench tests and test protocols are needed.
It is not uncommon for several oils to be tested using two such methods and to find that the performance rankings between the oils to reverse (no correlation).
This is why, among other reasons, Passenger Car Motor Oils and Heavy Duty Oils (diesel crankcase) are tested in actual engines using controlled methods such as ASTM D5533 Sequence IIIE and D5302 Sequence VE.

 

[Pablo]

Where is the dead horse gremlin?

Both for Amsoil and buster. I like Vad's answer. It is a gimmick. I have told Amsoil and asked them to stop. I have no control over this marketing. Buster has a brain lock on it almost to the point of obsession.

Do an entire site search for buster(# 576) and ball.

 

[buster]

Why should I stop if Amsoil continues to use this type of test? Second, I thought it was interesting that they tested GC and Havoline. Those are two of the best oils on the market, and yet show poor wear scar results. This test is used by dealers and it is misleading.

[ May 20, 2006, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Bio-T ]

 

[Terry]

4 ball wear is indeed a useful/meaningful test.

However the lubricant chemistry that is tested will show varying results depending on add pack formulation, time to heat cycle/activate etc.

Many engine oils that test very well on this test show EXTREME degradation after the oil is used in real time automotive use.

Testing fresh oils is fine but just one aspect of a lube capability.

Heat cycle and dirty up some of the mentioned oils above and wear results changes would shock the reader.

Terry

 

[buster]

Thanks for the clarification Terry. That was the best response I've ever read about the 4-Ball wear test.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
I have told Amsoil and asked them to stop. I have no control over this marketing.

---

Why would you have any control over their marketing? Are you one of the executive managers at Amsoil?

 

[oakfloor]

why is it when amsoil showes a better test result than someones favroite oil, they say "well that doesent mean anything" then what standards do we judge oil by?

 

[sxg6]

because the test results are from amsoil. independant lab or not, i dont really trust them.

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

sxg6, what makes you not trust them? Do you believe they are false or is it because of how it is presented (which I can understand)?

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oakfloor:
why is it when amsoil showes a better test result than someones favroite oil, they say "well that doesent mean anything" then what standards do we judge oil by?

---

Because of the gimicky nature of this particular test as applied to engines.
It's more relevant for testing greases and gear oils, not motor oils.

 

[buster]

I agree with vad.

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
I have told Amsoil and asked them to stop. I have no control over this marketing.

Why would you have any control over their marketing? Are you one of the executive managers at Amsoil?

---

Apparently the chemists don't have have any control over marketing either! No I'm just a measly dealer, but I have been surprised before - after I make a suggestion, slowly things change - and I must say most of my suggestions come from ideas on BiTOG!

 

[sxg6]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ConfederateTyrant:
sxg6, what makes you not trust them? Do you believe they are false or is it because of how it is presented (which I can understand)?

---

i used the wrong words in my post. its not so much that i dont trust them.. i mean i dont think they get the results out of thin air.. but i dont know. i just have a hard time trusting any test results from a company when it shows their product doing the best

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

sxg6, that's understandable, before I ever began using Amsoil I did some research of my own so I could learn about those tests and read up on people's opinions (non-dealers) about using it and everything pointed in a positive direction.

One thing I prefer with Amsoil's test results is that they will use specific types/names/brands other than "leading petroleum" or "leading synthetic". If the results were false, that could put Amsoil Inc in a horrible situation, so I believe the tests are valid and legit, but as was mentioned earlier, those test may not even matter much in real world situations.

 

[Master ACiD]

heres an idea, why doesnt someone fill up a car motor with brand X oil, drive for 1000 miles, drain out a few ounces and put it on a timken mcahine and measure it? then drive another thousand on the same oil, drain out 2 more ounces and measure that on the timken machine. and keep doing this every thousand miles untill the owners manual says its time to change the oil.

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.

 

[Cooper]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Master ACiD:
heres an idea, why doesnt someone fill up a car motor with brand X oil, drive for 1000 miles, drain out a few ounces and put it on a timken mcahine and measure it? then drive another thousand on the same oil, drain out 2 more ounces and measure that on the timken machine. and keep doing this every thousand miles untill the owners manual says its time to change the oil.

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.

---

Sounds like a good idea. Why don't you do it?

 

[Master ACiD]

how long are yhou guys running youre oil out to? i average 10K between oil changes and not a millimeter of oil is lost off the dipstick.

 

[TooSlick]

Well actually, that's the regular API/SM rated 0w-30 Syntec and NOT the GC/0w-30. So the whole discussion is sort of meaningless.

I think the GC would perform very well in this test, given the low levels of Fe it generates....

One thing to keep in mind is that the Four Ball is an overtest in terms of loads and oil temps. I think it has some relevance to valvetrain wear, particularly in engines that have direct acting camshaft lobes. However in normal driving you don't often see the kind of temps and/or loads that would tend to discriminate between oils. Hard core racing is another story....

TS

Ts