4-ball wear test - why no good?

[addyguy]

I've heard many people on this site say in general that Amsoil's reliance on the '4-ball wear test' is not a good way to evaluate motor oil, and the results are meaningless.

I don't know the mechanisms involved, BUT, it would seem to me that it is a good test - lots of areas in the engine where 'this kind of action' takes place - pistons against cylinder walls, bearings against cranks, and especially roller lifters against camshafts.

I'm just wondering if someone can set out why this may not be a good test, or point me in the direction of literature/posts on this discussion.

Thanks!

 

[digitalSniperX1]

I'd like to do a bit of research on this myself, but...

Wouldn't this test be similar to the Timken test? Isn't that a test that can be passed using chlorine bleach as the lubricant?

In other words, if it can be passed using a fluid not specifically designed and used as a lubricant, what useful outcome is derived from the test since using that fluid, in this case chlorine bleach, would destroy your engine?

 

[Tempest]

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=616&relatedbookgroup=Lubrication2

It is a test designed for gear lubes. Notice that ASTM 4172 is an Anti Wear test, not an EP test that people always claim it to be.

I think that it is something to look at, especially for those with flat tappets, but engines seem to last a long time with any quality oil so it is a minor point. Bearings "float" on a hydrodynamic wedge so this really doesn't apply to them. Cylinders and cams, to some extent, yes IMHO.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

...after a little research, the test is more specifically designed to test greases and gear oils and have little relevance in a combustion engine. I think in the case of the flat tappets, the pressures aren't nearly as high as what you'd get in a gearbox, or a set of wheel bearings. Also and certainly, your piston rings better not be putting extreme pressure on your cylinder walls.

 

[mechtech2]

Well stated by Tempest.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Also and certainly, your piston rings better not be putting extreme pressure on your cylinder walls.

ASTM 4172 is not an EP test.

 

[buster]

There are additives that you can use to achieve a good 4-ball wear scar. If it were of significance, it would be used by the majors and or API as a requirement. XOM, Shell, Redline, Elf, Joe Gibbs, Motul, ....all feel this test has no relationship to how an oil will perform inside an engine. Remember, you can take ANY test and claim superiority on it, much like Valvoline is doing now with the Seq. IVA. It's marketing, thats all.

http://www.mobil.com/Canada-English/Lubes/PDS/IOCAENINDMOMobil_Mist_Lube.asp

You can see that Mobil uses ASTM 4172 for certain greases and hydrolic fluids. If it were important for oils, more would be using it.

 

[ericthepig]

Did DigitalSniper read the post previous to his by Tempest, and then write "after a little research..." ?

 

[Pablo]

Subject comes up so much we need a separate forum for it!!

Quote:
Amsoil's reliance on the '4-ball wear test'


This is very misleading. Amsoil does NOT rely on this test. Yes Amsoil uses it but not a sole basis for decision making. I even gave Buster the official statement from Amsoil on the subject and he posted it. Please find that thread.

 

[buster]

Quote:
The 4-ball test is not a test used to qualify lubricants for engines.
It is an anti-wear test that gives an indication of an oil's ability to
reduce and control wear when two metal surfaces come in contact with
each other. The 4-ball test is an ASTM test and does, in fact, have
good repeatability, more so than many anti-wear tests. The 4-ball has
value for racing applications, as those engines are under stress and
have a high likelihood of metal-to-metal contact. Reducing wear under
those conditions is favorable. The reason we use the test is to
demonstrate our anti-wear technology.

 

[FrankN4]

The biggest complaint against the 4 ball wear test is that the balls do not actually roll. Three are held in position and the fourth is placed in a chuck and rotated against them in the oil bath. What you have is one piece of metal in rubbing contact with another piece of metal(remember the 3 are held firm) at a given temperature, with a given pressure, for a given time. After the given time, you check for wear. A large scar=lots of wear allowed by the lube. A small scar=little wear allowed by the lube.

Maybe if it were changed from balls to triangles, pyramids. ellipsoids, eggs, or whatever, there wouldn't be as much of an issue. However, it is an indication of wear allowed by a lubricate in a controlled environment and it is very repeatable.

 

[buster]

It's a legitimate, inexpensive bench test and all oil companies use it and have access to it. However, most prefer to test oils in "actual engines". This costs a lot more and gives you much better results. It is a test than can be of use though as Amsoil clearly states.

When GM tests oils in their racing engines and even production engines, they use tear downs.

 

[JAG]

Any time 4 balls are rubbing together, it makes me quite uncomfortable to hear about. Nasty!

 

[buster]

LOL...I agree man.

 

[Drew99GT]

Especially when motor oil is involved...

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
it is interesting to note that during the 1940-1943 period, the German Engineers and Chemists developing and producing synthetic ester and coal based engine lubricants discarded the "ball" wear test as quite meaningless

Instead they developed test apparatus that is still in basic use today!
The lubricant fluids they developed then are still the basis for many synthetic lubricant formulations used today too!!

This surely should give an indication of its place in the testing of engine lubricants

 

[Pablo]

I was kind of wondering who won WWII.

Doug - you know darn well the test is not meaningless in it's present form. ASTM 4172 is just one test in many and it has some usefulness in the early stages of formulation.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Pablo - Oh not this again........
It is a great test for grease and the likes - I never said it was meaningless! However, I have NEVER run grease in any engine I have ever owned. And neither have CAT, MB Porsche, Detroit Diesel and Cummins that I know of

Sorry, I once ran a 20W-50 lubricant that was "grease like" though but it was not "balls" tested!!!

Secretly though Pablo, you and I know that Amsoil just use it as a marketing tool. Don't tell anybody else though.........

Oh and who won the peace?

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
who won WWII.


The allies won because German engineers discredited the 4 ball wear test?

I'm surprised Amsoil doesn't use that in their marketing as well...

 

[digitalSniperX1]

my apologies, I was stating that the test has value for testing greases and gear lubes as it can be used to simulate extreme pressure. There are 4 ball testing machines that are used for testing these lubes.
http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/ShearTst/Extreme4ball.pdf

As I stated originally, I think the general consensus is the test you are referring to isn't so great for predicting engine wear.

And yes, the EP test has a different ASTM designation.



In other words, unless your piston rings are exerting extreme pressure on your cylinder walls, the test has little value. However, if they are, I think you're out of luck anyway as there is probably no grease or EP gear oils protecting them.