4 of my cars use 5w30-Can I standardize?

[BMW850]

Genuine Oil Review - Ford vs Volkswagen vs Mercedes vs BMW By Sergiu Gabor

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11mgm_hvXSiQjxuYv6dQmjoI8AxQfSLxMlLimTI6A-pg/edit#gid=0

 

[Trav]

Just another fancy one arm bandit test with the typical put them in the freezer test. Nothing new and nothing different, this has no relation to what actually happens inside a running engine. Better presented same crap different day I say.

 

[kschachn]

Just another fancy one arm bandit test with the typical put them in the freezer test. Nothing new and nothing different, this has no relation to what actually happens inside a running engine. Better presented same crap different day I say.

0+0 still equals 0, no matter how many zeros you add.

It's unfortunate though that people fall for county-fair demonstrations which substitute the screeching and smoking huckster apparatus for what are actually significant properties for motor oil. The visual sells because it is entertaining even when it is worthless.

 

[BMW850]

4 Ball Wear

Wear scar properties and coefficient of friction of a lubricating grease can also be determined using the 4 Ball Wear configuration. The purpose of this test is to determine the wear preventive characteristics of a lubricant. In the 4-Ball Wear test, a steel ball is rotated against three lubricated stationary steel balls under a specified load, speed, temperature and time, per ASTM D-2266 (grease) or ASTM D-4172 (oils).

https://www.nyelubricants.com/tribological-testing-by-4-ball-methods

 

[kschachn]

Neither one of those tests is the same goofiness as what Rat and PF do. Have you ever tested materials and do you know anything about standardized tests? Or do you just regurgitate stuff you found on the Internet?

Even if you could somehow make the argument it is the same, neither Rat nor PF perform the test in accordance with the ASTM procedure (which is critical) and neither one analyze the data in accordance with the procedure. This is also critical. Many tests run afoul of improper data analysis due to ignorance of what constitutes a valid test and what does not. The mathematicians always have the last say.

You've already seen this I know, but here is Rat's worthless data presented in the proper method per the ASTM test procedure (which again is irrelevant because the test is not performed properly). Rank the oils for me? This unambiguously illustrates why his ranking, and the test itself is a massive fail. Again though this is only the final fail, you cannot even really get to this point since there were two previous fails before the analysis.

 

[OVERKILL]

4 Ball Wear

Wear scar properties and coefficient of friction of a lubricating grease can also be determined using the 4 Ball Wear configuration. The purpose of this test is to determine the wear preventive characteristics of a lubricant. In the 4-Ball Wear test, a steel ball is rotated against three lubricated stationary steel balls under a specified load, speed, temperature and time, per ASTM D-2266 (grease) or ASTM D-4172 (oils).

https://www.nyelubricants.com/tribological-testing-by-4-ball-methods

Yes, that's a test for greases, there is also a gear oil version. Both are designed to specifically test for EP performance, something that engine oils do not have to contend with because they aren't used in differentials and ball joints. The 4-ball test lacks any applicability to engine oils.

 

[BMW850]

Tell Amsoil that the 4 ball test lacks any applicability to engine oils
Comparative Study of SAE 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oils

http://www.syntheticwarehouse.com/brochures/study_of_sae_5W30_synthetic_oils_g3115.pdf

 

[BMW850]

Neither one of those tests is the same goofiness as what Rat and PF do. Have you ever tested materials and do you know anything about standardized tests? Or do you just regurgitate stuff you found on the Internet?

Even if you could somehow make the argument it is the same, neither Rat nor PF perform the test in accordance with the ASTM procedure (which is critical) and neither one analyze the data in accordance with the procedure. This is also critical. Many tests run afoul of improper data analysis due to ignorance of what constitutes a valid test and what does not. The mathematicians always have the last say.

You've already seen this I know, but here is Rat's worthless data presented in the proper method per the ASTM test procedure (which again is irrelevant because the test is not performed properly). Rank the oils for me? This unambiguously illustrates why his ranking, and the test itself is a massive fail. Again though this is only the final fail, you cannot even really get to this point since there were two previous fails before the analysis.

View attachment 26635

So, you don't believe in wear tests?

 

[BeerCan]

So, you don't believe in wear tests?

You should re read the thread again if you ask questions like that. Or are you just baiting?

Must be weird having to get your kicks by trolling

 

[kschachn]

"New" member, only joins to try and legitimize a bunch of worthlessness, using the same arguments that all the previous user names used.

Go figure.

 

[Trav]

Tell Amsoil that the 4 ball test lacks any applicability to engine oils
Comparative Study of SAE 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oils

http://www.syntheticwarehouse.com/brochures/study_of_sae_5W30_synthetic_oils_g3115.pdf

That was from 2013 can you post the new results from Amsoil themselves or have they abandoned the arm bandit test?

 

[kschachn]

So, you don't believe in wear tests?

I most certainly do. The real wear test is performed via ASTM D6891 and the results are analyzed and reported in accordance with the test procedures.

https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iva-test.pdf

Not some dood with a blog on the Internet who has zero clue what he's doing.

 

[edyvw]

Tell Amsoil that the 4 ball test lacks any applicability to engine oils
Comparative Study of SAE 5W-30 Synthetic Motor Oils

http://www.syntheticwarehouse.com/brochures/study_of_sae_5W30_synthetic_oils_g3115.pdf

It would be better for Amsoil to send all their oils for approval, than do meaningless tests.

 

[R1jake]

You can use 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, dexos 1 – Gen 2, API SN “Plus”, synthetic (green bottle) Rated #4 on the 540 rat blog testing. I use it in my 1992 BMW 850i 2010 Audi Q7 3.6 and 2005 xterra. I previously used 0W20 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, synthetic but the 5W30 has a higher wear rating. Also about 18 for 5 quarts at Walmart.

Actually it’s rated #4

 

[kschachn]

Actually it’s rated #4

Actually it is "rated" the same as all the rest.

Which is to say there is no rating at all.

 

[kschachn]

If you really want to thin out the garbage then your first step is to discard any notion that the Rat blog has any value whatsoever. People constantly try and drive the square peg into the round hole of relevancy but the blog fails on so many critical aspects (each one in and of itself fatal) that it's almost comical to see people try.

He certainly does believe in what he's doing, but that alone does not make it worthwhile unfortunately. Lots of people passionately believe things that have no truth or value.

 

[JamesGames]

All my cars have run 0w30 0w40 Castrol at some point and they all called for 5w30 weights. 0w40 is a light 40weight oil that has been time and time proved as an excellent oil especially for the price. If I had to choose one oil to do it all , this would be the go to oil. All my used oil analysis from the two oils have been great as well.

I did recently pickup 0w40 SSL Ravenol, carries heavy certifications as well like the GC BC Castrol 0w30/0w40. Seems to be a great oil as well, maybe kind of overpriced however if comparing to Castrol.

 

[wpod]

Yes !

 

[M56959]

Asked and answered.