Amsoil dispels the One Arm Bandit test.

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I've asked this question before with no answer. Pretty much every oil has moly in it. How much moly is the optimal amount?


It depends on the type of Moly used, the overall composition of the oil including its base oils and other additives and it depends on what the blender / manufacturer of the oil is intending with the Moly added in terms of performance characteristics.

To me I could care less what's in an oil, it's about performance at the end of the day and longevity.

 

[PimTac]

That is why I asked the question. All this focus and hype on moly is misdirected. The end performance of the oil is the important consideration here. It has been noted many times here that there are additives that are not picked up on the usual analysis reports that add greatly to the oils performance.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by burla
And in all seriousness, the OP's post might evem hint to WHY, which you seam to care less about as opposed to attacking my credibility. You see with the one arm bandit what happens with extended medium pressure, which is what most guys are seeing with redline and hemi tick as noted several times in this forum and the hemi forum. As in guess what, moly is doing in the one arm bandit test exactly what it is doing the hemi;s, reducing friction.


I'm not attacking your credibility. If you go back and read your own threads you'll note I've indicated that Redline is an excellent oil and we actually had some good discussion. I'm simply not a proponent of shilling, which is where your advocacy ended up when it hit less than subtle levels.

As to the one-armed bandit, your attempt at correlation here, while perhaps well-intentioned doesn't hold up. Why you might ask? Well, for a number of reasons:

1. Because the one-armed bandit is most closely correlated to the 540rat testing, which is claimed to measure film strength and the pressure at which that fails. If there was a direct relationship here then:
a) Oils that had the highest moly levels would do the best on his test rig (they don't)
b) Oils that do the best on his rig would cure the hemi tick. Mobil 1 0w-40 is one of those oils, and one you've claimed doesn't solve the problem

2. Adding MOS2 to Jeb's home oil would have an effect on the hemi tick. From our previous discussions, I recall this not happening

3. The spring pressures in the HEMI are not anywhere near high enough to even approach the EP conditions that these tests like 4-ball, timken....etc are intended to replicate.

4. The 6.4L, which has a more aggressive camshaft, higher RPM ceiling and subsequently heavier springs, doesn't suffer from the issue

I'm not denying a mechanism is in play here with the Redline product that has proven effective, I simply don't feel one can definitively hang their hat on moly being that silver bullet.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by PimTac
That is why I asked the question. All this focus and hype on moly is misdirected. The end performance of the oil is the important consideration here. It has been noted many times here that there are additives that are not picked up on the usual analysis reports that add greatly to the oils performance.



Yes, primarily organics, which was one of the claims made regarding Mobil's AFE products as they had reduced levels of "traditional" additives but the claim was that these were apparently being supplemented by more effective organic compounds that would not show up in a traditional VOA.

 

[burla]

rat 540 tests didn't put long sustained pressure yes? His tests heated oil up and pulled level quickly? Thus his test was testing vii strength?

 

[burla]

I would say if your engine acted like rat 540's pull on a bearing, you'd have more significant problems then an oil could fix.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by PimTac
That is why I asked the question. All this focus and hype on moly is misdirected. The end performance of the oil is the important consideration here. It has been noted many times here that there are additives that are not picked up on the usual analysis reports that add greatly to the oils performance.


Exactly which is why I could care less what soup is in the bottle. Just so long as I get what I'm looking for out of the product.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by burla
rat 540 tests didn't put long sustained pressure yes? His tests heated oil up and pulled level quickly? Thus his test was testing vii strength?


His test gradually applied pressure to pre-warmed oil until there was metal-to-metal contact; until the film failed.

 

[burla]

Gradually is subjective, not very scientific for sure, as we see in the head and shoulders test. Anyhow, we better not challenge that guy, from his own words..

BOTTOM LINE:

My advice is, ignore any critics of my Blog, because they have always been wrong, and cannot be trusted.

LOL

 

[njohnson]

It is true that the One Arm Bandit test is not a good test for motor oils. Just because an oil can do well on the One Arm Bandit test doesn't mean it will do well in an engine. So, Amsoil is correct in pointing out the problems with this test. However, I wonder if Amsoil had another reason to discredit and dispel this test. Think about it, who was using this test heavily around that time period? I know certain oil additives companies like to use it because it shows the film strength of their products, so they say. There was also a certain boutique oil company that was using the One Arm Bandit as well. And their products did well by not producing a big scar on the bearing. This was because of the high film strength of their oil, the company was claiming. This boutique oil company goes after the same potential customers that Amsoil does. People who like the idea of seeking out and using higher performance, top tier oil in their vehicles. Oil that is "better" than the standard offerings available from the big oil companies like Castrol, Valvoline, Mobil, Pennzoil, etc..

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by burla
Gradually is subjective, not very scientific for sure, as we see in the head and shoulders test. Anyhow, we better not challenge that guy, from his own words..

BOTTOM LINE:

My advice is, ignore any critics of my Blog, because they have always been wrong, and cannot be trusted.

LOL



Oh, I know, LOL

Shannow did an excellent job picking it apart, as did Garak. The guy is off his rocker.

Anyways, my point was that his test, like the 4-ball and bandit test aren't correlated to your Redline experience, which I think is an entirely different phenomena IMHO. I don't think it has anything to do with EP performance (see: 6.4L), but rather some other mechanism, perhaps pertaining to the POE content or POE content plus visc. It's possible that the lighter springs and milder camshaft profile vs the 6.4L causes the roller to "skate" and something in the Redline (POE?) works to mitigate that.

 

[PimTac]

The 540RAT blog is one of the worst written and hardest to read blogs on the web. You have to spend an eternity reading on how he knows it all and anyone who disagrees should not be paid attention to. He is of course a ENGINEER!!

 

[KCJeep]

Amsoil can be a hot button, but the real whipping boy around here seems to be Royal Purple. Just my observation, but I have never seen a RP thread with a happy ending.

 

[Shannow]

Except Rat540s "testing" is about as relevant to an engine oil user as rubbing it between two bricks and declaring a "winner"

 

[madeej11]

I know Shan but I just couldn't resist. Merry Christmas to all, cheers!

 

[4wd]

In his mind they are now celebrating his birth ...

 

[ChemLabNL]

"you just want to slander them"

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[4wd]

Libel in writing ... but certain writing (on the bottle) is all that oil is missing ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, I posted that back in the day...

laughable that thy dispelled the one armed bandit test in a period where they were advocating and justifying the 4 ball as appropriate for engine oils.


The military used ASTM D4172 for both gear oil and motor oil.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202145.pdf

Here they show ASTM D4172 used for evaluation of hydraulic oils. They say: "The ASTM D4172 standard covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the antiwear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact". D4172 Seems to apply to any "fluid lubricant".

(PDF) Advantages of using optical profilometry in the ASTM D4172 standard.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._profilometry_in_the_ASTM_D4172_standard

The title of ASTM D4172 is: "Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)"

ASTM D2266 is entitled: "Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)"

http://www.eccosorb.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/stm d2266-1.pdf

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, I posted that back in the day...

laughable that thy dispelled the one armed bandit test in a period where they were advocating and justifying the 4 ball as appropriate for engine oils.


The military used ASTM D4172 for both gear oil and motor oil.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202145.pdf

Here they show ASTM D4172 used for evaluation of hydraulic oils. They say: "The ASTM D4172 standard covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the antiwear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact". D4172 Seems to apply to any "fluid lubricant".

(PDF) Advantages of using optical profilometry in the ASTM D4172 standard.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._profilometry_in_the_ASTM_D4172_standard

The title of ASTM D4172 is: "Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)"

ASTM D2266 is entitled: "Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)"

http://www.eccosorb.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/stm d2266-1.pdf



Yes, we discussed this before in this thread back in 2017:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4343721/4

And as you stated at the time:

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.


Note that I'm not saying they can't be used on your typical motor oils, simply that there are no examples of it being used in that manner from any of the majors. Every example I've found has been like the above, which supports Mobil's statement as to why these protocols are not generally used on motor oils.

And you are quite welcome.


On the same page with you OVERKILL. Appreciate your inputs.


Per your MIL reference, I think these quotes are imperative to properly understanding the intent:

Originally Posted by Paper linked by ZeeOSix
The best overall performance with the least trade-offs was selected. This lubricant was a grade CD/0, MIL-L-2104C tactical engine lubricant equivalent and could be used as a gear lubricant.

Originally Posted by Paper linked by ZeeOSix
The objective of this program was to define the lubricant qualities of selected military engine and gear lubricants under a wide range of lubrication environments using different friction and wear test devices and then attempt to show correlation between the results of the different test devices. Dependent on these results, these data could be used to determine which engine oils can be substituted for gear lubricants.


Which is also covered in the intro:
Originally Posted by Paper linked by ZeeOSix
The Army has historically been a proponent of "multipurpose" or "universal" engine and/or power-train lubricants. The Army's advocacy for a multipurpose lubricant has been primarily to minimize both logistic requirements and the possibility of maintenance mistakes in the field.


So yeah, if your intention is to use the same product in both the gearbox and the engine, making sure it passes the EP testing necessary for a gearbox lubricant then becomes quite relevant.