Bob's Timken tests

[G-MAN]

Someone mentioned this in another thread somewhere, I think...and I know Bob doesn't make any scientific claims about the results of his Timken tests on oils, but what I'd like to see is a battery of these tests done on various oils where the the oil is preheated to 100 degrees C before it is poured into the cup on the bearing machine. I think this would come much closer to simulating the conditions at which the oil is supposed to perform--much more so than testing it at room temp straight from the bottle, anyway.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

what does friction create? Is a car/engine pre heated before starting?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BOBISTHEOILGUY: what does friction create? Is a car/engine pre heated before starting?

---

No it isn't--unless you're using a block heater. I guess it's all in what you're trying to evaluate with the test. I just think it would be interesting to see how Oil A performs at room temp versus how it performs at 100c.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Well, let me point out for edification purposes that what you are doing is grinding two metal surfaces together and subjecting oil in between. The friction that occurs on this machine has been measured by me without lubrication applied to over 320*degs before I had to quit. Yes, the bearing is cold or room temp as the oil is when starting it, and as the two surfaces grind together, the heat is transferred to the oil and will increase until some form of barrier additive plates up and eliminates the metal to metal grind. This is how the barrier additives are normally activated is by heat and that is usually done with some type of friction caused by rubbing of two surfaces such as the bearings are. I have never heated an oil prior to putting on this machine but I have stuck oil in when the machine was hot. IMO, I don't think you'll see much difference on the end results.

 

[sprintman]

Trust me when you load the bearing on a Timken the oil gets hot real quick. It boils! Castrol Syntrans stands out from memory as it totally evaporated away. Redline 75W90 sure didn't though. Timkens maybe are not real world testing but they give you some idea of a products ability.

 

[Chris]

Bob, how about some more tests like for some oils that have been favorably mentioned lately like the dino Castrol, Pennzoil, and the Chevron? Please?

 

[csandste]

Bob-- Again let me say how much I enjoy these tests, add more oils please. I think I asked this question but I did have a question about your additives. You don't put straight STP into a crankcase, I wonder whether mixing each of the additives with a reference oil would have told us more.

 

[dirtymudder]

Bob, a couple of years ago I saw the Timken test done with all sorts of oils. Cheap to expensive,you could pick any oil you wanted to test and they all ran about the same weights and locked up. Then he put in a product called Motor Kote( a few drops) in any of the oils and loaded the weights on the machine and the the machine would just keep running. It was a fairly impressive test,I think the product was a teflon based product.

 

[sprintman]

ROIL Gold does the same. Pretty impressive. I'd like to see an analysis on ROIL Gold and any oil that has had this added?

 

[dragboat]

I think we have a pretty good idea how these OTC GF3 EC oils perform in motors. Those Timken bearings are pretty expensive I hear,,lets test the GF4 stuff when time comes,,just around the corner I guess although backward compatability will be of some issue ?

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dirtymudder: Bob, a couple of years ago I saw the Timken test done with all sorts of oils. Cheap to expensive,you could pick any oil you wanted to test and they all ran about the same weights and locked up. Then he put in a product called Motor Kote( a few drops) in any of the oils and loaded the weights on the machine and the the machine would just keep running. It was a fairly impressive test,I think the product was a teflon based product.

---

Let me explain what you saw. The timken machine is used by many additive companies to demonstrate how their barrier additive enhances oils. There is also some specialized oil companies that can/will mis lead you with this. Most barrier additives need heat to activate and start plating. When these demo's are being run, they will stack the weights on at a fairly steady fast rate, not giving the barrier additive time to plate due to little heat. When they start demoing their brand of additive/oil, they take their time, putting on a wt and then talking about their product, giving that wt time to heat up the oil a little at a time, then after stalling a bit, they add another wt, again, talking about the benifets of their oil/additive, then again after stalling, add another. This will continue until they expend the total amount of wts but all this time they have gradually put on the wts allowing the additive time to plate up, unlike what they do with the other competitive products. This is why you'll see one guy with one company blow the other competitive product out of the water then the other competitor will do the same to his competitor and make the other look like thiers are not any good.

 

[Neil Womack]

I always figured that if I need to put additives in my oil then I bought the wrong oil to start with.

 

[dirtymudder]

Bob, I figured there was a trick to it all. Thanks Brian

 

[dragboat]

I remember being at the State Fair watching the guy with the motor running with the oil pan dropped yelling whack that throttle a few times

 

[MolaKule]

There is no trick to it. Surface heating due to contact forces causes the moly to adhere to the surfaces to reduce the welding and galling. The Timken test, BY NOT PREHEATING THE OIL, actually handicaps the onset of coating the part. If you could preheat the oil to 160-195 C, the moly sulfide would coat the metals sooner and the test should show an even smaller scar on the pin.

 

[mebanditws6]

Some oils such as Valvoline dino and even Maxlife seem to have weak additive packages in them compared to other brands, and therefore benefit from additives such as lucas, shaeffer's, stp, etc. Money is also a big factor in terms of how many additives such as moly are put into oils. Thats probably why Valvoline and lesser known brands are cheaper than even GTX and Penzoil is because of the moly content. I'm not expert but money to me seems to be the common sense reason. Jason

 

[68redlines73]

I'm confused by all of the interest in the Timken test relative to engine oils. It is primarily designed to measure the effect of chemical extreme pressure agents such as are used in gear oils. These "EP" agents have no function in an internal combustion engine. You really have to go back to the basics of lubrication to get a better handle on what happens in an internal combustion engine. For any fluid to act as a lubricant, it must first be "polar" enough to wet the moving surfaces. Next, it must have a high resistance to surface boiling and vaporization at the temperatures encountered. Ideally the fluid should have "oiliness", which is difficult to measure but generally requires a rather large molecular structure. Even water can be a good lubricant under the right conditions. Engine oils contain ZDDP (zinc-dithio-dialkyl-phosphate) additives for anti-wear (metal-to-metal rubbing) but no extreme pressure additives so of course they perform terribly in the Timken test (which, by the way, is quite poor in the area of repeatability and reproducibility). So I ask, other than for the purposes of snake oil salesmen, why all of this interest in the Timken test?

 

[Patman]

It's a good quick test to do, that's why a lot of us are interested in seeing how oils work on it. Sure, it's not a true test like being in an engine, however it's something good and simple which can quickly compare the oils antiwear protection.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 68redlines73: Engine oils contain ZDDP (zinc-dithio-dialkyl-phosphate) additives for anti-wear (metal-to-metal rubbing) but no extreme pressure additives so of course they perform terribly in the Timken test...

---

Extreme pressure is exactly where the ZDDP is needed. The ZDDP protects when pressure gets to the point between two metal surfaces that the thin layer of oil protecting the two surfaces from wear is completely squeezed out. The ZDDP plates the the surfaces and prevents metal to metal contact. In fact, ZDDP is known as an EP additive. ZDDP is considered to be the most effective EP additive, though moly does have its proponents. Oils with high levels of ZDDP (such as HD fleet oils like Rotella and Delvac) usually do pretty well on the Timken test. GF-3 oils, where the ZDDP level is severely limited, usualy fare less well. This is where the moly element in Schaeffer oils really shines: they are GF-3 complient, but have boundary lubrication that's as good as ZDDP loaded fleet oils.

 

[68redlines73]

That's my whole point. The Timken test is an EP test, not an AW test. Thus, any results from testing engine oils on a Timken machine, relative to the respective oil's actual use in an engine, are meaningless.