Bob's Timken tests
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
The Timken test and the 4-ball wear test are simply laboratory tests to determine the lubricant's behavior under specified conditions. These tests are predictors of the lubricants behavior in fleet service. Some of the tests correlate well with fleet service and some not so well.
Formulation development could not be very scientific without Scanning Electron Microscopes and the mechanical tests standardized by the ASTM.
Also, here are some additional (albeit random) notes derived from various technical sources relating to multifunctional FM/AW/EP's:
Zinc C1-C14 Alkyldithiophosphate; ZADTP: a variation of ZDDP, FM, lower temp anti-wear, anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion.
Molybdenum tridialkyldithiocarbamate MoDTC: FM, AW (anti-wear), anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion/EP.
Antimony dialkyldithiocarbamate ADTC; FM: anti-wear, anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion.
ZDDP and MoTDC go into the oil solution and form organosulfur (carbon-sulfur) compounds.
At about 450 F, the zinc polyphosphates form a fluid glass; it is this glass that lubricates the surfaces.
At 500-800 F, the moly polycarbamates form a glass-like layer that lubricates the surfaces.
The dithiocarbamates of moly are often referred to as Anti-Wear additives, but also exhibit Extreme Pressure properties as well. The higher the loads (and after the hydrodynamic layer breaks down), the mixed or boundary lubrication conditions exist. In addition to moly being a great FM, AW/EP, and anti-oxidant additives, there are two side benefits to moly additives.
When Magnesium sulphonate (detergent) and moly (MoTDC) are placed together in a formulation, these chemicals reduce phosphorous poisoning of the catalytic convertor.
Secondly, Engine NOX emission is reduced by the addition of MoTDC.
As early as 1983, it was reported that, "One advantage of moly dithiocarbamates is that, unlike moly dithiophosphates and zinc dithiophosphates, they do not poison automobile exhaust catalysts." Many oils contain both moly and ZDDP. Schaeffer's adds one more level of AW/EP protection with SbTDC or Antimony Dithiocarbamates and surfactants.
[ December 06, 2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Formulation development could not be very scientific without Scanning Electron Microscopes and the mechanical tests standardized by the ASTM.
Also, here are some additional (albeit random) notes derived from various technical sources relating to multifunctional FM/AW/EP's:
Zinc C1-C14 Alkyldithiophosphate; ZADTP: a variation of ZDDP, FM, lower temp anti-wear, anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion.
Molybdenum tridialkyldithiocarbamate MoDTC: FM, AW (anti-wear), anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion/EP.
Antimony dialkyldithiocarbamate ADTC; FM: anti-wear, anti-oxidant, anti-corrosion.
ZDDP and MoTDC go into the oil solution and form organosulfur (carbon-sulfur) compounds.
At about 450 F, the zinc polyphosphates form a fluid glass; it is this glass that lubricates the surfaces.
At 500-800 F, the moly polycarbamates form a glass-like layer that lubricates the surfaces.
The dithiocarbamates of moly are often referred to as Anti-Wear additives, but also exhibit Extreme Pressure properties as well. The higher the loads (and after the hydrodynamic layer breaks down), the mixed or boundary lubrication conditions exist. In addition to moly being a great FM, AW/EP, and anti-oxidant additives, there are two side benefits to moly additives.
When Magnesium sulphonate (detergent) and moly (MoTDC) are placed together in a formulation, these chemicals reduce phosphorous poisoning of the catalytic convertor.
Secondly, Engine NOX emission is reduced by the addition of MoTDC.
As early as 1983, it was reported that, "One advantage of moly dithiocarbamates is that, unlike moly dithiophosphates and zinc dithiophosphates, they do not poison automobile exhaust catalysts." Many oils contain both moly and ZDDP. Schaeffer's adds one more level of AW/EP protection with SbTDC or Antimony Dithiocarbamates and surfactants.
[ December 06, 2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I'm actually very interested in what I've read about on this board regarding MoDTC as a friction modifier in engine oils. I've also read with interest the info on the RT Vanderbilt site regarding some of their moly-based additives. But I'm also concerned about what I see as the over-simplification and extrapolation of results from a series of simple bench tests on this board. I saved the below some time ago for my own reference:
Q & A with Jim Fitch, Noria Corporation
Engine Oil Performance Testing:
Question: "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?"
Answer: 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.
Has Schaeffer done any testing of competitive oils in tests like the Sequence IIIE or is the bench test data the only available way to differentiate the oils?
Q & A with Jim Fitch, Noria Corporation
Engine Oil Performance Testing:
Question: "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?"
Answer: 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.
Has Schaeffer done any testing of competitive oils in tests like the Sequence IIIE or is the bench test data the only available way to differentiate the oils?
MolaKule
Staff member
Redlines,
I can't answer for Schaeffer, but as per my post above, there is scientific and engineering testing data (in the literature) dating back to about 1975 that has shown that moly additives perform those functions as I have stated above.
In my opinion, one doesn't need to retest each engine every year or go back through successive tests or testing to prove a particular additive's merits. Scientific progress builds upon previous discoveries.
Additive companies spend fortunes developing additives that have been tested in various engines and fleet conditions before sending them to formulators.
[ December 10, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I can't answer for Schaeffer, but as per my post above, there is scientific and engineering testing data (in the literature) dating back to about 1975 that has shown that moly additives perform those functions as I have stated above.
In my opinion, one doesn't need to retest each engine every year or go back through successive tests or testing to prove a particular additive's merits. Scientific progress builds upon previous discoveries.
Additive companies spend fortunes developing additives that have been tested in various engines and fleet conditions before sending them to formulators.
[ December 10, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I hate to say it, but this is a terribly ignorant answer. It's absolutely true that additive companies spend fortunes developing additives but to imply that the formulators just take a bunch of available additives and just mix them together without considering the ramifications of the final mixture of the finished product and how it will perform in an actual engine is ludricrous. That's exactly why they do series of bench tests before they do final testing in a test engine. Just because the additive worked well in a reference mixture does not mean it will function well in some comany's propritary blend. Thus, without the engine tests and just a few bench tests for proof, the results could be disasterous.
MolaKule
Staff member
"Additive companies spend fortunes developing additives that have been tested in various engines and fleet conditions before sending them to formulators."
And you believe that oil formulators or oil companies test every engine in every make before sending the oil to the public?
You are not only ignorant but naive as well.
And you believe that oil formulators or oil companies test every engine in every make before sending the oil to the public?
You are not only ignorant but naive as well.
redlines,Just because the additive worked well in a reference mixture does not mean it will function well in some comany's propritary blend
I agree but here is something to think about. Many blending companies do buy the additives based on certs already approved with the reference mixture. What you will find also though is that in some cases, companies will promote theirs as meeting or exceeding api standards based on this but yet not carry the api certification which to pass or be certified requires these batteries of tests which if not api cert could mean that they have not produced these test results on their blend. So, no cert's, makes me wonder if they just run their blends in some engines, do a standard oil analysis then, based on that, produce and sell the end oil to the consumer. I'm not suggesting this is happening, but could very easily be done, and not go through all those astm tests, and who will know?, certainly I couldn't tell you. As you look at any tech data sheet, you'll notice that tech data shows specific tests on a particular aspect of oils, the base oil, can be tested by itself, the additives also tested by itself and certified? I would think that this is where the seq tests could or does come into play, to verify the end result of that oils' combination of overall performance with all these additives/base oils blended?
I have tested many oils using the timken. One thing I have learned is that there is no ester based oil, synth or mineral oil that performs any different as they all will shear real quick, thereby relying on the barrier additives used in each. I have run nothing but after market additives, which produce the same results as when it's in the oil. The timken test is obviously nothing more than a way to establish if a good barrier additive exists in the oil combination. It does provide a much harsher environment than seen in an engine when it comes to extreme pressures, so like many tests,(noack comes to mind) testing an oil past it's intended limits does give you a good feel as to how well it will help in if the oil will do ok, or better than ok for that aspect. This test is by no means a way to establish if the oil can produce better results for cleaning, tbn retention, oxidation or any other parts, but it certainly can expose the oil to if it can provide an adequate last line of defense against wear.
I agree but here is something to think about. Many blending companies do buy the additives based on certs already approved with the reference mixture. What you will find also though is that in some cases, companies will promote theirs as meeting or exceeding api standards based on this but yet not carry the api certification which to pass or be certified requires these batteries of tests which if not api cert could mean that they have not produced these test results on their blend. So, no cert's, makes me wonder if they just run their blends in some engines, do a standard oil analysis then, based on that, produce and sell the end oil to the consumer. I'm not suggesting this is happening, but could very easily be done, and not go through all those astm tests, and who will know?, certainly I couldn't tell you. As you look at any tech data sheet, you'll notice that tech data shows specific tests on a particular aspect of oils, the base oil, can be tested by itself, the additives also tested by itself and certified? I would think that this is where the seq tests could or does come into play, to verify the end result of that oils' combination of overall performance with all these additives/base oils blended?
I have tested many oils using the timken. One thing I have learned is that there is no ester based oil, synth or mineral oil that performs any different as they all will shear real quick, thereby relying on the barrier additives used in each. I have run nothing but after market additives, which produce the same results as when it's in the oil. The timken test is obviously nothing more than a way to establish if a good barrier additive exists in the oil combination. It does provide a much harsher environment than seen in an engine when it comes to extreme pressures, so like many tests,(noack comes to mind) testing an oil past it's intended limits does give you a good feel as to how well it will help in if the oil will do ok, or better than ok for that aspect. This test is by no means a way to establish if the oil can produce better results for cleaning, tbn retention, oxidation or any other parts, but it certainly can expose the oil to if it can provide an adequate last line of defense against wear.
MolaKule
Staff member
Thank you, just wanted to remind you of the use of that same word
in your response to me. One can have opinions without getting personal.
in your response to me. One can have opinions without getting personal.
No, MolaKule, just the standardized engine tests. And I don't believe any of my words are ignorant or naive but you're welcome to your opinion.
[ December 11, 2002, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: 68redlines73 ]
[ December 11, 2002, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: 68redlines73 ]
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky