I've been perusing the Amsoil catalogs and have noticed something interesting. First, I want to point out that I know the applicability of 4-ball wear tests to engine wear is controversial; I do not want to address this here. My posting here is comparing the results of this test across the various engine oils in the Amsoil product line.
My understanding is the intent of the 4-ball test is to compare performance of anti-wear additives. Therefore, I would think I could assume that Amsoil oils with heavy additive packages would perform better on this test. But this isn't necessarily the case. For example, consider the new Dominator line of racing oils - performance for the 4-ball test for the 5W-20, 10w30, and 15W-50 is 0.49, 0.48, and 0.47 respectively. Looking at the diesel oils, the performance of HDD 5w30, which the catalog claims has the "beefiest additive package of all Amsoil motor oils" is 0.38; for the 5W-40 DEO, 0.44; and for 10w30 ACD, it is 0.4. Yet all of these oils are beat by 0W-20 ASM (0.35), 5w30 ASL (0.35) and 10w30 ATM (0.35). Even Amsoil priciest. top of the line SSO is 0.406.
So - what I am trying to say is - the score on the 4-ball wear test does not seem to correlate with the viscosity or cost of the oil, and seemingly, not with the additive package either. Of course, I suppose one could claim that it's not the level of the additive package, but the type and quality. If that is true, then why not use the better performing additives in their top of the line oil, or in their racing oils?
My intent is not to criticize - I love Amsoil's products, I am just curious about why the 4-ball ratings are as the are. I figured the scores on this test would be best on the racing or diesel oils. I also find it interesting that the thinnest (0W-20) oil is tied for the best rating in the product line. Comments?
My understanding is the intent of the 4-ball test is to compare performance of anti-wear additives. Therefore, I would think I could assume that Amsoil oils with heavy additive packages would perform better on this test. But this isn't necessarily the case. For example, consider the new Dominator line of racing oils - performance for the 4-ball test for the 5W-20, 10w30, and 15W-50 is 0.49, 0.48, and 0.47 respectively. Looking at the diesel oils, the performance of HDD 5w30, which the catalog claims has the "beefiest additive package of all Amsoil motor oils" is 0.38; for the 5W-40 DEO, 0.44; and for 10w30 ACD, it is 0.4. Yet all of these oils are beat by 0W-20 ASM (0.35), 5w30 ASL (0.35) and 10w30 ATM (0.35). Even Amsoil priciest. top of the line SSO is 0.406.
So - what I am trying to say is - the score on the 4-ball wear test does not seem to correlate with the viscosity or cost of the oil, and seemingly, not with the additive package either. Of course, I suppose one could claim that it's not the level of the additive package, but the type and quality. If that is true, then why not use the better performing additives in their top of the line oil, or in their racing oils?
My intent is not to criticize - I love Amsoil's products, I am just curious about why the 4-ball ratings are as the are. I figured the scores on this test would be best on the racing or diesel oils. I also find it interesting that the thinnest (0W-20) oil is tied for the best rating in the product line. Comments?
