Four Ball test not relevant?

[1bioguy]

Pablo,
My question is, is the scale used for the 4 ball test linear? Is there some form of interpolation that would exaggerate differences after a certain point? The drastic difference between Pennzoil, Havoline and Chevron just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Pablo]

The scale is linear - it's just the depth of a wear scar. But these balls - how consistantly hard are they? How deep is any surface hardening? Again, how repeatable is the test? I have no idea.

 

[buster]

Mitch, I think your wrong. Pablo, I wouldn't try and defend this test, it's not worth it.

 

[Pablo]

buster - please show me where I'm defending "this test"? I know you are riding a high horse - but what did I say in my 3 above posts that could be construed as defending the 4 ball test???

And your statement to Mitch is rather insulting. Where is YOUR proof?

 

[buster]

My proof: The thread Molekule posted, the Noria post above, the 1000 UOA's we have on here AND Mobil, Redline, Synergyn and Castrol's responses. That is my proof.

No need to get all hissy.....c'mon, look at the graph YOUR AMSOIL just plastered up there. Do you really think Havoline is that much worse then the others? You don't call that misleading?

 

[Burbanite]

This 4-ball wear test thing is a little confusing as to why it would not be relevant. My understanding is that you have 4 balls wearing against each other immersed in the stated oil for a certain length of time and then they measure a wear scar on the metal balls?
Now to me that would mean how well the oil protects metal to metal contact in an engine or how well the oil leaves a protective film between the two metal surfaces. Besides metal contact with the bearings you have metal to metal contact from the piston rings and cylinders, cam tappets to the cam, timing chain to gears and the rocker arms just to name a few parts of an engine where you could have metal to metal contact. That being said why would you not like to know the metal to metal wear protection of an oil. Am I missing something here?

 

[AEHaas]

I would use the 4-ball test as follows:

By itself I would not let it influence my choice of oil to use. However, if there were 2 or 3 oils that I was considering as being equal I would then consider the 4-ball test. If 2 of the oils were low and the third gave a superior result then why not use this additional point of information?

One of the great things about this web site is that a person may gather information and opinions. Then a more educated guess can be made as to what would be best for their own particular usage or situation.

aehaas

 

[Pablo]

Buster - I'm not too bound up, really. I just was letting you know that I'm not defending the test. I wish I could run it. I wish I could do an R&R test on the set-up. Same oil, same operator, same controlled conditions - to see how repeatable the test is!!

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

Duh! The test is an ASTE test. Therefore, it is repeatable.

Some years ago, AMSOIL published their results against those of Redline. Redline admitted that the test results were accurate, for oil out of the bottle. They then claimed that their oil run for several thousand miles would outperform AMSOIL. Biggest problem with the claim was that it was really non-repeatable.

Face it guys, if AMSOIL published non-repeatable tests, the other oil companies, especially those named, would be screaming bloody murder. All I hear is silence (and maybe some rattling of test tubes in the background in an attempt to improve).

 

[Pablo]

I would love to see a true unbiased gage R&R study on the 4-ball test.

What I haven't seen is this:

quote:

---

Some of these oils are putting up better numbers then Amsoil

---

People - please provide proof when making such statements. This is WORSE than something like the 4-ball controversy. I hope people do know such statements are just chat on a BB.

 

[bruce381]

"Duh! The test is an ASTE test. Therefore, it is repeatable."

Actually ASTM does not mean repeatable there are some tests such as certain TBN that have a lousy % repetability and tests do vary lab to lab and to be "correct" 2 labs must agree within a certain percent or BOTH results are NOT considered correct.

bruce

 

[buster]

****, you've left out a lot of info on that test done by Redline. Roy Howell sent Amsoil the results and Amsoil pulled Redline from their labeling. After a few hundred miles, Amsoil showed avg. results. You'll also find that it's very easy to formulate an oil to produce a low wear scar, but most formulate to make an oil excel in actual engine sequence testing, which is by far more important. Amsoil does well on these tests btw also. That is why the 4-ball wear test isn't required. I think shampoo will produce a low wear scar as well. Point is, it's misleading for Amsoil to claim 4 ball wear testing will yield lower engine wear. It's simply not true in the context of actual engine wear.

 

[salesrep]

Mitch Allsup

quote:

---

The 4-ball test is relevent, IF you run you car at high loads with the oil near 300dF.

---

Does this test not measure the coefficient of friction?

The discussion will continue as to whether this test is relevant to the avg. driver. Is it relevant to an oils coefficient of friction
( is this important?) and how well it will perform in high heat high load circumstances?

 

[1bioguy]

I'm glad this post has generated so much discussion. But I have to admit I am as confused as I was at the begining. I must echo Burbantine's post, if it is not relevant to engine wear, what about the aformentioned ares of direct friction in an engine? If these oils in question are so poor in comparison, why don't we see cars that act like crop dusters after a lifetime of Havoline or Pennzoil, or do we?

 

[Pablo]

A point to point contact may be relevant to cF measurement.....

ASTM tests are often NOT so repeatable and eventually get pulled. I can think of a few (not related to lubes)

The test may be related to some types of engine wear. This does not mean the test is 100% useful.
This conversation is pure speculation until someone truly peels back the test and list the top 5 or so reasons for error,

 

[1bioguy]

WOW

 

[1sttruck]

As others have mentioned the 4 ball test only measures a limited set of attributes of oil performance. It seems like it would correlate with cam/cam follower, timing chain, gear teeth, tappet, pushrod end, etc., wear, anyhwere you have high loads over a small area. I'd guess that a good gear oil would do well on the test.

 

[Winston]

One of the important missing pieces to this test is that the oil changes as it becomes used in the engine. Engine wear as shown in UOA's is non linear. Oil is new only for a little while. You need a test that shows the anti-wear properties of an oil throughout the oil change interval. It has been mentioned in other threads that the anti-wear compounds become more effective after about 1000 miles. So, this 4-ball test only shows the anti-wear properties of oils for the first few miles of an oil change. To me, that is what makes this test unimportant when choosing an oil.

 

[Blue99]

Here's a good graphic of a of 4 Ball Wear cup and the test machine run at SWRI, a major engine testing firm.

SWRI 4 Ball Wear Test Service

Note the use of the "screening test" phrase, same context as used by Jim Fitch at Noria, that indicates 4 Ball Testing has its' place, but is not the final word.

When (or if) the ASTM D-4172 4 Ball Wear Test technology improves and becomes part of the bench test requirements for ILSAC GF-4 and API, we will all be debating minute, .001mm differences, in wear scar mesurements, as an indicator of engine wear performance.

But, don't hold your breath!

A point for discussion is the test parameters. Note that SWRI runs D-4172 at 75C(167F), 1200rpm, and 40 kg.

The published Amsoil test was 150C(300F), 1800rpm and 40 kg, much higher temp & speed.

I think it's safe to assume that the Amsoil parameters will generate larger wear scar measurements.

 

[oilboy123]

It's getting hot in here..............It seems the four ball wear test is the test that Amsoil gets bashed on for running.

See the motorcycle white paper or the other test they do like Amsoil vs Mobil 1.
They do have other tests.