Four-Ball wear test: Amsoil versus Red Line

[d00df00d]

Even if shampoo and bleach did do well, how in the heck could that possibly matter? You folks are saying Amsoil's marketing is deceptive because their claims are irrelevant. Well, that bleach/shampoo rumor is also irrelevant -- and on top of that, it might not even be true in the first place. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to keep spreading it?

 

[Peted]

 Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Even if shampoo and bleach did do well, how in the heck could that possibly matter? You folks are saying Amsoil's marketing is deceptive because their claims are irrelevant. Well, that bleach/shampoo rumor is also irrelevant -- and on top of that, it might not even be true in the first place. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to keep spreading it?

Because if bleach/shampoo do well on the Same test Amsoil boasts about, then what does that say about the oil? It is a test for gear oil. I like Amsoil the product. But hate their marketing.

 

[d00df00d]

 Originally Posted By: peterdes

Because if bleach/shampoo do well on the Same test Amsoil boasts about, then what does that say about the oil?

Nothing whatsoever. I'm sure Hitler could spell just as well as Gandhi. Does that say anything about Gandhi?

 

[digitalSniperX1]

I think he's saying....this isn't exactly a good test if bleach/shampoo can pass it (I've no idea if it can, I've heard chlorinated paraffins do well in this kind of test and I've also heard they can assist in corrosion of various engine metals). You surely wouldn't substitute either for your choice of motor oils.

 

[d00df00d]

 Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1

I think he's saying....this isn't exactly a good test if bleach/shampoo can pass it

And until he backs up his statement with tribological data showing that bleach and shampoo are poor lubricants, it's vapor.

 

[Pablo]

 Originally Posted By: peterdes

It is a test for gear oil.

Not necessarily.

 Quote:

Designation: D 4172 – 94 An American National Standard Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four- Ball Method) 1. Scope 1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266. 1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only. 1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 4. Summary of Test Method 4.1 Three 12.7-mm [1⁄2-in.] diameter steel balls are clamped together and covered with the lubricant to be evaluated. A fourth 12.7-mm diameter steel ball, referred to as the top ball, is pressed with a force of 147 or 392 N [15 or 40 kgf] into the cavity formed by the three clamped balls for three-point contact. The temperature of the test lubricant is regulated at 75°C [167°F] and then the top ball is rotated at 1200 rpm for 60 min. Lubricants are compared by using the average size of the scar diameters worn on the three lower clamped balls. NOTE 1—Because of differences in the construction of the various machines on which the four-ball test can be made, the manufacturer’s instructions should be consulted for proper machine set up and operation. NOTE 2—Although the test can be run under other parameters, the precision noted in Section 10 may vary. No aqueous fluid was included in the round-robin to establish the precision limits. 5. Significance and Use 5.1 This test method can be used to determine the relative wear preventive properties of lubricating fluids in sliding contact under the prescribed test conditions. No attempt has been made to correlate this test with balls in rolling contact. The user of this test method should determine to his own satisfaction whether results of this test procedure correlate with field performance or other bench test machines.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Typical engines seem to last a very long time when they're maintained using standards tested oils. If Amsoil does best in this test, and you think it'll make your engine last forever, then buy it. My guess is that there are so many variables affecting longevity that would minimize the usefulness of this test. These wear scars seem to be terribly large (esp if they continue to grow through repeated application) with respect to many tolerances..so apparently this condition isn't present in critical tolerance areas or areas where wear due to high pressure conditions exist but don't result in diminished longevity. I try to learn off this site about not so typical engines. A rotary and a turbocharged engine. These may be affected by choice of oil. It's my understanding the failures in turbochargers (in the past) were largely due to deposit formation. These deposits were created when oil diluted with fuel would form small bubbles, and strike hot surfaces. I don't think the 4ball wear test would help with this problem.

 

[burning1]

This is a variation on the Guilt By Association argument. Bleach passes the 4 ball test. Bleach is a bad lubricant. Therefore the 4 ball test is a bad test. Both carb cleaner and soap do a good job of cleaning oil. I would not want to shower using carb cleaner. Therefore, the ability to clean (skin) oil is not a valid consideration when choosing a soap. Mind you, this post does not justify the 4-ball test, it merely attempts to invalidate a bad argument against the test. I'd like to see something more substantial than hearsay regarding this test. I'm inclined to trust Mobile 1 when they say that the 4-ball test is not a critical measurement of oil's ability to protect an engine, but I'd point out that the test wasn't a primary consideration when I chose my oil.

 

[Thundercraft]

 Originally Posted By: d00df00d

I'm sure Hitler could spell just as well as Gandhi. Does that say anything about Gandhi?

Now how am I supposed to sleep tonight?

 

[OVERKILL]

Pabs:

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Surely you don't expect me to believe that the same machine used to test GREASE (as CLEARLY indicated above) and Gear Oil (which EM claims are the primary uses of this test, and test their own products under those categories using this testing method) is somehow "validated" for use on motor oil from the passage you quoted? if anything, the fact that what you quoted makes clear mention of grease makes it even more black and white as to the intended purpose of this test: to measure the effectiveness of EP additives in a lube designed for use in such an application. This would be ATF, Hypoid Oil, Grease.....etc. Given the quality of AMSOIL lubricants, I still cannot fathom why they continue to use this test??? Though I think it is more valid than the hokey "One Arm Bandit" machines, which I think are the tests that the guys mentioning bleach and Shampoo are confusing with the Four Ball Wear Test. And of course there is a marked difference: One is a home-rigged version of a Timken machine, the other is a valid ASDM test.

 

[Pablo]

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Pabs:

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Surely you don't expect me to believe that the same machine used to test GREASE (as CLEARLY indicated above) and Gear Oil (which EM claims are the primary uses of this test, and test their own products under those categories using this testing method) is somehow "validated" for use on motor oil from the passage you quoted? if anything, the fact that what you quoted makes clear mention of grease makes it even more black and white as to the intended purpose of this test: to measure the effectiveness of EP additives in a lube designed for use in such an application. This would be ATF, Hypoid Oil, Grease.....etc. .

Reread this:

 Quote:

Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Think hard. Use the other procedure for doing grease.....

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi, Amsoil are very good marketers - better than most. This annoys some and pleases others. IMO one must be careful to separate the meaningful data from that designed to appeal to Joe & Jenny Average or the Technically unskilled enthusiast This exerpt from a Paper on the "foundation" of the modern synthetic lubricants in Germany during the era of the mid 1930s until around 1945 may be of some interest STARTS The four-ball machine was used, but was not regarded as a good device. The Alman-Wieland test machine was also used. A test apparatus recently developed consisted of a slowly revolving metal drum, partly immersed in oil, with a metal wire under tension in contact with 180 degrees of the drum. The wire is put under such tension that the area of contact is under very high load. The friction drag is measured by the difference in tension between the two (2) ends of the wire. This machine then measures friction against speed of rotation at constant temperature, or against temperature at constant speed. ENDS

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Pabs:

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Surely you don't expect me to believe that the same machine used to test GREASE (as CLEARLY indicated above) and Gear Oil (which EM claims are the primary uses of this test, and test their own products under those categories using this testing method) is somehow "validated" for use on motor oil from the passage you quoted? if anything, the fact that what you quoted makes clear mention of grease makes it even more black and white as to the intended purpose of this test: to measure the effectiveness of EP additives in a lube designed for use in such an application. This would be ATF, Hypoid Oil, Grease.....etc. .

Reread this:

 Quote:

Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Think hard. Use the other procedure for doing grease.....

It is the same machine. I would imagine procedures for a grease vs those dictated for an oil/lube would be different. That is only common sense. It does nothing to dismiss the fact that the PURPOSE of the test is to gauge the effectiveness of EP additives. Again, as YOU KNOW, I have NO ISSUE with AMSOIL products. But I, like many others, simply have a hard time with the "validity" of this test. I don't believe its use is of detriment to AMSOIL's image; it is not "hokey" like the One-armed Bandit machines. But I don't feel it provides anything positive other than providing the uninformed with essentially useless information either.

 

[Peted]

 Originally Posted By: d00df00d

 Originally Posted By: peterdes

Because if bleach/shampoo do well on the Same test Amsoil boasts about, then what does that say about the oil?

Nothing whatsoever. I'm sure Hitler could spell just as well as Gandhi. Does that say anything about Gandhi?

Quit being so thickheaded. You amsoil guys get all riled up for nothing.

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

 Originally Posted By: peterdes

It is a test for gear oil.

Not necessarily.

Mobil 1 begs to differ.

 Quote:

The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil.

[/url]

 Originally Posted By: burning1

This is a variation on the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association]Guilt By Association argument. Bleach passes the 4 ball test. Bleach is a bad lubricant. Therefore the 4 ball test is a bad test. Both carb cleaner and soap do a good job of cleaning oil. I would not want to shower using carb cleaner. Therefore, the ability to clean (skin) oil is not a valid consideration when choosing a soap. Mind you, this post does not justify the 4-ball test, it merely attempts to invalidate a bad argument against the test. I'd like to see something more substantial than hearsay regarding this test. I'm inclined to trust Mobile 1 when they say that the 4-ball test is not a critical measurement of oil's ability to protect an engine, but I'd point out that the test wasn't a primary consideration when I chose my oil.

First of all. I never stated bleach/shampoo Passes the test. I said "If." Second, your analogies are wrong. If bleach passes the 4 ball wear test, and amsoil passes the 4 ball wear test, and If Bleach is a bad lubricate. Then there is nothing to say of amsoil. You cannot say it is a good or bad lubricate simply based on the test IF bleach passes and if bleach is a bad lubricate. All it means, is that they both pass the test. Also, soap does not clean oil "well." So that whole point is moot. Maybe you meant degreaser?

 

[Loobed]

 Originally Posted By: d00df00d

I'm sure Hitler could spell just as well as Gandhi. Does that say anything about Gandhi?

It says Gandhi could write in German

 

[ADFD1]

What interested me is ASM did better than their SSO in the 4 Ball-Wear test. I found that odd considering how they really push the SSO and the cost of it. BTW not knocking Amsoil, I just found it odd that if they put so much valve on that test, and its results why they'd show the flag-ship product did worse than the second top shelf product in their line up? I'm willing to bet if I called their tech dept, or spoke to an Amsoil rep and stated I wanted the ulitmate protection they'd sell me SSO? Which would pose the next question. If that test means so much then why would they push the SSO. AD

 

[Pablo]

 Originally Posted By: ADFD1

What interested me is ASM did better than their SSO in the 4 Ball-Wear test. AD

Why do you write this? Not true. SSO: Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm 0.406 ASM: Four Ball Wear, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 40kg, 1 hour (ASTM D-4172B) 0.35 mm That said, there are many similarities between ASM and SSO.

 

[ADFD1]

Why was the test done differently then? My thoughts were the test was the same exact test? I went through it too fast I guess, my bad. Shouldn't the testing process be exactly the same for each product? Isn't 100C the desired operating temp for engine oil? Especially if the test is showing how engine oil reduces wear? AD

 

[Pablo]

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Pabs:

 Originally Posted By: Pablo

1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Surely you don't expect me to believe that the same machine used to test GREASE (as CLEARLY indicated above) and Gear Oil (which EM claims are the primary uses of this test, and test their own products under those categories using this testing method) is somehow "validated" for use on motor oil from the passage you quoted? if anything, the fact that what you quoted makes clear mention of grease makes it even more black and white as to the intended purpose of this test: to measure the effectiveness of EP additives in a lube designed for use in such an application. This would be ATF, Hypoid Oil, Grease.....etc. .

Reread this:

 Quote:

Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.

Think hard. Use the other procedure for doing grease.....

It is the same machine. I would imagine procedures for a grease vs those dictated for an oil/lube would be different. That is only common sense. It does nothing to dismiss the fact that the PURPOSE of the test is to gauge the effectiveness of EP additives.

Yes same machine, but you must use a different procedure IF you want to use the same machine for grease. So that tells you the machine can be used for oils if you use 4172. Also, you say "PURPOSE of the test is to gauge the effectiveness of EP additives." Interesting, the procedure says "This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear (AW) properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact...." It's just a single test. We should not get so hung up on it. Some people (not you) act as if it's the only thing Amsoil hangs their hat on. Certainly not. I don't put a ton of stock in the test myself because an IC engine has a heck of a lot more going on than sliding contact...and this bench test certain has no combustion component.

 

[Johnny]

Wonder what the ASM would of been if run for the same temp and rpm? And, do you know the difference between ASTM D4172 and 4172B? I do not.