Four-Ball wear test: Amsoil versus Red Line

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Any reason why they tested the ASM and SSO differently on the 4 ball wear test. One was tested at 1200 rpm the other at 1800 RPM IIRC? Thanks

1,200 rpms is generally more severe, but no idea why they choose those conditions.

Tom NJ


1200 rpms is more severe than the 1800 rpm test would be? Is that because more pressure is applied to get 1200 rpms, less pressure would allow it to spin faster? These tests should all follow the same conditions, it would make life and interpretation easier.

Thanks,
AD

 

[lsxjon]

Long time lurker first time poster.
My Amsoil experience: Feel they make a very good product. I was a perfered customer for one enrollment. I placed an order the day prior to it expiring, and was sent an email the next day saying that the order was on hold until I paid to renew my membership. Emailed them and told them my status was current and to cancel the order. They immediately send an order confirmation and processed the order. That, along with getting supplement sales literature from an oil company, really soured my view of the brand.

 

[Built_Well]

Why doesn't Red Line show a TBN number for its 0w-30 motor oil in the data sheet found on its web site?

And why doesn't Mobil 1 show a Noack volatility number in the data sheet for 5w-30 EP on the Mobil1.com web site?

Amsoil shows both figures: TBN and Noack.

I think I'll try Amsoil next after my current run with R.L.I. Bio-Syn 0w-30 is over. Can't wait to see the BioSyn's UOA.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
1200 rpms is more severe than the 1800 rpm test would be? Is that because more pressure is applied to get 1200 rpms, less pressure would allow it to spin faster?


The pressure is held constant per its set value. Slower speed reduces the film thickness (zero speed = zero film).

Tom NJ

 

[ADFD1]

Thanks Tom, so then based on the numbers here which oil did better? Probably a stupid question, sorry, but why not just make the test exactly the same for both products? The temps are different, rpms, and even the ASTM #'s. Just trying to expand my knowledge. Many thanks! AD

Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm 0.406


Four Ball Wear, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 40kg, 1 hour (ASTM D-4172B)
0.35

 

[porkchop01]

My engine aint got 4 balls!

 

[burning1]

Originally Posted By: peterdes
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.


The 4 ball wear test is one of many tests run against the oil. I agree that you can't conclude whether an oil is good or bad based on this test and nothing else, but I disagree that it makes it an irrelevant test.

Another analogy:

There are both criminals and upstanding members of our society who love and protect their children. Because a criminal is capable of loving and protecting his children, should we conclude that a persons ability as a parent is irrelevant when asking whether or not they are a good person?

I would counter that a bad person can be a good parent, but that an abusive parent cannot be a good person. We may also argue that while being a good parent is not absolute proof that someone is a good person, it would tend to indicate that they are.

Let's assume that the 4 ball test is a valid test. If we assume it's a valid test, and we assume that bleach can pass the test we can easily conclude that:

Passing the 4 ball wear test is an indicator that an oil is good, but not an absolute proof. Failing the 4 ball wear test is an indicator (or proof) that an oil is bad.

Furthermore, I could easily turn the argument around...

If bleach can pass the 4 ball wear test, an oil that fails the test must be absolute [censored]. That assertion is no more or less valid than the assertion you make.

Again, my argument does not prove that it's a valid test, it just discredits an assertion that it is not a good test. Of course, I'm just arguing rhetoric for the [censored] of it. This whole post will be irrelevant the moment we see some facts.

One further point: I own and ride motorcycles, including a Suzuki GSX-R 600. In this motorcycle, engine oil (10w-40) is used to lubricate the transmission. The oil's performance as a gear lubricant is absolutely critical in this application.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: porkchop01
My engine aint got 4 balls!
Your engine had the big "V" eh?

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
burning1 - OT - Good to see your a Gizzer person. My youngest Son recently sold his 600 for a new 750. He has also purchased another (written off) that he's rebuilding as a track bike. Oh to be 26 again! He uses Shell's Helix 5W-40 synthetic (bike version) in his bikes

I must admit my Burger is a "goer" too........

 

[BimmerMan]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: porkchop01
My engine aint got 4 balls!
Your engine had the big "V" eh?

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Thanks Tom, so then based on the numbers here which oil did better?

Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm 0.406

Four Ball Wear, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 40kg, 1 hour (ASTM D-4172B) 0.35


You cannot compare the two results run under different conditions.

Even if you did, however, I would consider 0.41mm and 0.35mm to be equal, i.e. 0.38mm +- 0.03mm. The reproducibility of the test is not that good.

Tom NJ

 

[Built_Well]

As a novice, I enjoyed the following discussion comparing Amsoil to Red Line, found at the Dodge Dakotas board:

dodgedakotas.com/boards/gen/9245.html

 

[buster]

ExxonMobil does use the 4-ball wear test, but for grease and hydraulic fluids.
Quote:
The test is used in Airbus and Boeing Phosphate Ester Aircraft Hydraulic Fluid Specifications.


http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/...ng=en&vnsId=667


Another good response from Noria:
Quote:
Engine Oil Performance Testing

"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?"

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.

Jim Fitch, Noria Corporation

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Thanks Tom, so then based on the numbers here which oil did better?

Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm 0.406

Four Ball Wear, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 40kg, 1 hour (ASTM D-4172B) 0.35


You cannot compare the two results run under different conditions.

Even if you did, however, I would consider 0.41mm and 0.35mm to be equal, i.e. 0.38mm +- 0.03mm. The reproducibility of the test is not that good.

Tom NJ


Thanks Tom. Now if there is a way to figure out how the slower rpms, and the lower temps that the ASM was run at effects the test, maybe the results would actually mean something to me. Standardization would be nice! Apples to apples? Not knocking any products but the more I read into it the more usless I see this test. Tear downs are the only way to really compare.

AD

 

[burning1]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
burning1 - OT - Good to see your a Gizzer person. My youngest Son recently sold his 600 for a new 750. He has also purchased another (written off) that he's rebuilding as a track bike. Oh to be 26 again! He uses Shell's Helix 5W-40 synthetic (bike version) in his bikes

I must admit my Burger is a "goer" too........


They are great bikes, though I've switched to riding BMWs recently for maintenance and comfort reasons.

The engineering in a modern 600 is amazing -- variable length intake runners, throttle by wire, break by wire, ram air intake, shower injectors, traction control...

 

[AzFireGuy79]

I Like the post that claims the engine builder fought with the customer over if the engine was ever run. And the secret was he had been using AMSOIL during those 3 races!

 

[FZ1]

Friction is friction. It is interesting.

 

[buster]

I hate to bring this thread back up but I recently noticed a discrepancy with Amsoil's data.

Even though this test is pretty much meaningless, take a look at Mobil 1 in this graph:

https://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1971.pdf

vs

 

[buster]

Even more ironic is the Amsoil Racing oil has a higher wear scar than all of the above oils. LOL. So I guess if you need a racing oil, you should choose ATM over the RD30 racing oils. Lower wear scar the better.

http://www.amsoil.com/graphs/dominator/RD30_FourBall_900.jpg

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: buster
I hate to bring this thread back up but I recently noticed a discrepancy with Amsoil's data.

Even though this test is pretty much meaningless, take a look at Mobil 1 in this graph:

https://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1971.pdf

vs

1200 RPM vs. 1800 RPM