I am curious what people in related fields think of the four ball wear test. Of the tests I have seen done on oils, it seems to be the most relevant, indicating how well the oil performs at reducing wear on metal engine parts. I saw on Mobil's website http://www.mobil1.com/products/faq.jsp?catId=19 that they discount this and similar tests as irrelevant. There are two possibilities that I can see; 1) they are correct, it has no bearing on motor oils, or 2) because their oils are handily beaten by others in these tests they wish to dismiss them. Let me know what you think, if you have any good articles or links, please post them too.
[ March 03, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: nicrfe1370 ]
Four Ball Wear Test (ASTM D 4172)
- Thread starter nicrfe1370
- Start date
- Status
Did some follow-up. Mobil claims they four ball test and others are used for grease, which is deliberately misleading. If you go here http://www.falexint.com/sales&support/list_by_astm_procedure.htm you'll see that there are many tests casually called four ball wear tests, and indeed some do test grease, but ASTM D-4172 is for lubricating oils specifically. I don't mean to rip on Mobil, I have great respect for their products, but questionable statements will make me rethink my respect.
4-ball all part of the big picture. Analysing a used oil still probably the best way to see what works in any particular engine IMO.
Four ball wear is mainly for grease. Shampoo and Coca Cola I've been told will do better then any oil out there in the four ball wear test so it really isn't a good measure to judge an oil. Check out the homepage of this website...there might be some information on the four ball wear test. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
Sprintman, I think that is about the most accurate thing that can be said. Four Ball isn't gospel, but neither is any other test. They should all be considered, and regular analysis of used oil will help validate your choice.
Buster, perhaps you missed my second post, but there are dirrerent Four Ball tests for grease and oil. Also, I'd like some substantiation that shampoo and coke would do better than any oil. Because, if they can do well, why can't all motor oils? Rememeber what I said about questionable statements.
I understand that, the point I was making is that it is not a good indicator to base an oil ability on. There are many other factors in determining a good oil. I agree with sprintman and only oil analysis will tell you what is going on in your engine. As far as the coke/shampoo, I can only tell you what I've heard....
[ March 03, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
quote:This is a questionable statement.
Of the tests I have seen done on oils, it seems to be the most relevant, indicating how well the oil performs at reducing wear on metal engine parts
[ March 03, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
MolaKule
Staff member
The four-ball wear test, the Falex test, and others are used to determine the friction and load properties of an oil before it is run in engine (sequence) tests.
Whoever wrote that paragraph is certainly not a tribologist or oil formulator.
OKay Buster, I'm sorry we got into this little back and forth. This forum is and will be a great tool for everyone to learn, so I was just looking for some input. Let me try to explain my standpoint; I am not married to the four ball test. The only thing I am looking for is truth, so if it is as worthless as you say, then I will accept your statement, and in my search for good oils I will disregard the four ball test. Yes, you only repeated what you heard in regards to coke and shampoo, but I've heard a lot of B.S. in my life on all subjects and I try not to spread them around as relevant. Think of this; liquid nitrogen has a lower pour point than any oil, sand has a higher flash point than any oil, water retains it's viscocity better than any oil, but that doesn't mean those tests are irrelevant does it? Once again, if it does, I'd like to know. Finally, I'm not sure how my statement seems questionable to you, does any other test give any indication of how an oil might perform in real life?
Anyway, sorry to get all fired up, that's just my nature. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
Finally, I'm not sure how my statement seems questionable to you, does any other test give any indication of how an oil might perform in real life?
Anyway, sorry to get all fired up, that's just my nature. 
nicrfe - you are very correct.
And let me go on record again...shampoo and coke and bleach and some other mostly water based liquids will not "pass" any four ball wear test, especially at 100°C. Somebody posted that bs some months ago...and you know the web....
Anyhow, it's A test....not THE test....I think it can be useful for some lab comparisons. "How much is simulates your crank bearings?", is really the key question....
Yes, marketing BS. Like all natural ingredients- lead and arsenic.
Very true...tons of BS on the web. The shampoo/coke thing is probably part of it. I wan't sayint that bc I heard this, it's true. It was just another thought. It has been said repeatedly on this website that the four ball wear isn't really a good indicator. But who knows, maybe it is?? ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
[ March 04, 2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: buster ]
[ March 04, 2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: buster ]As stated on Mobil 1's site, the four ball wear scar test is a cheap, inexpensive bench test. But like everyone else, what does it mean in the real world?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
nicrfe - you are very correct.
And let me go on record again...shampoo and coke and bleach and some other mostly water based liquids will not "pass" any four ball wear test, especially at 100°C. Somebody posted that [censored] some months ago...and you know the web....
Anyhow, it's A test....not THE test....I think it can be useful for some lab comparisons. "How much is simulates your crank bearings?", is really the key question....
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
