GC, 0w-30 ...Perhaps I should have known?
- Thread starter TooSlick
- Start date
- Status
I find this hard to believe.
He believes there was nothing wrong with his post/topic...so anything is possible
He believes there was nothing wrong with his post/topic...so anything is possible
I ran Syntec 10W-30 with normal oci's in my car up to about 60K and loved it. It would end up at as an upper 20wt. by test. That's what lead me to running GC.
I think Castrol has changed the formulation, but based on my past experience, these two oils would end up in a very close range per Blackstone. Castrol is now A5 rated, but it wasn't when I tested.
In my ambient, they are close at around 10 cst.
They are technically correct, but their response is purposely misleading, or perhaps they are simply ignorant...
Coke and Pepsi both contain phosphoric acid which will react with metal surfaces, chemically passivate the metal and greatly reduce friction. Straight chlorine bleach - ie chlorinated oil additives - will also give you a low score on some wear tests,but you can't put it in a motor. You can also use these tricks on the Timken machine, ie the "One Armed Bandit", often used to sell oil additives. Pour some pepsi and you can never get the bearing to sieze up.
None of the name brand oils contain any of these "trick" additives that are blended in simply to make them test out better. GC,ASL and Mobil 1 all contain conventional ZDP and some organic esters and/or MoDTC added as friction modifiers.
I hope the guy you talked to was in marketing - I'd hate to think they pay him to formulate lubricants.
Coke and Pepsi both contain phosphoric acid which will react with metal surfaces, chemically passivate the metal and greatly reduce friction. Straight chlorine bleach - ie chlorinated oil additives - will also give you a low score on some wear tests,but you can't put it in a motor. You can also use these tricks on the Timken machine, ie the "One Armed Bandit", often used to sell oil additives. Pour some pepsi and you can never get the bearing to sieze up.
None of the name brand oils contain any of these "trick" additives that are blended in simply to make them test out better. GC,ASL and Mobil 1 all contain conventional ZDP and some organic esters and/or MoDTC added as friction modifiers.
I hope the guy you talked to was in marketing - I'd hate to think they pay him to formulate lubricants.
That would be sad, but funny.
Only formulator I'v ever spoken too was Roy Howell. Nice guy and will try and answer any question you have. He too knocked the 4-ball wear test and said they have no use or concern for that test.
I also had a relatively long discussion with Roy Howell of Redline way back in 1995 or 1996 and I can confirm that he didn't think the 4-ball wear test was at all relevant when it came to engine oils.
He also had a few very interesting things to say regarding Amsoil, and their published test results.
He also had a few very interesting things to say regarding Amsoil, and their published test results.
Wear in an actual engine is due a number of combined mechanisms, including adhesion,abrasion, fretting and corrosion. This test is strictly limited to adhesion and some slight abrasion as metal is removed from the surfaces of the wear balls. As long as you understand that, it's a useful screening tool to evaluate AW additive chemistries under high pressure and temp.
For some reason, folks have this very myopic idea that an analog test has to be 100% perfect, or else it's 100% useless. Other ASTM lube tests like Noack Volatility and HT/HS viscosity are commonly used to evaluate oil consumption and bearing viscosity. But they're not perfect predictors of performance in the field either.
For some reason, folks have this very myopic idea that an analog test has to be 100% perfect, or else it's 100% useless. Other ASTM lube tests like Noack Volatility and HT/HS viscosity are commonly used to evaluate oil consumption and bearing viscosity. But they're not perfect predictors of performance in the field either.
The results kind of do follow the iron wear that we see in UOAs here.quote:
Originally posted by buster:
Ted, do you really think the 4-Ball Wear test correlates to engine wear though? I find this hard to believe.
Hi,
Ted I am amazed that Amsoil still needs to continue "the sell" on BITOG with self interest threads! Their products are as good as most other Oil Company's products I'm sure - aren't they?
Redline, Shell, Chevron, RP, EM, Castrol-BP and others don't see the need! But they read on here!!!
It is really tiring and sadly at times the mis-information seems to exceed the "sell" - I often wonder if the inexperienced poster here sees through it all!!
Self interest threads self started by you - an Amsoil Dealer;
"This recent data caught my eye as I was looking at some of the recent GC, 0w-30 analysis results ....
ASTM D-4172B, Four Ball Wear Test
40kg pressure @ 150C, 1800 rpms for 1 hour duration
Amsoil 0w-30/TSO..........0.00 mm
Amsoil 5w-30/ASL...........0.00 mm
Syntec, 10w-30...............0.00 mm
Mobil 1, 5w-30................0.00 mm
It wasn't even posted where it should have been!
And then this;
"I answer a lot of emails and Private Messages about these two formulations, so I thought I'd try and clarify this question a bit. This is the most recent data I have on the "ASL" and "ATM" formulations:
---------------------------------5w-30-----------10w-30
HT/HS viscosity------------- Cp----------- Cp
VI----------------------------------------------
Noack Volatility----------------------------
CCS viscosity @ -30C------ Cp
CCS viscosity @ -25C--------------------------- Cp
Shell Four Ball Wear Test--0.40 mm--------0.00 mm
(40kg/150C/1800 rpms for 1 hour)
As for misinformation - grab this;
"Running a xw-40 is TOTALLY UNECESSARY in this motor - regardless of what VW recommends in their TSB. As long as you use an xw-30 that meets the ACEA A3/B4 and VW 502 specification you'll be just fine. VW is mainly recommending 5w-40 since this is an "idiot proof" way to go."
DH - Ted - "...regardless of what VW recommends in their TSB." This is very Cavalier of you Ted and I suspect simply a dangerous opinion that could be misinterpreted by readers on here. Where are you facts?
Very few xw-30 oils are actually certified A3/B3-04 - Are Amsoils range? And are any officially Approved to VW502 and others??
Do you know many xw-30 oils that are and that are available in NA?
Perhaps it has a little to do with "minor" things such as the HTHS vis. and the results from millions of miles of user experience and the results of the VW502 tests! For your interest the VW 2.0ltr engine is a good test bed - it produces known results via in-service experience and tests. It is the same as MB using their OM2?? to 6?? (diesel) specific tests and the API using the Cummins L10/M11 tests - tests on engines with known service and warranty histories! Some of these engines had design issues that cost purchasers millions of dollars and caused the API and others to react with improved quality standards via producer/user consultations and helped to form ACEA - thank goodness
Ted..................................!
And this;
"One thing I wanted to add is that the VW 502 spec uses the venerable, 115 Hp/122 ft-lb, 2.0L, non-turbocharged engine for the actual testing. There is NO testing in any of the newer, multivalve or turbo engines made by VW/Audi. So you can argue that this isn't the spec to use to determine the suitability of an oil for these newer applications."
DH - Ted you may chose to argue! The 115hp 2ltr VW NA engine has "a history" and like it or not IT IS THE TEST PROTOCOL! The facts are exclusively with the blokes who designed and produce and manage the engines through their production cycle. They have to handle production quality and millions of warranty issues on various components - in vehicles sold in various countries and not only NA! So you can argue - but without data and facts to support it your argument is "dead in the water (or oil)" I expect!
Then this;
"In other words, there is some correlation to valve train wear in an actual engine. Before anyone points out that engines don't use ball bearings, I suggest you do some research into the accepted practice of using analog tests throughout the field of materials science and mechanical engineering. You will find they are used all over the place ....For example, the Four Ball Test is required as part of the Mercon V transmission spec."
DH - Ted please come clean about the correlation of the "Amsoil standard 4 ball test for engine oils" (discounted by most other Oil Companies) to valve train wear! This is a MUST SEE for all posers on here! It most certainly has great interest for me - my valve train(s) include bearings and chains and hydraulic actuators and.....etc!
Strangely I have never had a need to consult a 4 ball wear test chronicle - and I have never ever had excessive valve train wear problems either in over hundreds of millions of kms. And even when using Delo and Delvac and RX Super and Rimula and others - and not Amsoil!
Now, I wonder why the 4 ball test may be required for an ATF - perhaps it's because of all the ball bearings in there.......................Ted!
At least Molakule got his four balls into perspective! Use the cheapest mineral oil and a few drops of AW additive and bingo - we pass with all four balls intact!
Regards
Doug
Ted I am amazed that Amsoil still needs to continue "the sell" on BITOG with self interest threads! Their products are as good as most other Oil Company's products I'm sure - aren't they?
Redline, Shell, Chevron, RP, EM, Castrol-BP and others don't see the need! But they read on here!!!
It is really tiring and sadly at times the mis-information seems to exceed the "sell" - I often wonder if the inexperienced poster here sees through it all!!
Self interest threads self started by you - an Amsoil Dealer;
"This recent data caught my eye as I was looking at some of the recent GC, 0w-30 analysis results ....
ASTM D-4172B, Four Ball Wear Test
40kg pressure @ 150C, 1800 rpms for 1 hour duration
Amsoil 0w-30/TSO..........0.00 mm
Amsoil 5w-30/ASL...........0.00 mm
Syntec, 10w-30...............0.00 mm
Mobil 1, 5w-30................0.00 mm
It wasn't even posted where it should have been!
And then this;
"I answer a lot of emails and Private Messages about these two formulations, so I thought I'd try and clarify this question a bit. This is the most recent data I have on the "ASL" and "ATM" formulations:
---------------------------------5w-30-----------10w-30
HT/HS viscosity------------- Cp----------- Cp
VI----------------------------------------------
Noack Volatility----------------------------
CCS viscosity @ -30C------ Cp
CCS viscosity @ -25C--------------------------- Cp
Shell Four Ball Wear Test--0.40 mm--------0.00 mm
(40kg/150C/1800 rpms for 1 hour)
As for misinformation - grab this;
"Running a xw-40 is TOTALLY UNECESSARY in this motor - regardless of what VW recommends in their TSB. As long as you use an xw-30 that meets the ACEA A3/B4 and VW 502 specification you'll be just fine. VW is mainly recommending 5w-40 since this is an "idiot proof" way to go."
DH - Ted - "...regardless of what VW recommends in their TSB." This is very Cavalier of you Ted and I suspect simply a dangerous opinion that could be misinterpreted by readers on here. Where are you facts?
Very few xw-30 oils are actually certified A3/B3-04 - Are Amsoils range? And are any officially Approved to VW502 and others??
Do you know many xw-30 oils that are and that are available in NA?
Perhaps it has a little to do with "minor" things such as the HTHS vis. and the results from millions of miles of user experience and the results of the VW502 tests! For your interest the VW 2.0ltr engine is a good test bed - it produces known results via in-service experience and tests. It is the same as MB using their OM2?? to 6?? (diesel) specific tests and the API using the Cummins L10/M11 tests - tests on engines with known service and warranty histories! Some of these engines had design issues that cost purchasers millions of dollars and caused the API and others to react with improved quality standards via producer/user consultations and helped to form ACEA - thank goodness
Ted..................................!
And this;
"One thing I wanted to add is that the VW 502 spec uses the venerable, 115 Hp/122 ft-lb, 2.0L, non-turbocharged engine for the actual testing. There is NO testing in any of the newer, multivalve or turbo engines made by VW/Audi. So you can argue that this isn't the spec to use to determine the suitability of an oil for these newer applications."
DH - Ted you may chose to argue! The 115hp 2ltr VW NA engine has "a history" and like it or not IT IS THE TEST PROTOCOL! The facts are exclusively with the blokes who designed and produce and manage the engines through their production cycle. They have to handle production quality and millions of warranty issues on various components - in vehicles sold in various countries and not only NA! So you can argue - but without data and facts to support it your argument is "dead in the water (or oil)" I expect!
Then this;
"In other words, there is some correlation to valve train wear in an actual engine. Before anyone points out that engines don't use ball bearings, I suggest you do some research into the accepted practice of using analog tests throughout the field of materials science and mechanical engineering. You will find they are used all over the place ....For example, the Four Ball Test is required as part of the Mercon V transmission spec."
DH - Ted please come clean about the correlation of the "Amsoil standard 4 ball test for engine oils" (discounted by most other Oil Companies) to valve train wear! This is a MUST SEE for all posers on here! It most certainly has great interest for me - my valve train(s) include bearings and chains and hydraulic actuators and.....etc!
Strangely I have never had a need to consult a 4 ball wear test chronicle - and I have never ever had excessive valve train wear problems either in over hundreds of millions of kms. And even when using Delo and Delvac and RX Super and Rimula and others - and not Amsoil!
Now, I wonder why the 4 ball test may be required for an ATF - perhaps it's because of all the ball bearings in there.......................Ted!
At least Molakule got his four balls into perspective! Use the cheapest mineral oil and a few drops of AW additive and bingo - we pass with all four balls intact!
Regards
Doug
While I don't like posts that appear to be skewed to sell something, I also don't understand why Ted and the Amsoil dealers have to be singled out.
I have found that most of the sponsors on this site will, to a degree, tout their own products or services. I won't name names but any one of us can go back and read the posts of site sponsors and you tell me how many of them are being objective about their own products or services.
While I agree that Ted could have been more careful in starting this thread, Ted also provides a lot of knowledge to people here and often recommends other products besides his own. I have also seen him post on topics that have nothing to do with Amsoil. I rarely see the other site sponsors contribute their knowledge unless it has to do with their own products and services or it somehow reflect well on their product. So cut Ted some slack unless you are ready to lambast all the site sponsors.
But to me, being a site sponsor earns you the right to take a few more liberties. It comes with the territory. I have no problems with them "selling" their products so long as there is a logo (which there is) next to their name which makes it clear that they are selling something. Then we can use our own judgement to evaluate their opinions.
I hate to see guys who contribute nothing financially to this site bash a site sponsor with long winded posts and drive them away. That would be a real irony wouldn't it?
[ March 11, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: VeeDubb ]
I have found that most of the sponsors on this site will, to a degree, tout their own products or services. I won't name names but any one of us can go back and read the posts of site sponsors and you tell me how many of them are being objective about their own products or services.
While I agree that Ted could have been more careful in starting this thread, Ted also provides a lot of knowledge to people here and often recommends other products besides his own. I have also seen him post on topics that have nothing to do with Amsoil. I rarely see the other site sponsors contribute their knowledge unless it has to do with their own products and services or it somehow reflect well on their product. So cut Ted some slack unless you are ready to lambast all the site sponsors.
But to me, being a site sponsor earns you the right to take a few more liberties. It comes with the territory. I have no problems with them "selling" their products so long as there is a logo (which there is) next to their name which makes it clear that they are selling something. Then we can use our own judgement to evaluate their opinions.
I hate to see guys who contribute nothing financially to this site bash a site sponsor with long winded posts and drive them away. That would be a real irony wouldn't it?
[ March 11, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: VeeDubb ]
Doug,
Here's a prediction ...
If the new Mobil 1, EP formulations don't perform significantly better in all the standard ASTM tests, including the Four Ball, Noack Volatility, HT/HS viscosity, TBN etc, they won't perform significantly better than the old Mobil 1, GF-3 formulations in terms of valvetrain wear, oil consumption, NVH, and durability in service. Oil is first and foremost a manufactured material and the chemical/physical properties are key to it's performance in service.
I have noted that the Mobil 1, EP stuff has a TBN of 12+, compared to 9.6 on the latest Blackstone Test of the regular GF-4, Mobil 1. So I can say with some certainly the EP formulations will last significantly longer in service - A rough estimate would be 25%-33% longer under the same conditions.
Thanks for the comments ...they have been noted!
TS
Here's a prediction ...
If the new Mobil 1, EP formulations don't perform significantly better in all the standard ASTM tests, including the Four Ball, Noack Volatility, HT/HS viscosity, TBN etc, they won't perform significantly better than the old Mobil 1, GF-3 formulations in terms of valvetrain wear, oil consumption, NVH, and durability in service. Oil is first and foremost a manufactured material and the chemical/physical properties are key to it's performance in service.
I have noted that the Mobil 1, EP stuff has a TBN of 12+, compared to 9.6 on the latest Blackstone Test of the regular GF-4, Mobil 1. So I can say with some certainly the EP formulations will last significantly longer in service - A rough estimate would be 25%-33% longer under the same conditions.
Thanks for the comments ...they have been noted!
TS
I can't help but wonder how long it will be before Preperation H has it's own forum Here?
AND hard to find...don't forget hard to find!quote:
Originally posted by pscholte:
When it is made by Elves in the Black Forest, is green...well, you get the idea.quote:
Originally posted by gtoracer:
I can't help but wonder how long it will be before Preperation H has it's own forum Here?
darrell
sin city
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
