Amsoil and Mobil publish ASTM D4683, Redline publishes ASTM D4741. Do the differences in testing methods make comparisons between these products reliable as it pertains to HTHS?
HTHS Measurement Standards Question
- Thread starter BerndV
- Start date
- Status
Hi,
BerndV - Personally I think that the most durable standard in recent times has been the ACEA version using Test Method CEC-L-36-A-90 (Ravenfield)
After all except in HDEOs in NA, ACEA commenced using this Test (various) in 1995-6 for all engine lubricants
BerndV - Personally I think that the most durable standard in recent times has been the ACEA version using Test Method CEC-L-36-A-90 (Ravenfield)
After all except in HDEOs in NA, ACEA commenced using this Test (various) in 1995-6 for all engine lubricants
So Doug what is the conversion between ASTM D4683 and D4741 so I and others can compare HTHS? Tks.s
Hi,
I can't answer your question as to a "conversion" figure
ATSM D4683 uses a tapered bearing simulator and ATSM D4741 uses a tapered plug viscometer
ASTM D4741 is the standard test with a close relationship to ACEA's CEC-L-36-A90 test regime. These two tests are based on the Ravensield viscometer
I believe that the D4741 test (ACEA) may go back in principle to the Germans test regimes of WW2 - I can't confirm this
Any lubricants with an ACEA "accreditation" will be able to be cross referenced without variance regarding HTHS viscosity
I can't answer your question as to a "conversion" figure
ATSM D4683 uses a tapered bearing simulator and ATSM D4741 uses a tapered plug viscometer
ASTM D4741 is the standard test with a close relationship to ACEA's CEC-L-36-A90 test regime. These two tests are based on the Ravensield viscometer
I believe that the D4741 test (ACEA) may go back in principle to the Germans test regimes of WW2 - I can't confirm this
Any lubricants with an ACEA "accreditation" will be able to be cross referenced without variance regarding HTHS viscosity
I have heard on this board that the D4741 test is a more difficult test that produces lower numbers in most cases. I have heard it referred to as a "newer" test that has yet to be adopted industry-wide but might have greater importance in the future.
A search might be helpful.
D4683 is more common, nearly universal at this time I believe.
A search might be helpful.
D4683 is more common, nearly universal at this time I believe.
ASTM D4683
Quote:
this test method is thought to be representative of the condition encountered in the bearings of automotive engines in severe service.
ASTM D4741
Quote:
test method is considered to be representative of that at the temperatures and shear rates but not the pressures in the journal bearings of internal combustion engines under operating conditions.
Quote:
this test method is thought to be representative of the condition encountered in the bearings of automotive engines in severe service.
ASTM D4741
Quote:
test method is considered to be representative of that at the temperatures and shear rates but not the pressures in the journal bearings of internal combustion engines under operating conditions.
Originally posted by MolaKule in the HTHS thread under "Question of the Day" forum:
Quote:
Here is the actual wording from paragraph 14.6 "Relative Bias" of D4741-00:
"Results from this test method were found, by interlaboratory studies to agree with those from Test Method D 4683 at both 100 C and 150 C. They can be expected to give, on average in the long run, the same results for the same oil."
D4683 says the same thing in paragraph 14.3 but adds another that correlation is the same with test method D5481 as well.
No deltas were given for D4683 verses D4741 or D5481.
FOr Context, look at referenced thread, starting with post #530564.
Quote:
Here is the actual wording from paragraph 14.6 "Relative Bias" of D4741-00:
"Results from this test method were found, by interlaboratory studies to agree with those from Test Method D 4683 at both 100 C and 150 C. They can be expected to give, on average in the long run, the same results for the same oil."
D4683 says the same thing in paragraph 14.3 but adds another that correlation is the same with test method D5481 as well.
No deltas were given for D4683 verses D4741 or D5481.
FOr Context, look at referenced thread, starting with post #530564.
Thanks for this clarification!
I haven't found any references to one test giving slightly higher values than the other.
Here is another Molakule quote from the same thread TallPaul quoted:
A. I examined the following ASTM specifications from the 2003 ASTM Vol. 05.01 Manual for HT/HS testing (all three tests are still active and none have been superceeded by any others as far as I can tell):
D4741 -00 (Year 2000)
D4683 - 96 (Year 1996)
D4624 - 93 (1993, reapproved 1998)
B. Commonalities
All three Standards use a set of reference oils for calibration of the equipment that range from 1.9 cP to 7.0 cP.
All three measure HT/HS viscosity at rates of 10^-6 seconds@150 C.
All three tests claim "Viscosity under the conditions of this test method is considered to be representive of that at the temperatures and shear rates but not the pressures in the journal bearings of internal combustion engines under operating conditions."
C. Differences of the three tests.
The Tapered-Plug shear rate viscosimeter test (D4741-00) and the Tapered Bearing Simulator (D4683 - 96) requires the use of Regression Analysis or Intercept (mathematical) techniques from a reading of the viscosimeter Torque.
The D4624 Capillary viscosimeter requires the observed dependent variable to be read on a curve.
The D4624 suffers from errors for non-Newtonian fluids.
D4741 and D4683 do not suffer errors from non-Newtonian oil's because they use a set of extra non-Newtonian reference oils.
Bottom Line IMHO: The industry is using both D4741-00 (Year 2000) and D4683 - 96 (Year 1996) test methods, but D4741-00 is the latest HT/HS testing methodology as per the 2003 series of ASTM volumes.
and then this little detail in a later post:
D4741 does reference CEC L36-A90 and the IPS IP 370 test methods.
None of the other two mentioned test methods reference anything but the other ASTM methods.
Here is another Molakule quote from the same thread TallPaul quoted:
A. I examined the following ASTM specifications from the 2003 ASTM Vol. 05.01 Manual for HT/HS testing (all three tests are still active and none have been superceeded by any others as far as I can tell):
D4741 -00 (Year 2000)
D4683 - 96 (Year 1996)
D4624 - 93 (1993, reapproved 1998)
B. Commonalities
All three Standards use a set of reference oils for calibration of the equipment that range from 1.9 cP to 7.0 cP.
All three measure HT/HS viscosity at rates of 10^-6 seconds@150 C.
All three tests claim "Viscosity under the conditions of this test method is considered to be representive of that at the temperatures and shear rates but not the pressures in the journal bearings of internal combustion engines under operating conditions."
C. Differences of the three tests.
The Tapered-Plug shear rate viscosimeter test (D4741-00) and the Tapered Bearing Simulator (D4683 - 96) requires the use of Regression Analysis or Intercept (mathematical) techniques from a reading of the viscosimeter Torque.
The D4624 Capillary viscosimeter requires the observed dependent variable to be read on a curve.
The D4624 suffers from errors for non-Newtonian fluids.
D4741 and D4683 do not suffer errors from non-Newtonian oil's because they use a set of extra non-Newtonian reference oils.
Bottom Line IMHO: The industry is using both D4741-00 (Year 2000) and D4683 - 96 (Year 1996) test methods, but D4741-00 is the latest HT/HS testing methodology as per the 2003 series of ASTM volumes.
and then this little detail in a later post:
D4741 does reference CEC L36-A90 and the IPS IP 370 test methods.
None of the other two mentioned test methods reference anything but the other ASTM methods.
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
Good question. I would think so. Also, if the POE has better cold flow properties, they could use a thicker base oil for the same "w" grade and get higher HTHS.
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
Good question. I would think so. Also, if the POE has better cold flow properties, they could use a thicker base oil for the same "w" grade and get higher HTHS.
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
I think it's that and the lack of VII's. Redline's PCMO's are built like MC oils.
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
I think it's that and the lack of VII's. Redline's PCMO's are built like MC oils.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
Good question. I would think so. Also, if the POE has better cold flow properties, they could use a thicker base oil for the same "w" grade and get higher HTHS.
Do POE's have inherently superior cold flow properties? I was under the impression that PAO was slightly better in that regard. M1 products have always been outstanding at extremely cold temps.
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Hmmm so D4741 is probably tougher? Redline has substantially higher HTHS than say M1. Is that because of the inherent qualities of POE basestock?
Good question. I would think so. Also, if the POE has better cold flow properties, they could use a thicker base oil for the same "w" grade and get higher HTHS.
Do POE's have inherently superior cold flow properties? I was under the impression that PAO was slightly better in that regard. M1 products have always been outstanding at extremely cold temps.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Do POE's have inherently superior cold flow properties? I was under the impression that PAO was slightly better in that regard. M1 products have always been outstanding at extremely cold temps.
Good point. PAO and POE would both have extremely good cold properties. So Redline's HTHS must be mostly related to the properties of POE.
Do POE's have inherently superior cold flow properties? I was under the impression that PAO was slightly better in that regard. M1 products have always been outstanding at extremely cold temps.
Good point. PAO and POE would both have extremely good cold properties. So Redline's HTHS must be mostly related to the properties of POE.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Do POE's have inherently superior cold flow properties? I was under the impression that PAO was slightly better in that regard. M1 products have always been outstanding at extremely cold temps.
Good point. PAO and POE would both have extremely good cold properties. So Redline's HTHS must be mostly related to the properties of POE.
I agree. POE's appear to be superior in terms of shear, film strength, and high temperature stability.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Do POE's have inherently superior cold flow properties? I was under the impression that PAO was slightly better in that regard. M1 products have always been outstanding at extremely cold temps.
Good point. PAO and POE would both have extremely good cold properties. So Redline's HTHS must be mostly related to the properties of POE.
I agree. POE's appear to be superior in terms of shear, film strength, and high temperature stability.
Not sure I agree film strength though. I think a lot of different things play into to that, no? In other words, it's not just the base oil type alone. ex different ratio of base oils, different esters/additives etc. It's so much more complex than any of us know.
Originally Posted By: buster
Not sure I agree film strength though. I think a lot of different things play into to that, no? In other words, it's not just the base oil type alone. ex different ratio of base oils, different esters/additives etc. It's so much more complex than any of us know.
I believe that it is fairly well established that POE's are superior to PAO in terms of film strength: http://www.sip.com/pdf/polyol_esters.pdf
Not sure I agree film strength though. I think a lot of different things play into to that, no? In other words, it's not just the base oil type alone. ex different ratio of base oils, different esters/additives etc. It's so much more complex than any of us know.
I believe that it is fairly well established that POE's are superior to PAO in terms of film strength: http://www.sip.com/pdf/polyol_esters.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
