Mobil 1 Extended Performance More Engine Wear

[friendly_jacek]

question on Ask Mobil link

Quote:
Question:
Does Mobil 1 Extended Performance Result in More Engine Wear as Amsoil Claims?
Amsoil has recently published a study showing that using Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w30 results in more engine wear than even some conventional 5w30 motor oils. Can this possibly be true? (It is printed on the back of EVERY bottle of Amsoil's new signature series 0W-30). I was under the impression that the extended performance line offered MORE anti-wear agents, not LESS, than the original formula Mobil 1. What is the truth of this matter? (Please be aware that I am a member of SEVERAL high performance forums (GM, LSX, CORVETTE, GTO, etc.), and that there are MANY members of these various forums that are waiting for the answer to this question. Your reply WILL be posted on all applicable forums, as well as your failure to reply if that is the case.)
-- Edwin Bae, Troy, NY
Answer:
That is a misleading claim. Some companies use meaningless bench tests to demonstrate superior performance. Although bench testing may be used in industry engine specifications, they are rarely used as the definitive discriminator for actual field performance. This is especially true of four ball testing, flash point, and other simple analytical measurements. The real proof of performance is done with rigorous engine and field testing. These tests are statistically controlled and are more representative of the performance you will see in your own vehicle. The specifications found on bottle labels document that the product has performed satisfactorily on these industry standard tests. Mobil 1 meets or exceeds those industry specifications. Mobil 1 is also Factory Fill for a wide variety of vehicles. You can also see more on how Mobil 1 Extended Performance performed in Las Vegas taxi fleets.


Does anyone know what Amsoil study they are talking about?
I hope it's not the silly 4 ball test.

 

[c3po]

My guess is that it is the 4-Ball Wear Test.

 

[Familyguy]

Originally Posted By: c3po
My guess is that it is the 4-Ball Wear Test.


Exactly. And if my engine consisted of 4 balls in a bath of oil, I'd buy Amsoil in a New York minute. But it isn't and I won't.

Best,

 

[tig1]

Mobil in the past has said oils that do well in the 4 ball test have extreme pressure additivies added to the oil. Mobil says they and most oils don't use it because EP additives can cause corrision over time. From what Iv'e learned the 4 ball test is more suited for greese and gear oils.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

Wait, there's zero correlation between the 4ball test and engine wear?

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
Wait, there's zero correlation between the 4ball test and engine wear?


For engine oil, yes.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
Wait, there's zero correlation between the 4ball test and engine wear?


For engine oil, yes.


I don't buy that at all. Friction is friction. There is NO way a product which fails the 4-ball test is going to perform better than a product which passes it. That claim is what Mobil implicates over and over again. It's good to at least see that the company itself cannot dispute the tests, but disheartening to see how they twist-logic and play words.

 

[dave123]

How does a engine oil fail a 4-ball test when the test does not exist?

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: dave123
How does a engine oil fail a 4-ball test when the test does not exist?


ASTM D5183, D4172, D2266

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
Wait, there's zero correlation between the 4ball test and engine wear?


For engine oil, yes.


I don't buy that at all. Friction is friction. There is NO way a product which fails the 4-ball test is going to perform better than a product which passes it.


It's all about specifying the right product for the right application, right? For example, most manual transmissions specify against GL-5 lubricants, because of the EP additives to those lubricants. While a GL-5 lubricant might, on paper, offer "more protection", it's not necessarily the best oil for the application, and the benefit of its additives may not even be realized in a typical manual transmission.

 

[Max_Wander]

Jason, the GL-5 is a gear oil. The wear tests in question only included finished motor oils. Yes, S-P EP additives are corrosive to yellow metals. GL-5 lubes are even unsuitable for some manual transmission synchros

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Max_Wander - You said;
"There is NO way a product which fails the 4-ball test is going to perform better than a product which passes it."

As we are talking about engine lubricants, can you prove your statement?

The Germans discarded the 4 ball test in 1941 when developing synthetic engine lubricants and designed another device!

 

[dave123]

ASTM D2266 is a grease test good try

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I don't buy that at all. Friction is friction. There is NO way a product which fails the 4-ball test is going to perform better than a product which passes it. That claim is what Mobil implicates over and over again. It's good to at least see that the company itself cannot dispute the tests, but disheartening to see how they twist-logic and play words.

Gear oils and greases do a darn sight better than engine oils in the 4-ball wear test. Would you put a gear oil or a grease in your engine?

 

[dave123]

I would like to know what oil fails the test.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: dave123
ASTM D2266 is a grease test good try


That was never the issue, the issue was whether it exists or not. It does.

d00d, read my last post. I bolded something.

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Max_Wander - You said;
"There is NO way a product which fails the 4-ball test is going to perform better than a product which passes it."

As we are talking about engine lubricants, can you prove your statement?


Hey Doug, love your input. Love it when you ask questions too!
Given two 'unknowns', if one were to choose which route to investigate, they would commonly persue the logical conclusion. A finished oil that performs markedly worse on a give wear test in relation to other finished motor oils, which oil would you put money on in performing better in an engine, (again) the machine to which all oils in question have been formulated for.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Originally Posted By: dave123
ASTM D2266 is a grease test good try


That was never the issue, the issue was whether it exists or not. It does.

d00d, read my last post. I bolded something.

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Max_Wander - You said;
"There is NO way a product which fails the 4-ball test is going to perform better than a product which passes it."

As we are talking about engine lubricants, can you prove your statement?


Hey Doug, love your input. Love it when you ask questions too!
Given two 'unknowns', if one were to choose which route to investigate, they would commonly persue the logical conclusion. A finished oil that performs markedly worse on a give wear test in relation to other finished motor oils, which oil would you put money on in performing better in an engine, (again) the machine to which all oils in question have been formulated for.


The oil that does well on the ENGINE test, not the grease and gear oil test..... Last time I checked, I had a pressurized lubrication system, not a standing oil bath or grease boot in my engine.......

 

[HARTZSKY]

4 ball pretty meaningless but is used to market to people who don't have a clue.

 

[FZ1]

I put my money on the $26,5 quart jug at WM.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Max_wander - You raise an interesting point. I put my money on the lubricant that passed/passes the Tests conducted my the engine Manufacturer! They know best - believe me

When you have many engines costing up around $70000 each I would not - and never have - use/used any lubricant where its performance is based on a 4 ball strike test. Now if the lubricant was Approved by the Manufacturer based on real world field testing and both API and ACEA "certification".........................

Goodness - I've been doing that for years.........................