Mobil 1 Extended Performance More Engine Wear
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: webfors
or play "my-fav-flavor-boy", do it on another forum where it might pass for intellectual discussion
This appears to be more of a challenge as we go forward here. I can't quite figure it out. Between that and creative arguing, it gets cumbersome to have sensible discussions.
I guess we're reasonable facsimiles of adults ..at least we play them in real life
or play "my-fav-flavor-boy", do it on another forum where it might pass for intellectual discussion
This appears to be more of a challenge as we go forward here. I can't quite figure it out. Between that and creative arguing, it gets cumbersome to have sensible discussions.
I guess we're reasonable facsimiles of adults ..at least we play them in real life
Originally Posted By: two lifers
It's a legitimate ASTM test, read what it's about and draw you own conclusion.
This thread should be shut down It's been discussed much too often.
I guess we're reasonable facsimiles of adults ..at least we play them in real life
Agree.
I can't believe at one point this year I said I would never post in a 4 ball thread again....
It's a legitimate ASTM test, read what it's about and draw you own conclusion.
This thread should be shut down It's been discussed much too often.
I guess we're reasonable facsimiles of adults ..at least we play them in real life
Agree.
I can't believe at one point this year I said I would never post in a 4 ball thread again....
Well out of the 6 test's published by Amsoil at Amsoil.com Mobil 1 Extended Performance finish in the top 3 in 5 out of the 6 test's! So your troll like thread is not at all fooling anyone that has any idea of what a good oil is. In fact their is no oil on this web site that is tested by Amsoil against their own product that comes out better then M1 does. So if Mobil 1 Extended Performance is bad stuff then PP,Castrol Syntec and all the conventional oil used had better get on the back of the bus because they are not even as good as Mobil 1 Extended Performance over all according to Amsoil! So if you want to go by their 6 test's alone then Mobil 1 Extended Performance is the second best oil on the planet second to only Amsoil! If you like to think for your self and see glaring holes and problems with their testing not to mention their scaleing of their graphics then feel free to pull up a chair!
Oh and the 4ball wear test is not the greatest test for comparing how an oil will behave in a car's engine. It is ok but not the best way to predict engine wear.Notice I did not say it is worthless it is just not not a linear 1:1 comparison to what happens in an engine is all! AMsoil like to make it out to be the Holy Grail of predicting engine wear but history and UOA tells a different tale!
Oh and the 4ball wear test is not the greatest test for comparing how an oil will behave in a car's engine. It is ok but not the best way to predict engine wear.Notice I did not say it is worthless it is just not not a linear 1:1 comparison to what happens in an engine is all! AMsoil like to make it out to be the Holy Grail of predicting engine wear but history and UOA tells a different tale!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
It's marketing. It's as simple as that. I've yet to hear anyone laugh at Castrol's "90% of all wear occurs at start up" ..with all those who still choose to BELIEVE that it's in the first few seconds ..and not the first 20 minutes of operation.
They allow you to deceive yourself ..and all with the backing of SAE.
46% sludge removal? Sure, if you want to believe. Hand PZ a sludged engine and turn it into new over 10 OCI's. Just about half the distance to the goal line should have it [censored](e)&Span in 10 OCI's ..right? Adaptive molecules? A virtual shredder? A bath of sludge?
Engine wear is mostly unavoidable. The distinctions in most oils are length of service or specialty of service. There is no magic oil.
The comparative worth of the 4 ball is one form of demonstration. I guess a television campaign would be better.
They allow you to deceive yourself ..and all with the backing of SAE.
46% sludge removal? Sure, if you want to believe. Hand PZ a sludged engine and turn it into new over 10 OCI's. Just about half the distance to the goal line should have it [censored](e)&Span in 10 OCI's ..right? Adaptive molecules? A virtual shredder? A bath of sludge?
Engine wear is mostly unavoidable. The distinctions in most oils are length of service or specialty of service. There is no magic oil.
The comparative worth of the 4 ball is one form of demonstration. I guess a television campaign would be better.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
There is no magic oil.
Next you are going to tell me there is no Easter Bunny!
Stop it, you are breaking the hearts of some Members here saying that...
There is no magic oil.
Next you are going to tell me there is no Easter Bunny!
Stop it, you are breaking the hearts of some Members here saying that...
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I guess a television campaign would be better.
A goofy arsh guy in a tam o'shanter making sly references about whacking some guy named Jimmy with his oily dipstick?
By jove, you've nailed it!!
I guess a television campaign would be better.
A goofy arsh guy in a tam o'shanter making sly references about whacking some guy named Jimmy with his oily dipstick?
By jove, you've nailed it!!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I was thinkin' wid me dipstick ...Jimmie
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Max_Wander, if "friction is friction" were true, lubrication wouldn't be a science.
The test is not representative of anything that happens in an engine. It is a sealed system with point loading in a lubricant bath, like a CV joint or (sort of) a transmission: contamination is not an issue, hydrodynamic films are broken instantly, and the lube has to follow the moving parts.
An engine is an open system with almost no point loading, and the lubricant is actively pumped. Totally different scenario.
What this means is, we can make no assumptions about the performance of an engine oil based on its performance in the 4-ball wear test. It's kind of like if you asked a kid math questions to see how well he can throw a ball.
Could one not look at the 4-ball test and make some sort of "assumption" regarding an engine that uses a flat-tappet camshaft and the extreme pressure loads therein?
Max_Wander, if "friction is friction" were true, lubrication wouldn't be a science.
The test is not representative of anything that happens in an engine. It is a sealed system with point loading in a lubricant bath, like a CV joint or (sort of) a transmission: contamination is not an issue, hydrodynamic films are broken instantly, and the lube has to follow the moving parts.
An engine is an open system with almost no point loading, and the lubricant is actively pumped. Totally different scenario.
What this means is, we can make no assumptions about the performance of an engine oil based on its performance in the 4-ball wear test. It's kind of like if you asked a kid math questions to see how well he can throw a ball.
Could one not look at the 4-ball test and make some sort of "assumption" regarding an engine that uses a flat-tappet camshaft and the extreme pressure loads therein?
Hi,
CompSyn - In a word - no!
CompSyn - In a word - no!
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Could one not look at the 4-ball test and make some sort of "assumption" regarding an engine that uses a flat-tappet camshaft and the extreme pressure loads therein?
Yes actually you could. Not an "assumption" - rather a correlation. For example, a properly formulated oil with 1400 ppm Zn, 1200 ppm P could do better than a borderline formulated oil with 700 ppm Zn/P that has wiped cams. It's a rough correlation to be sure, that's why the test is used by oil companies and additive manufacturers at the early lower levels of formulation.
Could one not look at the 4-ball test and make some sort of "assumption" regarding an engine that uses a flat-tappet camshaft and the extreme pressure loads therein?
Yes actually you could. Not an "assumption" - rather a correlation. For example, a properly formulated oil with 1400 ppm Zn, 1200 ppm P could do better than a borderline formulated oil with 700 ppm Zn/P that has wiped cams. It's a rough correlation to be sure, that's why the test is used by oil companies and additive manufacturers at the early lower levels of formulation.
Originally Posted By: buster
It would be interesting to see if their is a correlation between the Seq IVA and 4-ball wear test.
I've been travelling for 4 months and stayed away from BITOG. I actually forgot about that. Was there ever a resolution about the Seq IV incident? Any official explanation or assurance? I tried searching, but the search function doesn't seem to come up w/ anything.
It would be interesting to see if their is a correlation between the Seq IVA and 4-ball wear test.
I've been travelling for 4 months and stayed away from BITOG. I actually forgot about that. Was there ever a resolution about the Seq IV incident? Any official explanation or assurance? I tried searching, but the search function doesn't seem to come up w/ anything.
Last edited:
Not only is the Synpower just as good if you look only at this test, but is the difference between .35 and .48 mm that much? Take a look at a millimeter on a ruler. Is an engine on the verge of destroying itself when a wear scar's diameter is over .35, but under .50 mm?
Mobil 1 Extended Performance is in my T-Bird, and I'm not stressing out.
Mobil 1 Extended Performance is in my T-Bird, and I'm not stressing out.
Tom NJ
$100 Site Donor 2026
A few relevant points on the 4 Ball method under ASTM D4172:
1. This method is for "fluids" (unspecified), not grease, and therefore is valid for motor oils:
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a
preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid
lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear
Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same
machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.
2. The ASTM method calls for 1200 rpm, not the 1800 rpm used in the Amsoil paper:
4. Summary of Test Method
4.1 Three 12.7-mm [1⁄2-in.] diameter steel balls are clamped
together and covered with the lubricant to be evaluated. A
fourth 12.7-mm diameter steel ball, referred to as the top ball,
is pressed with a force of 147 or 392 N [15 or 40 kgf] into the
cavity formed by the three clamped balls for three-point
contact. The temperature of the test lubricant is regulated at
75°C [167°F] and then the top ball is rotated at 1200 rpm for
60 min. Lubricants are compared by using the average size of
the scar diameters worn on the three lower clamped balls.
3. The Repeatability of the ASTM 4172 method is 0.12 mm:
11.1.1 Repeatability
The difference between successive results obtained by the same
operator with the same apparatus under constant operating
conditions on identical test material would, in the long run,
in the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed
the following value only in one case in twenty:
Repeatability = 0.12 mm scar diameter difference
This means that all results between 0.35 mm and 47 mm for a single run are considered the same.
Source: http://www.dieseltechsolutions.com/files/FE26PremierTestBooklet.pdf
Tom NJ
1. This method is for "fluids" (unspecified), not grease, and therefore is valid for motor oils:
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a
preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid
lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear
Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same
machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266.
2. The ASTM method calls for 1200 rpm, not the 1800 rpm used in the Amsoil paper:
4. Summary of Test Method
4.1 Three 12.7-mm [1⁄2-in.] diameter steel balls are clamped
together and covered with the lubricant to be evaluated. A
fourth 12.7-mm diameter steel ball, referred to as the top ball,
is pressed with a force of 147 or 392 N [15 or 40 kgf] into the
cavity formed by the three clamped balls for three-point
contact. The temperature of the test lubricant is regulated at
75°C [167°F] and then the top ball is rotated at 1200 rpm for
60 min. Lubricants are compared by using the average size of
the scar diameters worn on the three lower clamped balls.
3. The Repeatability of the ASTM 4172 method is 0.12 mm:
11.1.1 Repeatability
The difference between successive results obtained by the same
operator with the same apparatus under constant operating
conditions on identical test material would, in the long run,
in the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed
the following value only in one case in twenty:
Repeatability = 0.12 mm scar diameter difference
This means that all results between 0.35 mm and 47 mm for a single run are considered the same.
Source: http://www.dieseltechsolutions.com/files/FE26PremierTestBooklet.pdf
Tom NJ
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked