What speaks loudest to me is exactly what I said the last time this whole thing was posted which is what psi does an engine need. If 80000psi is the max pressure any point of an engine experiences why is 100000psi better if its not required. Busy little shop is so far behind here he thinks he's ahead.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You are seriously mocking the man's credentials? Because he's qualified to speak on the subject that makes his a target for this type garbage? Really? This is possibly the saddest thing I've ever seen posted on this site. The guy's description of the device sounds like a Timken machine. Similar to AMSOIL's 4-ball wear test in nature. He makes these statements:
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Mercy Mr. or Mrs.BEMEch why don't you challenge *him* and his testing methods or come up with your own test that wows us??? Larry TE & HM (Trail and Error & Hit and Miss)
No, it isn't necessary. The oil need only protect against what conditions it sees in your engine, something this testing methodology doesn't replicate.
But, testing motor oil in a running engine CANNOT determine the EXACT SPECIFIC wear protection LIMIT of an oil, which is necessary, in order to make an accurate comparison between various oils.
And if an engine was nothing more than a timken bearing subject to extreme load that would make sense, but it isn't so it doesn't.
So, attempting to test various motor oils for comparison in a running engine, provides no meaningful data, other than perhaps that a given oil did not cause a failure in that particular engine combo.
You don't need to. It means they all provide comparable protection in that engine.
If you were to test say a half a dozen different oils in your engine combo, and you had no problems with any of them, how can you tell how they rank against each other?
They don't need to. They only need to provide the necessary wear protection for the applications for which they are approved. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.....
It’s a proven fact that all oils do not provide the same wear protection capability.
Why do you need the "highest level of protection"? If oil A provides protection to 100,000PSI and oil B provides protection to 80,000PSI and no sliding interface in your engine ever sees anything higher than 15,000psi (say a diesel injector/cam interface for example) then what advantage is oil A providing you with? If you aren't taking the oil to the limit, and cannot, under any operating condition explore that limit, then what is the advantage of the increased headroom?
That means you have no way of knowing which of those 6 oils provides you with the highest level of protection.
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Testing oil in a running engine allows you to observe the actual characteristics of the lubricant in its designed operating environment. This means it has to deal with fuel dilution, contamination, acids/combustion products, varying levels of heat. It has to resist deposit formation, it has to resist baking into varnish, it has to be able to neutralize the acids and do this for whatever the designed oil change interval is. NONE of these things are replicated by this testing machine. NONE of them. Because it represents a scenario that no engine will ever see: Extreme sliding interface pressure, the closest relation to which would be the cam lobe/lifter interface on a flat tappet engine or a diesel injector/cam interface which never see those types of pressures, ever. So where's the relevance? If this type of lubricant testing made sense, the OEM's would be all over it. It is inexpensive; certainly FAR cheaper than building an engine, running it on a dyno for hundreds of hours and then tearing it down and meticulously inspecting and measuring every component. But they aren't. That should speak volumes as to the true relevance of this testing methodology. His actual testing and the results are certainly done with the utmost care and I have no doubt in my mind that he followed the scientific method to a T. I'm not questioning his testing or the results. I'm sure the results are wholly and entirely accurate and were obtained following proper procedures. And they represent exactly what he says they do: The failure point of the film strength of the oils tested. They don't however in any way translate to the actual conditions experienced by oil in an engine, only testing in an actual engine does that. That's why tear-downs are performed. That's why millions of dollars are spent by OEM's doing just that. And that's why companies like Mercedes, Porsche, BMW....etc maintain lists of tested/approved lubricants for use in their engines. If they could just Timken-test them to get that information they'd be making a lot more money on their approval process.
Therefore, motor oil testing in a running engine, is a waste of time, effort and money, when it comes to gathering accurate data for comparison between various oils. And that is precisely why I perform all my testing with motor oil test equipment, rather than in an engine