MOTOR OIL “WEAR PROTECTION” RANKING LIST

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep anything over 90,000PSI is good news since I run 5w30 Mobil 1 / Redline 5w30 . I was suprised on how well castrol gtx did and castrol edge performed well too
 
38.gif
38.gif
38.gif



Lol
 
His post is interesting though:

Member of SAE

Believes ASTM tests are flawed

Claims professional race teams send him oil samples and his wear testing correlates with their wear observations
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Junk "science", and thoroughly debunked in quite a few threads.


Bottom line. The test does prove that oils differ in protection for engine parts that experience extreme pressure.
 
So according to this chart, M1 AFE 0w20 has better wear protection then PU 0w40...how can this be?
 
Originally Posted By: gregk24
So according to this chart, M1 AFE 0w20 has better wear protection then PU 0w40...how can this be?


That alone doesn't surprise me all that much. PU 0w40 is off in a corner among the PU lineup- its the only non-GTL oil with the PU label and the VOA I had done on it didn't impress me much.

But yeah, I agree the "test" is pretty meaningless, especially since it shills for additives.
 
When will this junk science die?

The guy uses some modified version of 4 ball wear test that has been proven to have little relevance to actual engine operating conditions. Apparently Head & Shoulders excels at this test, but would you run it in your engine?
 
Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Junk bench test.


What exactly is a "bench test".


A test of some motor oil property that is done with an apparatus sitting on a bench, as opposed to tested in a firing engine.
 
I agree, this kind of bench test doesn't accurately show how well different brands of oil perform or protect in running engines. But, what did catch my eye was the statement a Nascar team sent him three Mobil 1 Racing Oils for testing because they were having wear issues.
These oils are high in zinc, phosphorus, and moly, it wouldn't seem there should be a wear issue, so what is going?
 
We have a lot of people here who have been programmed to say things without understanding why.

Maybe someone can give a go at explaining why the test means nothing. Oil manufs still use a similar test.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
How about doing a search as this has been discussed a number of times already?


The search is tedious. How about someone who has been "clued up" give a shot at a couple of line explanation.

I promise it won't hurt. Unless you are wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top