Oil Choice for Lowest Wear On Engine Timing Chain?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Ertt, I'm not sure the Titanium stuff is that good, as castrol Edge with FST tested very low in a metal-to-metal ASTM test at http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g3115.pdf . Pennzoil Ultra had only 25% the wear scar than the Titanium oil, and other oils beat it too. Chain slapping/scraping/sliding is metal to metal as well.


These kind of test are not for engine oil. This has been commented on many times here at BITOG. These pressure test are designed for gear lube and grease where extreme pressure(EP) additive packages are required. In fact, some shampoos do very well with these bench test. Here is a link from XM explaining this.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Oil_Film_Strength.aspx


ASTM D 2266 are for greases and ASTM D 4172 are for lubricants, and Amsoil ran the correct 4172. Remember there really is some mixed boundary layer lube going on in an engine. Chains are that way, metal to metal. Remember XM covers their hind quarters with lawyerly language quite well. Truth is, an engine oil does need some protection in anti wear additives, something beyond just a viscous pure oil layer.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Ertt, I'm not sure the Titanium stuff is that good, as castrol Edge with FST tested very low in a metal-to-metal ASTM test at http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g3115.pdf . Pennzoil Ultra had only 25% the wear scar than the Titanium oil, and other oils beat it too. Chain slapping/scraping/sliding is metal to metal as well.


These kind of test are not for engine oil. This has been commented on many times here at BITOG. These pressure test are designed for gear lube and grease where extreme pressure(EP) additive packages are required. In fact, some shampoos do very well with these bench test. Here is a link from XM explaining this.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Oil_Film_Strength.aspx


ASTM D 2266 are for greases and ASTM D 4172 are for lubricants, and Amsoil ran the correct 4172. Remember there really is some mixed boundary layer lube going on in an engine. Chains are that way, metal to metal


Yep, but not engine oil. Companies like Amsoil and Royal Purple do these for effect, but no value to them. Did you read the comments from XM. Now shampoo, that's another thing. I've never had timing chain problems in decades of doing 10K OCIs. OHV or OHC engines. Don't get me wrond. Amsoil and RP make very high quality oils.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: tig1
In fact, some shampoos do very well with these bench test.


That's a myth.


Sounds like he was referring to the one armed bandit tests uncontrolled well. I think the four ball wear test is a pretty good comparison test to show what happens when the metal breaks through the oil boundary layer.
 
The four ball wear test when ran in correct controlled environment going by ASTM D 4172, is a Great test to show how well the oil resists wear by clinging to the metal..
 
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
The four ball wear test when ran in correct controlled environment going by ASTM D 4172, is a Great test to show how well the oil resists wear by clinging to the metal..


Its an EP test, not a "cling" test. It correlates somewhat to the Timken machine test and isn't a test that is part of any standard testing or approval process for engine oils. It is however a relevant and valid test for gear oils and gearbox lubes where EP performance is relevant.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Response_Amsoil_Claims.aspx

Originally Posted By: Mobil
The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil. The 4-ball wear test is not included as a part of any industry-wide recognized engine oil specifications (e.g. ILSAC GF-5, API SN, or ACEA specifications). ExxonMobil does not regard this test as a useful indicator of engine oil performance.
 
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: tig1
In fact, some shampoos do very well with these bench test.


That's a myth.


Sounds like he was referring to the one armed bandit tests uncontrolled well. I think the four ball wear test is a pretty good comparison test to show what happens when the metal breaks through the oil boundary layer.


I might bo wrong but ILSAC or API doesn't use this 4 ball test for automotive engine oils, as EP that gears go through are not found in an engine. EP additives can cause greater corosion in an engine and does nothing to improve the oil.
 
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Used oil may offer lower friction and lower wear rates but it isn't clean nor is it at original viscosity.
.


I only care about wear rates, (the rate of losing engine metals per revolution). Clean oil is academic or a religious matter to some. A good synthetic maintains viscosity well, so not a problem there either. Limits of course, yet those limits are way out. One could make the case for use of engine flush 5-minute pre-oil-change to make sure sludge is cleared out. There are just no good reasons to change the oil often in a modern car with a decent oil filter and air filter. Like real estate is "location, location, location", engines are about "wear, wear, wear".


You kinda missed my point.
I wrote nothing about shear, rather I wrote about loss of viscosity.
They aren't the same thing.
Viscosity loss might be due to fuel dilution rather than mechanical shear. No oil will help with that.
The rate at which iron is measured in a UOA has nothing to do with your timing chain.
GM has apparently indentified timing chain wear and therefore stretch and failure as a particular problem when oil is run beyond a given number of hours.
While a UOA might show lower wear per thousand miles with oil that's been in use for some time, timing chain wear might be much higher than the total figure would lead you to believe.
It's GM's engine and GM's set of engineering compromises.
If GM recommends frequent oil changes with your engine, then that's the route I'd go.
My point was that with this particular set of engineering compromises, clean oil may matter, not that it's academic or a religon.
As you said, it's all about location and wear.
The location is the timing chain and that's where the excess wear is.
The bores, rings and piston skirts will likely last forever as will the mains.
The timing chain?
There's your problem.
This engine offers a nice combination of power and fuel economy.
Once GM figures out that they need to spend another ten bucks or so on the cam drive setup, it'll be a great and long-lived engine, the next 3.8 V-6, to be used in everything and to please every owner.
Meanwhile, you have the timing chain problem to deal with.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
The four ball wear test when ran in correct controlled environment going by ASTM D 4172, is a Great test to show how well the oil resists wear by clinging to the metal..


Its an EP test, not a "cling" test. It correlates somewhat to the Timken machine test and isn't a test that is part of any standard testing or approval process for engine oils. It is however a relevant and valid test for gear oils and gearbox lubes where EP performance is relevant.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Response_Amsoil_Claims.aspx

Originally Posted By: Mobil
The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil. The 4-ball wear test is not included as a part of any industry-wide recognized engine oil specifications (e.g. ILSAC GF-5, API SN, or ACEA specifications). ExxonMobil does not regard this test as a useful indicator of engine oil performance.


The way I use the phrase cling has to do with the EP test.. I'm just bad at explaining things lol..
 
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
The four ball wear test when ran in correct controlled environment going by ASTM D 4172, is a Great test to show how well the oil resists wear by clinging to the metal..


Its an EP test, not a "cling" test. It correlates somewhat to the Timken machine test and isn't a test that is part of any standard testing or approval process for engine oils. It is however a relevant and valid test for gear oils and gearbox lubes where EP performance is relevant.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Response_Amsoil_Claims.aspx

Originally Posted By: Mobil
The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil. The 4-ball wear test is not included as a part of any industry-wide recognized engine oil specifications (e.g. ILSAC GF-5, API SN, or ACEA specifications). ExxonMobil does not regard this test as a useful indicator of engine oil performance.


The way I use the phrase cling has to do with the EP test.. I'm just bad at explaining things lol..


Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be "EP plating" ?
21.gif


Anyways, none of the OEM's think it is relevant enough to use it as part of their testing or approval mechanisms, and neither do the API or ACEA. Not even CAT/CUMMINS/DD use it..... And if it DID have a place as an engine test, you'd think that the big Diesel guys would be using it. But they aren't.

Its a way for AMSOIL to sell/market oil. At least it is a standardized test unlike the one-armed bandit, LOL!
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
The four ball wear test when ran in correct controlled environment going by ASTM D 4172, is a Great test to show how well the oil resists wear by clinging to the metal..


Its an EP test, not a "cling" test. It correlates somewhat to the Timken machine test and isn't a test that is part of any standard testing or approval process for engine oils. It is however a relevant and valid test for gear oils and gearbox lubes where EP performance is relevant.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Response_Amsoil_Claims.aspx

Originally Posted By: Mobil
The 4-ball wear test is a test designed to evaluate the performance of a gear oil. The 4-ball wear test is not included as a part of any industry-wide recognized engine oil specifications (e.g. ILSAC GF-5, API SN, or ACEA specifications). ExxonMobil does not regard this test as a useful indicator of engine oil performance.


The way I use the phrase cling has to do with the EP test.. I'm just bad at explaining things lol..


Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be "EP plating" ?
21.gif


Anyways, none of the OEM's think it is relevant enough to use it as part of their testing or approval mechanisms, and neither do the API or ACEA. Not even CAT/CUMMINS/DD use it..... And if it DID have a place as an engine test, you'd think that the big Diesel guys would be using it. But they aren't.

Its a way for AMSOIL to sell/market oil. At least it is a standardized test unlike the one-armed bandit, LOL!


Yeah that's a better way of saying it!! I'll stash that phrase off in the ole brain!

I think it's a legit test.. Resistance to wear is resistance to wear.. Period...
 
Originally Posted By: Flareside302


I think it's a legit test.. Resistance to wear is resistance to wear.. Period...


Only if the conditions of the test are replicated during the service that the fluid sees
wink.gif


In a crankcase or gearbox where you have gears acting directly on each other and scrubbing into each other, yep, EP performance is extremely relevant!

However, in an automotive application, the highest types of sliding pressures are usually on a tappet/camshaft interface, the pressures of which aren't even CLOSE to those experienced in a gearbox or differential. Meaning that scoring "awesome" in this test doesn't translate well to actual lubricant performance in service. And of course tests like SEQ IVA, which actually measure the wear of that camshaft/lobe interface under adverse operating conditions indeed ARE part of the standard testing protocol.
 
Well, I don't think its too hard to visualize whats happening in a timing chain, as we understand that the sprocket teeth strike, then slide, on the chain cross-pins. And the pins rotate. Thats physically hitting metal to metal, with some sliding/rotating. Therefore, what tribologist trick keeps the metal from wearing down? Boron? ZDDP? MoS2? Some products are better than others here.

Oh well, its a tough question, too much for mere mortals like us to answer.
 
Last edited:
Redline oil has a very heavy additive package, but carries no API or GM certifications, so I don't know if it should be used or not.
 
The sprocket teeth should meet the rollers on the chain cleanly and evenly. If there is striking or impact it is because the chain or teeth on the sprocket are shot.

The wear should occur between the rollers and the pins - or if it is a high end true roller chain there will be bushings between the rollers and pins which are the wear elements.

In the past, the problems seemed to come from the nylon-coated sprockets - with enough mileage the nylon would crack and break off, leaving teeth that appeared to the chain to have substantially worn tooth profiles causing rapid wear and considerable variability in the relationship between the crankshaft the cam and the distributor/ ignition timing. Those of us who built hot rods would almost immediately ditch the POS nylon coated sprockets and the link-belt chain for Cloyes (or equivalent) performance chain drives. They were louder, but they lasted at high rpm and with aftermarket double springs and longer rocker ratios.

It stuns me that GM would claim they just realized they should carbo-nitride the parts in a chain to get adequate life out of it. The cheap buzzards were just building an inferior product in hopes a few extra dollars per unit, ultimately to stave off their inevitable demise.
 
Originally Posted By: CentAmDL650
The sprocket teeth should meet the rollers on the chain cleanly and evenly. If there is striking or impact it is because the chain or teeth on the sprocket are shot.


Its kind of an angled impact. I mean, at some point there must be a meeting between the sprocket tooth and chain cross-pin. Yes the angle helps a lot.
 
Originally Posted By: CentAmDL650
.It stuns me that GM would claim they just realized they should carbo-nitride the parts in a chain to get adequate life out of it. The cheap buzzards were just building an inferior product in hopes a few extra dollars per unit, ultimately to stave off their inevitable demise.


I wonder, is it customary to carbonitride chains? Or similar surface hardening? ... from Chrysler, Honda, BMW, Nissan, etc., what is usually done? ... Whats really weird is that GM has been making that High Feature V6 since 2003, and then added carbonitriding in 2010, late.
 
GM urks me at how slow they are to fix known issues with their engines . Look how long the intake manifold/coolant leak went on for with the 3.1 . 3.4 and others...that went on for years and a lot of people had to pay the price of replacing engines or walking away from relatively new cars .

I know other makes have had stinkers...the Ford 3.8 , Chrysler 2.7 another one but GM was NOT very forthcoming with looking after the problem or the customers that paid dearly for poor engineering .
 
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 95busa
Mos2 is retarded
... based on what facts? At least two oil formulators use it, Mazda 0w-20 and Schaeffer 5w-30 synthetics, so they are retarded?

talking about the miracle in a bottle additive, not an add pack. But sure, they are windowlickers too.
 
Originally Posted By: nitehawk55
GM urks me at how slow they are to fix known issues with their engines . Look how long the intake manifold/coolant leak went on for with the 3.1 . 3.4 and others...


I had a co-worker whose daughter was looking at a GM car with a 3.1 engine. Before she bought the car, I told my co-worker that the 3.1 (and 3.4) have a very bad reputation for intake manifold leaks. My co-worker went to the service manager and ask about the reputation of intake manifold gaskets of the 3.1 and the service manager told him that he had never heard of that problem before. (Hmmmm. Was he clueless or had business been slow for the last 15 years?)
They then both looked at the engine and saw that coolant had been running down the side of the block of this engine and had been leaking for some time. Against my advice, my co-worker bought the car for his daughter, but he made them change out the intake manifold gaskets first.
My point of this post is that not only are they slow to fix the known issues, they will even lie about the issues themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
1960-ish Engine-Wear Protection
Replies
12
Views
777
Cujet
rstcso
Determining the Proper Oil for Your Engine - Email from Lake Speed Jr
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
Maroon
stchman
3.6L 2018 GMC Canyon Oil Change Interval
Replies
16
Views
783
stchman
Nuclear_42
L84 5.3 DFM GM Oil Choices
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
z71offroader83
Jeffrey Behr
AGAIN...what's the 'best' engine oil for me?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
Rand
Back
Top Bottom