Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by painfx
How can a Group III be better than GTL?
PF RGT vs Mobil 1
- Thread starter jayjr1105
- Start date
GTL is a Group III base stock.
Yes I know. I'm not the one confused about Group III base stocks.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Your post below is quite likely the most devoid of technical knowledge that I've ever seen on this subject.
First off, the test itself is not applicable to an ICE. No reputable blender or manufacturer states that it is, and ExxonMobil explicitly explains on their website that it is not an appropriate test for motor oils.
Second, even if you suspend reality and say that it does apply to an ICE the test PF does is not performed properly. The equipment is not a standard wear scar test machine. Therefore no repeatability and reproducibility data is available for this equipment. PF has zero knowledge as to what constitutes a statistically significant number of trials on any one test.
Third - and most damaging - the results are not analyzed properly, in fact they are not analyzed at all. The proper ASTM test for gear oils prescribes proper statistical analysis for results from a wear scar test, and PF (as well as that other well known website) perform no analysis of the data whatsoever. This in and of itself completely invalidates any consideration of this test. When the results of that other website's tests are properly analyzed it shows that there is no statistical difference between any of the test results. This means the test cannot discriminate between any of the oils. Each oil tests statistically the same as every other oil. No researcher in their right mind would promulgate a test that is indiscriminate in the results like this one is.
As a result, yes Virginia the test is completely worthless and there is zero value. His tests are not standardized (they are exactly the opposite), they are not consistent, they are not repeatable, and they are dismal science. Precisely the opposite of everything you have claimed in your post.
and walk away whistling. Enjoy the site!
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by kschachn
Your post below is quite likely the most devoid of technical knowledge that I've ever seen on this subject.
First off, the test itself is not applicable to an ICE. No reputable blender or manufacturer states that it is and ExxonMobil explicitly explains on their website that it is not an appropriate test for motor oils.
Second, even if you suspend reality and say that it does apply to an ICE the test PF does is not performed properly. The equipment is not a standard wear scar test machine. Therefore no repeatability and reproducibility data is available for this equipment. PF has zero knowledge as to what constitutes a statistically significant number of trials on any one test.
Third - and most damaging - the results are not analyzed properly, in fact they are not analyzed at all. The proper ASTM test for gear oils prescribes proper statistical analysis for results from a wear scar test, and PF (as well as that other well known website) perform no analysis of the data whatsoever. This in and of itself completely invalidates any consideration of this test. When the results of that other website's tests are properly analyzed it shows that there is no statistical difference between any of the test results. This means the test cannot discriminate between any of the oils. Each oil tests statistically the same as every other oil. No researcher in their right mind would promulgate a test that is indiscriminate in the results like this one is.
As a result, yes Virginia the test is completely worthless and there is zero value. His tests are not standardized (they are exactly the opposite), they are not consistent, they are not repeatable, and they are dismal science. Precisely the opposite of everything you have claimed in your post.
Originally Posted by JLTD
PF's testing is valid - insofar as making a comparison of oils in the tests performed. His methods are standardized, consistent, fair, and repeatable; therefore decent science.
Where PF's tests may be good science, there is no evidence or proof of any kind that shows the tests' results transfer to engines. Sure, the cold pour test may have some relevance to cold start viscosity. Sure, the evaporative test may have some relevance to Noack. Sure, the lubricity test may have some relevance to engine wear. But without millions of dollars' worth of testing we will never know if there is a direct correlation between PF testing and real world applications.
What we do know is there is entertainment value there, and that the PF testing could have some bearing (engine reference intended) on real world performance.
Further, simply dismissing the testing as completely worthless is as much an error as saying the testing definitely correlates to real world.
And as far as putting money in his pocket? I say well done by Mr PF. He's found a niche market for his projects and gotten people interested in watching what he puts out. Applause for a successful entrepreneur.
(I also happen to think he is a member here, or has at least done a bunch of reading. We probably won't find out for sure.)
4WD
$50 site donor 2023
Originally Posted by 4WD
This is one of those you read only the first and last post, skip the video - and move on ….
Do people really get THAT excited about oil comparisons? It's all pretty much a crapshoot, luck and a little common sense in maintenance. After that...unless you're thrashing your engine, so long as it's spec'd for it...any oil most likely can/will allow it to run a good long time. No need getting lathered up over tests you can't prove, disprove or change...
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,126
Originally Posted by HiPowerShooter
Do people really get THAT excited about oil comparisons? It's all pretty much a crapshoot, luck and a little common sense in maintenance. After that...unless you're thrashing your engine, so long as it's spec'd for it...any oil most likely can/will allow it to run a good long time. No need getting lathered up over tests you can't prove, disprove or change...
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Given my tenure here, I've seen quite a few fall head-over-heels for meaningless bench tests and there are examples of folks in this very thread, which I've already pointed out. The technical knowledge and expertise shared by folks like Molakule shouldn't need being risked to be overshadowed by some dude with a one-armed bandit and a video camera, yet here we are.
Last edited:
For entertainment purposes only (no other reason), I will return my two jugs of Mobil-1 and purchase Rotella Gas & Truck in it's place.
I just want to have fun with it. The facts of the video that shows RGT beating Mobil-1 in cold pour, heat retention and anti-wear, means absolutely nothing to me.
I just want to smile and laugh.... as I drive from Point A to Point B.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
For entertainment purposes only (no other reason), I will return my two jugs of Mobil-1 and purchase Rotella Gas & Truck in it's place.
I just want to have fun with it. The facts of the video that shows RGT beating Mobil-1 in cold pour, heat retention and anti-wear, means absolutely nothing to me.
I just want to smile and laugh.... as I drive from Point A to Point B.
Last edited:
When I arrive at Wally's, I will probably not exchange M-1 for the RGT. I'll just buy more of the Ultra Platinum and Platinum.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
When I arrive at Wally's, I will probably not exchange M-1 for the RGT. I'll just buy more of the Ultra Platinum and Platinum.
Last edited:
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Welp, I have about 17 Qts. of RGT in my stash, and if I had room I'd buy more (at these prices)! But if you guys really like the stuff and think this video at all valid, you'd better hurry! After AZ dumped it and with the low pricing at Wally and TSC, if might not be around much longer. Who knows?..
Personally I'll use either M1 or RGT, since both are in the stash and paid for...
Most of the regular M1 line I believe is GTL now. As you go up on the tier level, you start to see more PAO in "some" grades. EP/AP 0w grades are majority PAO.
With the price of GTL below PAO, and performance close to PAO, it only makes sense to use GTL base oils from a business perspective. XOM appears to use PAO in varying amounts in certain grades, almost like an additive. I think I've heard the term "correction fluid" being used before. In additon they use AN's and POE in varying amounts as well.
Bottom line is you can count on Shell and XOM to make top of the line formulations.
Originally Posted by JLTD
Ya know I started to write a long response but decided trying to explain my out-of-the-box position would be a waste of time considering the closed mindedness. So I'll just say:
Wow,
and walk away whistling. Enjoy the site!
and walk away whistling. Enjoy the site!Originally Posted by HiPowerShooter
Do people really get THAT excited about oil comparisons? It's all pretty much a crapshoot, luck and a little common sense in maintenance. After that...unless you're thrashing your engine, so long as it's spec'd for it...any oil most likely can/will allow it to run a good long time. No need getting lathered up over tests you can't prove, disprove or change...
4WD
$50 site donor 2023
Let's have another one arm bandit shoot out - followed by a thick vs thin saga and - then wrap it up with a G80 MLocker finale
Originally Posted by 4WD
Let's have another one arm bandit shoot out - followed by a thick vs thin saga and - then wrap it up with a G80 MLocker finale
![[Linked Image from i.ebayimg.com]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/gaMAAOSwbUdc8AmF/s-l1600.jpg)
Digital Lubricating Oil Wear Testing Machine Grease Anti Wear Tester 230W
Description:
The new lubricating oil anti-wear test machine, referred to as the anti-wear test machine, is simplified according to the test principle of the American ring block test machine (Timken test machine), which strives to be simple in operation, reliable in performance and fast. Intuitively reflecting the anti-wear and anti-friction performance of the lubricating oil, the main working parts are composed of a grinding ring rotating with the main shaft and a fixed grinding column pressed on the grinding ring. During the test, the grinding ring and the grinding column are generated under different pressure conditions. Sliding friction, so it is also called the simplified version of the ring block tester (Timken test machine)
The anti-wear tester can test the oil film strength of the lubricating oil and the strength of the anti-wear protective layer formed by the anti-wear agent on the metal friction contact surface (quantitative reflection) by the force system composed of the weight and the lever. (OK value) has a certain approximate correspondence with the four-ball machine (Pa value); at the same time, the motor load current meter on the instrument panel can reflect the frictional change of the friction surface (qualitative reflection).
Application:
This machine is mainly used to test anti-wear performance. Applications include industrial oils, automotive lubricants, bearing oils, circulating oils, turbine oils, hydraulic oils, equipment lubricants, greases, gear oils, diesel engine oils, cutting fluids. Etc.; for customers 4S shop, oil change center, auto repair shop, car beauty shop, oil control plant, university research institute, lubricant distributor, and lubricant manufacturer, etc.
Specification:
Voltage: 110V, 60HZ
Power: 230W
Package size: 42*28*21cm
Gross weight: 21kg
How to use:
1. Place the testing machine on a flat and firm table or on a movable packing box, and insert the power plug
2. Ordinary engine oil wear resistance test
- Put ordinary oil into the oil tank so that the oil level in the oil tank contacts the lower part of the friction wheel;
- press the short arm on the friction wheel, use the long arm to hold the short arm and adjust it to the horizontal position;
- Turn the power switch on the instrument panel to the ON position, turn on the motor power, and let the motor drive the friction wheel to rotate. Then add a weight of 1 - 2 blocks on the weight pallet at the rear end of the long arm. Function, the common oil film breaks, the friction surface forms dry friction, the motor load increases, the motor working current also increases, and the friction wheel produces a harsh friction noise. When the current is too large, the motor overload protector will automatically power off, so that the motor stops, take off the short arm to let the visitors see the wear scars (the wear scar is larger, about 3 * 6mm).
3. Anti-wear agent (anti-wear oil) anti-wear and anti-wear performance test
- Pull out the oil tank bracket, remove the oil tank, press the overload protector reset button to restart the motor, carefully polish the grinding wheel with a strip of oil stone, wipe it clean, and then turn off the power switch (OFF position);
- Add the appropriate amount of anti-wear agent to the oil tank of the above test (or replace the anti-wear oil in the oil tank) and install the oil tank;
- turn the friction block on the short arm to a new position and fix it, and press the short arm and the long arm;
- Turn on the power switch (ON bit) and gently superimpose it on the weight tray at the rear end of the long arm.
Because the protective layer formed by the anti-wear agent has anti-wear and anti-friction effects, no friction noise occurs, the load of the motor does not increase significantly, the current of the motor does not increase significantly, and the overload protector does not trip.
Then you can turn off the power (OFF position) and take off the short arm to let the visitor see the wear scars (the wear scar is about 0.5*2.5mm), which is in sharp contrast with the wear scar of ordinary engine oil.
4. Inorganic oil test
— Pull out the oil tank bracket and remove the oil casing;
— Press the long and short arms to turn on the power (ON position), so that the motor drives the friction wheel to rotate;
— One by one weight is added to the weight pallet at the rear end of the long arm. The speed is slower and faster. Generally, it can be added to 5-10 weights. Check the current, turn off the power, and take off the short arm to visit. The wear marks are observed, and the wear marks are not increased, indicating that the anti-wear protective layer on the metal surface has high temperature resistance, high load resistance, anti-shear, low friction anti-wear and anti-friction function.
Note: After the above operation is completed, please use the strip of oil stone to polish the anti-wear layer on the grinding wheel to avoid affecting the next round of demonstration.
Instructions:
1. Before each experiment, the friction wheel must be polished with oil stone and ordinary oil, otherwise it will affect the correct effect of the experiment.
2. To do four tests, 1, the test of ordinary oil, 2, the test of oil added with anti-wear agent, 3, inorganic oil test, 4, repair test. The grinding wheel should be cleaned before each test, otherwise the test results are not accurate. The standard for grinding the grinding wheel is normal operation without noise.
3. The weight of the weight represents the pressure on the contact point. The size of the wear scar of the steel ball represents the abrasion resistance of the lubricating oil or the anti-wear agent. The change in the number of weights is equivalent to changing the amount of pressure on the contact points.
4. The weight can be gently put on after the motor is running normally, and the time interval is about 3-5 seconds. The amount added to the weight causes the ordinary lubricating oil to lose lubricity and is locked, and the engine stops rotating. At this time, turn off the power immediately to prevent the motor from burning.
5. Check the number of the weight (lubricity) and observe the wear scar (wear resistance) of the friction block.
6. After the inorganic oil test is completed, a certain amount of water can be added to the oil tank, and then the machine is found to be running as shown, showing the lubricating effect of the anti-wear emulsified oil. This is not possible with ordinary lubricants.
7. This is just a demonstration of the lubricity and wear resistance of different lubricants under the same conditions.
Note: It is forbidden to start the anti-wear test machine with load!
Package List:
1 × Anti-wear test machine
12 × Weights
2 × Oil box
1 × Wire
2 × Grindstone
50 × Steel ball
1 × Instruction manualOriginally Posted by Gokhan
They are selling these friction/wear/lubrication (tribology) testers for only $343 on eBay.
Now, who is going to buy one and start testing oils? You can also do an error analysis, as it has been a complaint here. We can dedicate a forum for it on BITOG.
Why would I (or anyone for that matter) go spend money on a piece of equipment to test motor oil for an irrelevant property? We already know from that "other" website that when motor oil is tested with this machine there is no statistically significant difference in any of the results for any oil. Why go to the effort and cost to repeat what amounts to a useless test?