Relevance of Sequence IVA wear test

[Drew99GT]

A member here has claimed that the Sequence IVA wear test is less valid then Grand Am race cars running flat out to redline for up to 24 hours. Since we seem to be on a fact kick lately, here is the most paramount fact about the sequence IVA wear test: it tests an oils ability to protect a solid lifter camshaft under low temperature and low speed operation, which is the total opposite of a race car engine (whether it be stock or not) running flat out at high engine speeds and high oil temperatures. http://www.gf-5.com/the_story/testing/#SequenceIVAengine Just wanted to get those FACTS out there. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Mark888]

Since you have a passion for accuracy, I should point out that I did not say the tests were invalid. Here is my exact quote:

 Quote:

A test of a Grand Am race car using stock engines (even when tuned) are [s/b "is"] a lot closer to the reality of the engines we use than are either the Sequence IVA test, or the Four-Ball Wear Test.

Now here is a description of the test from the link you provided:

 Quote:

The Sequence IVA is a fired engine test designed to measure the crankcase oil's ability to prevent valve train wear encountered during "Stop and Go" or short trip driving conditions and extended idling. The test evaluates cam lobe wear at low temperature and low speed conditions.

Personally, I would be more interested in Grand Am race test than an idling test, but I don't idle that much (even around town I am driving at more than 2000 RPM), and the Sequence IVA is at 800 and 1500 RPM. But at no time did I say the test was invalid. If you would rather use the Sequence IVA, that is your choice. I would probably look the tests and the racing. The 4 ball wear test is apparently designed for grease, so I might not put much faith in that one. My main concern is that some people seem to be overlooking all the evidence by focusing on only certain tests, when there is additional information available. There is no reason to exclude any test or information that is relevant, and it appears to me that the fact that a lot of non-oil-sponsored cars use Mobil 1 retail product might be relevant (although certainly not conclusive). It does make me wonder how Mobil 1 could be as bad as some say, but so many Grand Am race teams use the retail bottles (on modified stock engines). Racing does not prove anything, but it raises reasonable doubt about the sole reliance on the other tests. But more information is needed IMO.

 

[Drew99GT]

 Originally Posted By: Mark888

Since you have a passion for accuracy, I should point out that I did not say the tests were invalid. Here is my exact quote:

I didn't say you said it was invalid - I said you said it was less valid, which you did. Running an engine at wide open throttle for several hours in no way simulates what your average passenger car will see in soccer mom operation. That's why the SAE doesn't test passenger car oils in tests where they run engines at wide open throttle for hours on end. Maybe that's why Mobil 1 has potential issues with the Sequence IVA test, but does so well in high stress, high temperature operation such as racing and in turbocharged engines.

 

[Mark888]

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

A member here has claimed that the Sequence IVA wear test is less valid then Grand Am race cars running flat out to redline for up to 24 hours.

The author changed this after I repsonded. Originally he claimed I said the test was "invalid." Not he is saying "less valid".

 

[Mark888]

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

I didn't say you said it was invalid - I said you said it was less valid, which you did. Running an engine at wide open throttle for several hours in no way simulates what your average passenger car will see in soccer mom operation. That's why the SAE doesn't test passenger car oils in tests where they run engines at wide open throttle for hours on end. Maybe that's why Mobil 1 has potential issues with the Sequence IVA test, but does so well in high stress, high temperature operation such as racing and in turbocharged engines.

Actually, I said the racing was more realistic. I didn't mention valid or invalid. I don't think that either one alone would provide a complete picture of a motor oil. There have been a lot of comments from several oil manufacturers that the differences reported in the Sequence IVA wear test were statistically insignificant (could have varied from test to test with same oil and same engine) and even when statistically significant, were not significant from an engineering point of view in terms of anything to be concerned about. But I don't know what the true story is with regard to M1 and these tests, and I would like see the tests conducted by an independent company with multiple tests performed (not just rely on one test run).

 

[Johnny]

Mark888 you need to relax and not take everything so personally. Usually if one changes a post it will say it has been modified. I will post this, then come back and add my name so you can see what happens when someone changes a post.

 

[Mark888]

 Originally Posted By: Johnny

Mark888 you need to relax and not take everything so personally. Usually if one changes a post it will say it has been modified. I will post this, then come back and add my name so you can see what happens when someone changes a post. Johnny

All you have to do is uncheck the box that says you modified it and the modified line will not show up. I do this all the time to correct spelling/grammer issues.

 

[Mark888]

Johnny, if you go back in and modify it again, you can uncheck the box and it will not show "edited".

 

[Johnny]

Well see there, you learn something new every day. I did not know that. Well how about that. I modified my original by removing my name and I am modifying this thread by adding this comment, and I have unchecked the box.

 

[Drew99GT]

 Originally Posted By: Mark888

[quote=Drew99GT] Actually, I said the racing was more realistic.

If racing is more realistic, why doesn't the SAE have an engine test that tests passenger car motor oils for several hours, going from low to mid rpms and up to redline repeatedly? Are race cars likely to see low temperature stop and go operation where boundary layer lubrication and cold gelling sludging are potential issues?

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

 Originally Posted By: Mark888

[quote=Drew99GT] Actually, I said the racing was more realistic.

If racing is more realistic, why doesn't the SAE have an engine test that tests passenger car motor oils for several hours, going from low to mid rpms and up to redline repeatedly? Are race cars likely to see low temperature stop and go operation where boundary layer lubrication and cold gelling sludging are potential issues?

Oil manufacturers use fleet testing, like that performed by our own Doug Hillary, to garner real life results.

 

[Mark888]

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

If racing is more realistic, why doesn't the SAE have an engine test that tests passenger car motor oils for several hours, going from low to mid rpms and up to redline repeatedly? Are race cars likely to see low temperature stop and go operation where boundary layer lubrication and cold gelling sludging are potential issues?

I don't know about redline, but it does seem curious that we have not heard about a test that simulates highway driving. Don't you think so? I don't think any one test is perfect. But I will tell you this, I owned a sludge prone engine (98 Toyota V6) for 11 years and it ran as perfectly with Mobil 1 the day I sold it as the day I bought it. So I don't think Mobil 1 is sludge prone, whatever other faults it may have. I am sure almost all other synthetics would have done equally as well in this regard as the M1 I used.

 

[Drew99GT]

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

[quote=Drew99GT] Oil manufacturers use fleet testing, like that performed by our own Doug Hillary, to garner real life results.

I'm aware of this, and it has little to do with road racing.

 

[Drew99GT]

 Originally Posted By: Mark888

I don't know about redline, but it does seem curious that we have not heard about a test that simulates highway driving. Don't you think so?

Sequence IIIG tests these conditions - high temperature operation relating to deposits and engine wear.

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

[quote=Drew99GT] Oil manufacturers use fleet testing, like that performed by our own Doug Hillary, to garner real life results.

I'm aware of this, and it has little to do with road racing.

I would imagine that road racing's most closely resembled "official" test would likely be the Honda HTO-06 test; high-temp deposit control. And I am sure there are others that fit in with this category. If WOT runs through the mountains was part of the fleet testing, then I would say that perhaps the correlation between that sort of fleet testing and road racing was quite good