Schaeffer Oil Testing of 15W40 Oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,335
Location
London, AR
Orbahm Shear Test d-6278 [email protected] Shear stability/ Cst 100c unsheared/ sheared Visc loss %
code:
   
Schaeffers 700            15.35   13.83   9.90
Cat DEO                   13.61   12.27   9.85
Valvoline PB 2000         14.50   12.31   15.10
Delvac                    15.48   14.02   9.43
Pennzoil LL               15.46   14.61   5.50
Delo                      15.78   13.35   15.29 
Rotella                   15.62   13.74   12.40
Case IH                   14.41   12.93   10.27
John Deere                14.77   10.52   28.10
Royal Purple              14.57   12.06   17.23
Lucas                     16.28   13.99   14.07
Syntec                    14.9    12.5    16.11
Citgo600                  15.6    12.49   19.94 

[ January 17, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
716
Location
San Gabriel Valley
quote:
Originally posted by 59 Vetteman: Orbahm Shear Test d-6278 [email protected] Shear stability/ Cst 100c unsheared/ sheared Visc loss %
code:
   
.....Syntec                    14.9    12.5    16.11.....


Syntec 15w40?! I didn't know there is such an oil..
 

salesrep

$100 Site Donor
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
3,644
Location
lllinois
In order to meet API CI-4 Plus, Mack EON Premium Plus-03, Detroit Diesel’s Power Guard Engine Oil Specification 93K214 and ACEA E7-04 an SAE 15W-40 engine oil must stay in grade (Kinematic Viscosity of 12.5cSt @100°C minimum) after 90 passes. There was a contamintion issue with the amsoil sample obtained. ( wouldn't of been a fair test) sorry. [ January 17, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: salesrep ]
 
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
97
Location
OH
so that longlife looks pretty good, even better than schaeffers and cat and delvac. was this batch of longlife without the moly?
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
2,291
Location
Arizona
Thank you, salesrep. I find myself gravitating toward Schaeffer products; ones which, apart from Neutra, I haven't used for over 15 years.
 
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
97
Location
OH
i like schaeffers products and use several. from their gear oil, atf fluid, diesel additive, penetro 90, and their motor oil i have used it all. but i have been usin delo for 6000 miles now and want to try something else. i like the pennzoil longlife becaue i have always used pennzoil in my gas vehicles and have never had a problem. and i can get it easier than delo and schaeffers. i did a search on longlife and have read old posts about when they took the moly out and how the color got lighter. does it stay lighter for longer and is this a sign that it isn't cleaning as good as it should be?
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
1,855
Location
Australia
Is this an engine manufacturer or ASTM recognised test ? otherwise, it's interesting, but has as much validity as the four ball test.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
8,973
Location
MI
This "independent test data" was posted on a recent thread by John Browning about John Deere oil use in his car. See http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010876 I contacted an independent large equipment oil analysis lab and asked for any real world data on John Deere Plus 50. Here is what they sent: "I did a little checking: John Deere +50: 593 samples - 43 or 7.2% were below 12.6 cSt. Schaefer 15W40: 361 samples - 35 or 9.7% were below 12.6 cSt (no blend specified) I have always considered the +50 to be one of the better oils and my opinion has not changed." In the real world, seems like the Schaeffers is a cut below the Plus 50 (which was the worst of the group). So, who do we believe???? "Independent" data from a oil company rep. or real world data from an non-biased oil analysis lab????
 

salesrep

$100 Site Donor
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
3,644
Location
lllinois
Just so I understand doitmyself. An ind. lab spent the time, effort and money to obtain 954 seperate samples from different batches of two different oils and run the orbahm d-6278 on all of them. Interesting. Curious as well of the 78 that were below 12.6 how many were below 12.5.
 
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
383
Location
Bismarck, North Dakota
Well actually we have 538683 separate samples of oil from which to draw data. [Wink] Since you asked here are some numbers:
code:
John Deere +50 - Diesel Engines
[email protected] - Count
17.7	1	14.7	10	13	17
16.8	3	14.6	20	12.9	14
16.6	1	14.5	22	12.8	8
16.4	1	14.4	23	12.7	8
16.1	2	14.3	26	12.6	6
16	3	14.2	21	12.5	2
15.8	3	14.1	23	12.4	2
15.7	5	14	42	12.3	3
15.6	3	13.9	28	12.2	3
15.5	3	13.8	36	12.1	1
15.4	5	13.7	34	11.9	1
15.3	5	13.6	24	11.8	1
15.2	6	13.5	28	11.5	1
15.1	11	13.4	19	11.4	2
15	14	13.3	23	11.2	1
14.9	13	13.2	22	10.9	2
14.8	10	13.1	10	9.8	1

code:
Schaeffer - Diesel Engines - Blend not specified
[email protected] - Count
22.9	1	15.1	15	13.1	2
19.7	1	15	11	13	4
18.2	1	14.9	18	12.9	2
17.6	2	14.8	12	12.8	2
17.5	1	14.7	15	12.7	1
17	1	14.6	14	12.6	1
16.9	1	14.5	16	12.5	1
16.8	2	14.4	17	12.4	2
16.7	1	14.3	14	12.2	2
16.5	3	14.2	10	12.1	1
16.2	3	14.1	9	12	1
16	4	14	16	11.7	1
15.9	1	13.9	12	11.1	1
15.8	2	13.8	20	11	2
15.7	4	13.7	14	10.4	1
15.6	3	13.6	10	10	1
15.5	5	13.5	12	9.3	2
15.4	12	13.4	8	8.9	1
15.3	5	13.3	6	8.8	2
15.2	6	13.2	7	8.4	1
				7.5	1

IMHO The Orbahm Shear Test does not tell how well the oil performs in actual use, nor would I try to draw any conclusions from this data. There are too many factors that are not considered. Also, I am more concerned about an oil increasing viscosity than viscosity loss since it is usually an indication of how well it handles soot/oxidation and that is most frequently the condemning factor in OCI's Here's some more data of questionable value:
code:
	 Samples  Low	High	%Low	%High
Penzoil    355	  8	0	2%	0%
Farmland   971	  43	10	4%	1%
Mobil	   23096  1049	1839	5%	8%
Exxon	   17988  863	565	5%	3%
Shell	   24679  1209	939	5%	4%
Citgo	   10228  629	422	6%	4%
Cenex	   9937	  623	183	6%	2%
Valvoline  62	  5	3	8%	5%
Duron	   774	  67	15	9%	2%
Schaeffer  360	  35	0	10%	0%
Deere	   1870	  191	11	10%	1%
Farmoyl	   175	  19	0	11%	0%
Amsoil	   92	  10	6	11%	7%
Texaco	   6464	  726	41	11%	1%
Conoco	   13918  1608	392	12%	3%
Chevron	   31252  3660	701	12%	2%
Cat	   16240  1942	941	12%	6%
Phillips   859	  162	5	19%	1%
Kendal	   374	  97	6	26%	2%

[ May 27, 2005, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Stinky Peterson ]
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
8,973
Location
MI
This is a commercial vehicle/equipment oil analysis lab (like Blackstone, Butler, Wear Check, and 100's of others). As far as I know, the numbers are from their data base of samples sent in for engine oil analysis on various equipment - tractors, semi's, heavy machinery, etc.. They did say that these numbers exclude samples that had fuel dilution. EDIT: Four minutes slow. Guess I don't have to worry about revealing the lab anymore!
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
2,291
Location
Arizona
This data of "questionable value" shows a much wider post-use viscosity spread for Schaeffer vs. Deere +50. Does this mean that Schaeffer oil is not as good? Does it mean that more Schaeffer users are neglectful or stupid? Does it mean that Schaeffer is used in more of the worst conditions and Deere +50 is used mainly in cream puff applications? To me it seems pretty clear that the point above is that the D-6278 test may not be very representative of real-world use. However, the data simply support no conclusions as-is.
 
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
383
Location
Bismarck, North Dakota
quote:
Originally posted by bulwnkl: ...To me it seems pretty clear that the point above is that the D-6278 test may not be very representative of real-world use. However, the data simply support no conclusions as-is.
My point exactly Bul!
 
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
doitmyself, The improtance of the Orbahm Shear Test d-6278 results is significant. In order for the shear testing to be relavent it must be uniform in it's method and the sample must be in virgin states to be fairly compared. Compareing results after they have been in use is hard to make a good call. It would only be realavant if the usuage was in a test engine so conditions could be replicated almost identicaly on the sample prior to testing. I do not think any one is saying Orbahm Shear Test d-6278 test is a replacement for UOA in the application! We have to have a standard though and anyone that does poorly in the test should at least be looked at more closely. Their is a lot more to an oil then just the Orbahm Shear Test d-6278 test!!! Schaffers products have traditionaly turned in some of the best numbers on this site for any conventional oil! Their oils have been rather consistent as well!
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
8,973
Location
MI
You are correct, John. The importance of the Orbahm shear test might be significant IF the lab that conducts it follows standard procedures to come up with statistically sound data. Trust me, setting up a lab test to compare different products is also very difficult to do. Unfortunately, the lab tests for this data set are not being made available to critique. Remember all the times that the lab experts flip flop on what's healthy to eat and then what's not? An ASTM test number does not automatically mean the data is correct, or incorrect. As a group, we should question any data that is presented here for it's precision, accuracy, repeatability, and relevancy. You are also correct that any oil that does poorly in this ONE test should be looked at more closely - to see how it performs overall. And, repeat tests should be done. I agree that no one here said the Orbahm replaces the UOA. But several others did imply that this Orbahm data was a way to distinguish the good oils from the "weak" oils. If you look at your original "Plus 50's not impressive" thread, people here immediately developed the "group think"/sheep herd mentality to avoid the oils that "failed". This is what bothered me the most. That, and the fact that some members here ignore the rules (#8) prohibiting soliciting/promoting their products Schaeffers makes excellent products. They would be my oil of choice if they were sold locally. They turn in excellent numbers, as does Valvoline and Super Tech..
 
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
383
Location
Bismarck, North Dakota
I'm with you Do - people look at the results of one test and draw conclusions that are just plain wrong. Some oil dealers capitalize on this by using numbers as proof that their products are better when in many cases the test isn't even appropriate. I'm not accusing anyone of doing this but we've all see it happen, especially with some of the extreme pressure type additives and some of the demonstration devices. About the test 4.1 A polymer-containing fluid is passed through a diesel injector nozzle at a shear rate that causes polymer molecules to degrade. The resultant degradation reduces the kinematic viscosity of the fluid under test. The percent viscosity loss is a measure of the mechanical shear stability of the polymer-containing fluid. 5. Significance and Use 5.1 This test method evaluates the percent viscosity loss for polymer-containing fluids resulting from polymer degradation in the high shear nozzle device. Thermal or oxidative effects are minimized. 5.2 This test method is used for quality control purposes by manufacturers of polymeric lubricant additives and their customers. 5.3 This test method is not intended to predict viscosity loss in field service in different field equipment under widely varying operating conditions, which may cause lubricant viscosity to change due to thermal and oxidative changes as well as by the mechanical shearing of polymer. However, when the field service conditions, primarily or exclusively, result in the degradation of polymer by mechanical shearing, there may be a correlation between the results from this test method and results from the field. I'm not sure what part of the engine is most like squirting oil through an injector so it is hard for me to see how this really applies to engines (I know what it says above). To me this is like using 4 ball wear data to evaluate engine oils. Also I'm not surprised the Plus 50 didn't do that well in a gas engine, after all was formulated for diesel engines. I myself would stick with oils blended for gas engine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top