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

Cst@100c 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 ]
 
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 ]
 
Yes!

You want as high of a post shear vis. number as you can get,

and, hence,

a lower sheared viscosity loss per cent number.

gr_eek2.gif
 
so that longlife looks pretty good, even better than schaeffers and cat and delvac. was this batch of longlife without the moly?
 
Thank you, salesrep. I find myself gravitating toward Schaeffer products; ones which, apart from Neutra, I haven't used for over 15 years.
 
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?
 
Is this an engine manufacturer or ASTM recognised test ?
otherwise, it's interesting, but has as much validity as the four ball test.
 
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????
 
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.
 
Well actually we have 538683 separate samples of oil from which to draw data.
wink.gif


Since you asked here are some numbers:

code:

John Deere +50 - Diesel Engines

cSt@100 - 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

cSt@100 - 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 ]
 
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!
 
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.
 
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!
 
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..
 
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.
Back
Top