In addition, recently they used water from the Gulf and it passed with flying colors. Something to think about between innings.
Schaeffer Vs Mobil 1 on Timken
- Thread starter slalom44
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: willdog
I can't believe that you don't understand thst Schaeffer's oil Kicks Mobil 1 butt.
Please don't confuse "agree" with "understand." They are very different words that represent very different ideas.
Originally Posted By: willdog
Regarding the Timken friction machine do you know of a better demo? I doubt it.
What does the effectiveness of a demonstration have to do with how good the oil is?
I can't believe that you don't understand thst Schaeffer's oil Kicks Mobil 1 butt.
Please don't confuse "agree" with "understand." They are very different words that represent very different ideas.
Originally Posted By: willdog
Regarding the Timken friction machine do you know of a better demo? I doubt it.
What does the effectiveness of a demonstration have to do with how good the oil is?
Regarding the Timken test it demostrates the ability of the oil to lower friction, and the shear strength.
I think you would agree (if you understand)that an oil that can lower friction more is better. RIGHT!
At this point I do not know of a better field test, for checking of a major component of oil.
I think you would agree (if you understand)that an oil that can lower friction more is better. RIGHT!
At this point I do not know of a better field test, for checking of a major component of oil.
Yes, lower friction is better. The problem is there are lots of different kinds of friction, and lots of different ways to reduce it. The Timken machine only tests one source of friction, and it's of a kind (point loading) that is nonexistent in most cars. That's why it's not a very relevant test, even though it's cool to watch and easy to understand.
As for better field tests, again, why do we care to have a field test? There are plenty of lab tests. Who cares if they can be shown in the field?
As for better field tests, again, why do we care to have a field test? There are plenty of lab tests. Who cares if they can be shown in the field?
Originally Posted By: willdog
I can't believe that you don't understand thst Schaeffer's oil Kicks Mobil 1 butt. Regarding the Timken friction machine do you know of a better demo? I doubt it. As to comparing the use of bleach is silly you can't run bleach in your car. The great thing about Schaeffer oil it has 2 friction modifiers which make it the best.
You're hilarious.
I can't believe that you don't understand thst Schaeffer's oil Kicks Mobil 1 butt. Regarding the Timken friction machine do you know of a better demo? I doubt it. As to comparing the use of bleach is silly you can't run bleach in your car. The great thing about Schaeffer oil it has 2 friction modifiers which make it the best.
You're hilarious.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Would an oil that does well on the Timken test be relevant when it comes to flat tappet camshaft protection?
Maybe. I'll have to defer to someone better informed on this, but I would imagine that there is at least one difference: the force in the Timken test is applied constantly, whereas it cycles up and down in a flat tappet. Not sure if or to what extent that matters.
One thing of which I'm pretty certain is that the pressure involved in a lot of Timken demos is much higher than you'd get in most flat tappets, since the pressure in a flat tappet is spread across the cam lobe instead of concentrated at one small point.
One thing of which I'm pretty certain is that the pressure involved in a lot of Timken demos is much higher than you'd get in most flat tappets, since the pressure in a flat tappet is spread across the cam lobe instead of concentrated at one small point.
The difference between a lab test and a field test is the data cannot be manipulated in the field. I am sure that you know that in lab tests they can be done over and over until the desired result is reached. But getting down to the nuts if you put Schaeffer on the Timken and M1, and Schaeffer demonstrated lower friction what would that mean to you? Would you consider changing? or are you swayed by advertising? You do kinow that when a auto company puts the name of a lubricant on the oil cap the oil company is paying BIG BUCKS, and the oil only has to meet the minimum requiremet.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Would an oil that does well on the Timken test be relevant when it comes to flat tappet camshaft protection?
Maybe.
Its probably most relevant to hypoid gears with their "brushing" high pressure contact motion. Its probably a pretty valid test for differential gear oils intended for rear-drive (and a very few front-drive, such as the old Chrysler LH cars) applications with hypoid gears.
Would an oil that does well on the Timken test be relevant when it comes to flat tappet camshaft protection?
Maybe.
Its probably most relevant to hypoid gears with their "brushing" high pressure contact motion. Its probably a pretty valid test for differential gear oils intended for rear-drive (and a very few front-drive, such as the old Chrysler LH cars) applications with hypoid gears.
Originally Posted By: willdog
The difference between a lab test and a field test is the data cannot be manipulated in the field.
Wanna bet??? The whole (mis)application of a Timken test to an engine lubricant is a classic example of manipulating data, because the "data" in this case has no bearing (rimshot!) on what happens inside an automobile engine. If you were talking about hypoid lubricants or greases, then its a more valid test.
The best "field" tests are things like engine tear-downs and oil analyses on real engines. Lots of oils that do poorly on Timken machines turn in great results in actual engines- because they're designed to protect ENGINES and not timken bearings.
Again, I'm not picking on Shaeffer oil- its known to be very good. But the Timken test doesn't prove it at all. Same for Royal Purple. It embarrasses me for otherwise good companies to use invalid methods in their advertising.
The difference between a lab test and a field test is the data cannot be manipulated in the field.
Wanna bet??? The whole (mis)application of a Timken test to an engine lubricant is a classic example of manipulating data, because the "data" in this case has no bearing (rimshot!) on what happens inside an automobile engine. If you were talking about hypoid lubricants or greases, then its a more valid test.
The best "field" tests are things like engine tear-downs and oil analyses on real engines. Lots of oils that do poorly on Timken machines turn in great results in actual engines- because they're designed to protect ENGINES and not timken bearings.
Again, I'm not picking on Shaeffer oil- its known to be very good. But the Timken test doesn't prove it at all. Same for Royal Purple. It embarrasses me for otherwise good companies to use invalid methods in their advertising.
There are only three major causes of friction. You say there are many ways to reduce friction and you are right, but not in engine. Regarding point loading what is point loading if not friction. What do you think the camshaft and lifters are doing?
Look I am not trying to change you to Schaeffers' use what you like. But if you want the best....
Look I am not trying to change you to Schaeffers' use what you like. But if you want the best....
Originally Posted By: willdog
The difference between a lab test and a field test is the data cannot be manipulated in the field. I am sure that you know that in lab tests they can be done over and over until the desired result is reached.
Indeed. On the flip side, a field test gives little to no control over the environment, so it severely limits the kind of testing that can be performed and the conclusions that can be drawn. The Timken test is a great example: it only shows one facet of an oil's performance, and it has very poor repeatability and reproducibility.
Originally Posted By: willdog
But getting down to the nuts if you put Schaeffer on the Timken and M1, and Schaeffer demonstrated lower friction what would that mean to you? Would you consider changing?
No.
I can't help but notice you're already trying to turn this into a brand war. Just to re-focus on the Timken test, let's call it Oil A vs. Oil B instead of Schaeffer vs. Mobil 1. So, Oil A turns out to do better in the Timken test than Oil B. Here's why I don't care.
First, it has to be demonstrated that Oil B's films will ever break in my engine like they do on the Timken machine. If not, then Oil A's film strength advantage is immaterial.
Then, I would need to see a whole host of other tests on things like TBN retention, shear stability, volatility, cold pumpability, seal compatibility, etc. Then I would have to do some kind of overall comparison between the two oils before I would consider switching.
Thus, the Timken test is neither necessary nor sufficient to show that one oil is better than another.
Originally Posted By: willdog
You do kinow that when a auto company puts the name of a lubricant on the oil cap the oil company is paying BIG BUCKS, and the oil only has to meet the minimum requiremet.
What the heck does this have to do with Schaeffer or the Timken test?
The difference between a lab test and a field test is the data cannot be manipulated in the field. I am sure that you know that in lab tests they can be done over and over until the desired result is reached.
Indeed. On the flip side, a field test gives little to no control over the environment, so it severely limits the kind of testing that can be performed and the conclusions that can be drawn. The Timken test is a great example: it only shows one facet of an oil's performance, and it has very poor repeatability and reproducibility.
Originally Posted By: willdog
But getting down to the nuts if you put Schaeffer on the Timken and M1, and Schaeffer demonstrated lower friction what would that mean to you? Would you consider changing?
No.
I can't help but notice you're already trying to turn this into a brand war. Just to re-focus on the Timken test, let's call it Oil A vs. Oil B instead of Schaeffer vs. Mobil 1. So, Oil A turns out to do better in the Timken test than Oil B. Here's why I don't care.
First, it has to be demonstrated that Oil B's films will ever break in my engine like they do on the Timken machine. If not, then Oil A's film strength advantage is immaterial.
Then, I would need to see a whole host of other tests on things like TBN retention, shear stability, volatility, cold pumpability, seal compatibility, etc. Then I would have to do some kind of overall comparison between the two oils before I would consider switching.
Thus, the Timken test is neither necessary nor sufficient to show that one oil is better than another.
Originally Posted By: willdog
You do kinow that when a auto company puts the name of a lubricant on the oil cap the oil company is paying BIG BUCKS, and the oil only has to meet the minimum requiremet.
What the heck does this have to do with Schaeffer or the Timken test?
Originally Posted By: willdog
Regarding point loading what is point loading if not friction.
It's drastically higher pressure than anything you would see in almost any engine.
Originally Posted By: willdog
What do you think the camshaft and lifters are doing?
Turning and lifting, respectively.
Originally Posted By: willdog
Look I am not trying to change you to Schaeffers' use what you like. But if you want the best....
...yes?
Regarding point loading what is point loading if not friction.
It's drastically higher pressure than anything you would see in almost any engine.
Originally Posted By: willdog
What do you think the camshaft and lifters are doing?
Turning and lifting, respectively.
Originally Posted By: willdog
Look I am not trying to change you to Schaeffers' use what you like. But if you want the best....
...yes?
Originally Posted By: buster
One Arm Bandit
Great video!
Here's a direct link to the video on YouTube, just so you don't have to click through the page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mov_J9fc6_I
One Arm Bandit
Great video!
Here's a direct link to the video on YouTube, just so you don't have to click through the page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mov_J9fc6_I
Originally Posted By: willdog
If a oil does well on the Timken will do well in your car of course.
That is not necessarily true at all, it's Monty Python logic (wood floats, witches float, therefore witches are made of wood, ducks float, if someone weighs less than a duck then therefore they must be a witch).
A counter example: Gear oil does great on a Timken machine, but will damage soft bearing materials found in engines. Some oils that do well on the Timken test don't return as good results on used oil analysis as those that "fail" the Timken test.
Its the wrong test to apply to an engine oil.
If a oil does well on the Timken will do well in your car of course.
That is not necessarily true at all, it's Monty Python logic (wood floats, witches float, therefore witches are made of wood, ducks float, if someone weighs less than a duck then therefore they must be a witch).
A counter example: Gear oil does great on a Timken machine, but will damage soft bearing materials found in engines. Some oils that do well on the Timken test don't return as good results on used oil analysis as those that "fail" the Timken test.
Its the wrong test to apply to an engine oil.
This test has my blessing as soon as the API, SAE, ALGM, and a few others recognize this as the ultimate internal combustion engine test.
Otherwise this is an old dog that you cannot teach a new trick to.
Otherwise this is an old dog that you cannot teach a new trick to.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
This test has my blessing as soon as the API, SAE, ALGM, and a few others recognize this as the ultimate internal combustion engine test.
Otherwise this is an old dog that you cannot teach a new trick to.
Well put Johnny!
This test has my blessing as soon as the API, SAE, ALGM, and a few others recognize this as the ultimate internal combustion engine test.
Otherwise this is an old dog that you cannot teach a new trick to.
Well put Johnny!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked