Originally Posted By: jk_636
It seems to me that a reliable test has already been produced using a falex machine.
It actually applies the weights in uniformity (unlike the one amsoil represents as the "one armed bandit")
Now there is no place in the engine that is recreated by this test. It is just done to measure lubricity, the topic on hand here
http://www.royalpurpleconsumer.com/products/hps-motor-oil/
If it doesn't represent a place in the engine then of what value are the results?
That's basically my point. There are a host of valid engine tests available, sanctioned by the SAE, for testing engine oils in engines. A good example, in fact a very fresh one is demonstrated here by AMSOIL (I know, surprising given the 4-ball wear stuff):
http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=AZFQT-EA
Originally Posted By: AMSOIL
AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil provides outstanding anti-wear protection. It develops a strong fluid film that keeps metal surfaces separated while its robust anti-wear additives further reduce wear in metal-to-metal contact regions for maximum engine life. In the Sequence IIIG test, which is normally run for 100 hours, AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil delivered outstanding wear protection for the camshaft and lifters, even after doubling the test interval to 200 hours. For details, see the Double-Length Sequence IIIG Engine Test Technical Study (G3320).
Quote:
The Sequence IIIG Test is a fired-engine, dynamometer lubricant test for evaluating automotive engine oils for certain high-temperature performance characteristics, including oil thickening, varnish deposition, oil consumption, and engine wear. Such oils include both single viscosity grade and multi-viscosity grade oils that are used in spark-ignition, gasoline-fueled engines, as well as diesel engines.
The Sequence IIIG Test utilizes a 1996 General Motors Powertrain 3800 Series II, water-cooled, 4 cycle, V-6 engine as the test apparatus. The Sequence IIIG test engine is an overhead valve design (OHV) and uses a single camshaft operating both intake and exhaust valves via pushrods and hydraulic valve lifters in a sliding-follower arrangement. The engine uses one intake and one exhaust valve per cylinder. Induction is handled by a modified GM port fuel injection system setting the air-to-fuel ratio at 15:1. The test engine is overhauled prior to each test, during which critical engine dimensions are measured and rated or measured parts (pistons, camshaft, valve lifters, etc.) are replaced.
The Sequence IIIG Test consists of a 10-minute operational check, followed by 100 hours of engine operation at moderately high speed, load, and temperature conditions. The 100-hour segment is broken down into five 20-hour test segments. Following the 10-minute operational check and each 20-hour segment, oil samples are drawn from the engine. The kinematic viscosities of the 20-hour segment samples are compared to the viscosity of the 10-minute sample to determine the viscosity increase of the test oil.
http://www.intertek.com/automotive/lubricant/sequence-iiig/
None of the traditional gimmicky "4 ball wear scar" claims there. They actually used one of the properly sanctioned SAE/ASTM tests and ran it at double the interval.
Now all is not perfect on that page. We still see the 4-ball wear test reference further down, and something about wax in traditional oils, but they do appear to be moving away from their traditional marketing, something also demonstrated by the fact that they are now getting some manufacturer approvals for certain lines of their oils too (like their Euro oils).
As I said earlier, I have no issue with RP's products. I've used their ATF as power steering fluid and it has held up well, quieting the Ford PS whine for example. My issue is with the types of claims made regarding performance using non-standard measures/procedures, which is the same issue BP/Castrol had with them. And they are not alone in making these types of claims, so it isn't a condemnation of RP, it is one of this type of advertising. AMSOIL appears to be headed away from that style of marketing, and I would like to believe RP is too with their move into having properly approved API lubricants for "the masses" that aren't running 500lb valve springs and needing the kind of protection the Synerlec add pack is purported to provide.
That said, Castrol has made some ridiculous marketing claims (remember the Chargers on the dyno?), as have the other majors. I'm simply not a fan of that style of product promotion. Most of us on here aren't. If your product does twice as well on Sequence IVA, then, like it or not, that claim is valid, and, for a short tripped car, may actually be relevant. Same with SOPUS's recent claims regarding piston cleanliness. What was questioned on here was why they only showed one piston, not all of them. That's a bit of marketing sneakery sliding into play there. But the testing methodology was sound, it was how it was presented that people here didn't like.
And yes, there are people on here who hate RP, as NHEMI noted. I like to think I don't present myself as one of those people. I object to ridiculous marketing no matter who is doing it
