synthetic / wear protection

[cheetahdriver]

my other contribution is my OA study of a couple of different weights. i drop this in because i am unaware of any dino 0w-20 oils, and i know for a fact that all of the oils in this study were synthetic.

10w30
sample size 7
avg vis at 100 11.1
avg Fe/1000 miles 2.22
avg Pb/1000 miles 1.523
avg mileage 5158

5w30
sample size 8
avg vis at 100 9.63
avg Fe/1000 miles 3.57
avg Pb/1000 miles 0.342
avg mileage 7662

0w30
sample size 7
avg vis at 100 10.966
avg Fe/1000 miles 2.07
avg Pb/1000 miles 0.987
avg mileage 6077

0w40
sample size 6
avg vis at 100 11.98
avg Fe/1000 miles 1.83
avg Pb/1000 miles 0.29
avg mileage 5733

5w20
sample size 7
avg vis at 100 7.91
avg Fe/1000 miles 1.56
avg Pb/1000 miles 0.13
avg mileage 5400

0w20
sample size 7
avg vis at 100 8.58
avg Fe/1000 miles 1.257
avg Pb/1000 miles 0.62
avg mileage 10884


you will note that the 5w20 has the lowest Pb/1000 mile, and the 0w20 has the lowest Fe. the 0w20 numbers are skewed because most of the OAs were on Priuses, and the start stop cycle at each stop light will give you higher Pb. the inference i draw from this is that the lighter oils get pressure up quicker, establishing the hydrodynamic wedge sooner.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
People quote it here and at Noria all the time. How about this Pabs - since you have a financial stake in all this (wouldn't want any facts to hurt your sales) - disprove the allegation that is repeatedly thrown out there by many many knowledgeable tribologists that color safe bleach will outperform any motor oil in the ASTM D-4172 test, not just Amsoil.

It's marketing horse pucky and you know it. Why doesn't Amsoil, if they are the king of wear control, use their money and test Amsoil in the ASTM sequence IIIG test and compare to other brands, and publish the actual results. That would be a lot more credible since it's a test of engine oil IN AN ENGINE!!!

Valvoline apparently has done that with Synpower and they'd actually have credibility with their claims if they published the data right on their homepage.


1) I have not seen those claims from anyone except internet "experts" just throwing up stuff. Please find some solid references, at the very least. I didn't make the claim, but it's up to me to prove/disprove it? That's just wacky. I don't have time for that. I don't worry about facts hurting my sales.

2) It's not horse pucky. Please read the statement below. Amsoil NEVER once, ever claimed ASTM D-4172 is the be all, end all test for motor oil. It's just a test. It has weaknesses and strength. Amsoil tests to IIIG fairly regularly and has published the results from time to time. When they do, it seems people don't believe the facts there either.

3) I have read some recent statements attributed to Valvoline, but I've seen no data.

Quote:
The 4-ball test is not a test used to qualify lubricants for engines.
It is an anti-wear test that gives an indication of an oil's ability to
reduce and control wear when two metal surfaces come in contact with
each other. The 4-ball test is an ASTM test and does, in fact, have
good repeatability, more so than many anti-wear tests. The 4-ball has
value for racing applications, as those engines are under stress and
have a high likelihood of metal-to-metal contact. Reducing wear under
those conditions is favorable. The reason we use the test is to
demonstrate our anti-wear technology.

 

[Drew99GT]

Goodness, who else uses the timken bearing test to sell their wears? Duralube for cripes sake!

How about Rev er Up additive? 113 times better in the Timken test than Amsoil. Oooooooooooooooooh, if I fill my engine with Rev er Up, I'll get 113 times lower wear than Amsoil.

http://www.rev-er-up.com/compare.html

According to these folks, every conventional oil beats Amsoil in the 4 ball wear test. But who should I believe???

NO ONE. It's all marketing manure.

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
The source of iron has not been determined, as visual inspection of the engine did not indicate any abnormal wear or corrosion. In addition, elevated iron levels have not appeared in other test vehicles operating under 'aunt minnie' conditions."


Interesting. People are still saying the same thing about M1/Fe. It's not showing up as excessive wear when engines are tore down.

Valvoline really threw Mobil for a loop being they actually used the Seq IVA test which is an ASTM standard test, and quite severe from what I understand.


They did not throw them for a loop, they just ticked off a sleeping giant. Wait for the next round of ads from EM.

 

[Drew99GT]

"Amsoil tests to IIIG fairly regularly and has published the results from time to time"

Lets see them. I'd believe that more than the 4 ball, but any company that uses the 4 ball and touts it, then says "The 4-ball test is not a test used to qualify lubricants for engines" is suspicious to me.

By the way, I've always indicated here that i think Amsoil is an excellent product, eons better than Mobil 1, especially when Amsoil went SM/GF-4. I stated that in Bills Amsoil UOA post.

But their marketing is way over the top.

 

[pickled]

I remember seeing a document (g1916 from 2003) that had sequence III F SL testing for Amsoil 10W30, but I don't recall a ILSAC IIIG test being published. If you find it that would be pretty cool to see. Ah here's the III F results link...

SL testing IIIF for 10W30

 

[cheetahdriver]

amsoil dealers are a significant factor in the poor signal to noise ratio about oil on the internet. that in and of itself is one of the reasons i will not buy the product. i think they make some good stuff, along with some not so good stuff. it is merely impossible to tell when any mention of it gets pages of rah-rah garbage.

the four ball test is a good example of garbage. if i was running ball bearings in my engine, i might be interested. since i am not, it is almost as interesting as the suntan oil performance of amsoil.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: strombony
Given to vehicles driven under the same harsh conditions, extreme short trips in cold weather, and all year rounds. One with conventional and one with synthetic. Does the vehicle with synthetic get better wear protection given the oil is rarely heating up? I was under the impression that synthetic would offer better wear since it flows faster. And remember, we are talking about harsh conditions where the oil not heating up very much.


In average driving conditions out to say, 5,000 miles, I don't think one could prove synthetic oil protects an engine any better than a full PAO, $8/quart oil.

On the other hand, repeated starts in below 0 weather with short trips, extreme heat like Arizona where the engine is pushed and oil temps skyrocket, any kind of racing application where oil temps get way up there (sustained 250F and above), longer oil drains past 7500 miles etc. - then yes, synthetic will likely decrease wear and protect the engine better.

That's my take.

 

[buster]

Most oil companies will not reveal ASTM Seq data. Schaeffer's is the only company that does.

That type of data is probably only seen by the OEM's and oil producers.

 

[pickled]

To Quote Chevy Chase from the movie "Fletch"

"Its all ball bearings these days!" Off topic and sorry for the lack of rah-rah LOL! If I were to use amsoil for SPF I am quite sure I would use the series 2000 racing grease..it has displayed excellent ASTM D-217 results and also resists water washout well

 

[buster]

No matter what one thinks of the 4-ball wear test, nothing beats the tear down and that is how engine wear/lubrication performance are ultimately determined. Oil analyis samples are taken here and there but are by no means the "end all of testing. I think everyone agrees on that part.

 

[cheetahdriver]

absolutely correct, buster. a point that is often missed...

 

[SonyAD]

Porsche do tear down test. I know that for sure.
I believe so do VW, Mercedes Benz and BMW in their engine lubricant approval programs.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I would say no. Synthetic is about how long it can stay in the sump and still protect and how much cleaner your engine will stay! The wear protection is all additive package and HTHS related. I could have bruce mix up a conventional oil that would produce kick Amsoils but but for how long? The only time the base stock in questions really helps to determine wear numbers is at the outer limits of the oils capabilities ie super hot heavy load or artic cold conditions.Seeing how we have such silly low speed limits in the USA and few people track their car's seldom does anyone ever need the extra performance of a synthetic!!

Now prior to the "Anti-C H R I S T" inspired SM rules that effective knee caped synthetics that wanted to be API aproved for new vechile use synthetics rocked! Most synthetics like M1 and Amsoil had really beefy additive packages and this more then anything is what allowed them to kick the snot out of then $.35 a quart conventional oils in terms of wear. Now that M1 and all your other API certified synthetic have about the same additive package as their conventional competition on the shelf the main difference is cleanliness. Even Amsoil has reduced their additives in their PCMO which in my opinion is a big mistake. Do not get me wrong SM was a huge improvment for conventional oils but it really weakened the synthics in my opinion!

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Even Amsoil has reduced their additives in their PCMO which in my opinion is a big mistake.

The ones that show up on a used oil analysis. It is very apparent that they have made up for these other ways.

As far as the bleach on the Timken tester, I believe sprintman tried it on one and stated that it was "rubbish" as I recall.

 

[JohnBrowning]

In fact maybe this comeing summer I will prove the point. I will use a G-II+ with a beefy additive package and I know I can produce insane super low wear numbers. I always drive agressively so it is not like I am a taxi fleet idleing all day long staying under 25 MPH in New York traffic. If Pablo is game and wants to send me any Amsoil product to run after my conventional run free of charge I will gladly run it in my car and do a used oil analysis. All I ask is that it be safe to run in Michigans coul climate so anything from 0W30 up to 5W40 would be suitable for use in my Camry.

For crying out loud we have already seen that if you use a shear stable GII and a decent additive package most cars can handle 5W20 so why would a daily driver not doing extended drains benifit from a PAO. Now if we where talking about long term health and cleanliness of the engine and things like that or extrems then it would make sense.

I do not have a vested intrest though in synthetic oil! I use it because that is my preference. To many vechiles have gone 300,000-500,000 miles on conventional oils with short OCI's to really think your engine is going to wear out if you do not use synthetic! Look at bill_in_Utah he consistently gets low wear numbers with $.49 a quart conventional oil!

 

[buster]

JohnBrowing, you used to be against 20 grade oils, yet engines are lasting longer than ever. Now you are against SM ZDP levels?

ZDP is the most cost effective AW additive. There are others. Why the obsession with ZDP? If you don't have a flat tappet cam, you don't gain much of anything. As I said before, the data shows engines are lasting longer then they ever have due to many reasons, better lubrication being one of them.

 

[buster]

 

[pickled]

Wow stay away from that Pennzoil cuz it's bad stuff

 

[buster]

Quote:
Mobilgrease Special
Gray-Black Color, Visual
280 Penetration, Worked, 25º C, ASTM D 217, mm/10
190 Dropping Point, ºC, ASTM D 2265
Viscosity of Oil, ASTM D 445
160 CSt @ 40º C
250
4-Ball EP, ASTM D 2596, Weld Point, Kg 0.4
4-Ball Wear test, ASTM D 2266, Scar, mm
40 Timken OK Load, ASTM D 2509, Lbs
Rust Test Pass


Mobil uses the 4 ball wear test for grease and gear oils, not motor oils.

http://www.mobil.com/Canada-English/Lubes/PDS/IOCAENPVLMOMobil_1_Synthetic_Grease.asp