Test shows Mobil Super 3000 5W40 beats Mobil1 0W40
- Thread starter DrRoughneck
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: skyactiv
Doesn't Selsun Blue protect better than motor oil, even though you'd never use it in an engine?
Does this tie in with Merk post about dandruff?.
Yup. Trying to cut down on the number of different bottles that you have to stock. It also works as a dishwasher detergent, mouthwash, toilet bowl cleaner, salad dressing, and laxative (so I hear).
Originally Posted By: skyactiv
Doesn't Selsun Blue protect better than motor oil, even though you'd never use it in an engine?
Does this tie in with Merk post about dandruff?.
Yup. Trying to cut down on the number of different bottles that you have to stock. It also works as a dishwasher detergent, mouthwash, toilet bowl cleaner, salad dressing, and laxative (so I hear).
Such a scientific approach carried out by DIY testing and measuring equipment - THIS enthusiasms can't be beat!
Well done job - however it's clear: we must take consideration other feature of the oils circulates under high pressure and temperature for much longer time.
Well done job - however it's clear: we must take consideration other feature of the oils circulates under high pressure and temperature for much longer time.
Originally Posted By: Charlie1935
Do I read this right that there is 41 seconds difference time in the tests? Would that not make a difference?
No. They both ran exactly 1 minute from start until seizure.
To me that means that the oils worked similarly. For this test, probably any SN motor oil would have had similar results. What difference does it make how big the wear scar is as seizure is seizure? From that point on your "machine" is toast.
Since there's no temperature measured in this other than ambient, one must figure this test is measuring the cold warmup period in your engine within the first minute or two of startup, preferably before any oil pressure is applied. Hard to say if the load on your bearings would be anything close to what this lad has applied to the fulcrum of his machine. Since our vehicles usually don't routinely seize up bearings at 60-100 deg F during startup, the test seems to have limited applicability.
At least the RAT understood the need to test friction at 230/275 deg F where the likelihood of bearing seizure/tappet friction is much higher due to reduced film strength. I use Pantene Pro-V classic clean Shampoo in all my car engines, as it gives the highest protection from shearing.
Do I read this right that there is 41 seconds difference time in the tests? Would that not make a difference?
No. They both ran exactly 1 minute from start until seizure.
To me that means that the oils worked similarly. For this test, probably any SN motor oil would have had similar results. What difference does it make how big the wear scar is as seizure is seizure? From that point on your "machine" is toast.
Since there's no temperature measured in this other than ambient, one must figure this test is measuring the cold warmup period in your engine within the first minute or two of startup, preferably before any oil pressure is applied. Hard to say if the load on your bearings would be anything close to what this lad has applied to the fulcrum of his machine. Since our vehicles usually don't routinely seize up bearings at 60-100 deg F during startup, the test seems to have limited applicability.
At least the RAT understood the need to test friction at 230/275 deg F where the likelihood of bearing seizure/tappet friction is much higher due to reduced film strength. I use Pantene Pro-V classic clean Shampoo in all my car engines, as it gives the highest protection from shearing.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
Thanks for that link, Tig1. I stand corrected.
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
Thanks for that link, Tig1. I stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Yup. Trying to cut down on the number of different bottles that you have to stock. It also works as a dishwasher detergent, mouthwash, toilet bowl cleaner, salad dressing, and laxative (so I hear).
It only works as a laxative if it doesn't work as a purgatory first...
;^)
Yup. Trying to cut down on the number of different bottles that you have to stock. It also works as a dishwasher detergent, mouthwash, toilet bowl cleaner, salad dressing, and laxative (so I hear).
It only works as a laxative if it doesn't work as a purgatory first...
;^)
Originally Posted By: 4WD
"Combustion engine" as in ICE ... how many times has Shannow explained hydrodynamics inside a bearing annulus ... ?
He explains it at least annulusally...
(ok, kind of weak)
"Combustion engine" as in ICE ... how many times has Shannow explained hydrodynamics inside a bearing annulus ... ?
He explains it at least annulusally...
(ok, kind of weak)
Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
But they're very helpful in selling something in an infomercial type environment.
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
But they're very helpful in selling something in an infomercial type environment.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: Charlie1935
Do I read this right that there is 41 seconds difference time in the tests? Would that not make a difference?
No. They both ran exactly 1 minute from start until seizure.
From the description in the videos, the machine was ran for 1 minute then shut off ... seizure didn't stop the test.
Originally Posted By: Charlie1935
Do I read this right that there is 41 seconds difference time in the tests? Would that not make a difference?
No. They both ran exactly 1 minute from start until seizure.
From the description in the videos, the machine was ran for 1 minute then shut off ... seizure didn't stop the test.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
This tester looks to handle both EP and AW testing. They make no specific distinction on what lubricants it can or can't test - it's touted as a "universal" tester. So seems you could use it for comparing engine oils ... don't see why not.
http://www.tribologia.eu/ptt/inst/rad/T-02U-eng.pdf
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
This tester looks to handle both EP and AW testing. They make no specific distinction on what lubricants it can or can't test - it's touted as a "universal" tester. So seems you could use it for comparing engine oils ... don't see why not.
http://www.tribologia.eu/ptt/inst/rad/T-02U-eng.pdf
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Man, the stuff people believe in regards to motor oil performance is just... wow.
Go by proven specifications and approvals instead of state fair performances.
I love to buy stuff from the slice-em, dice-em guys and gals. It's stuff I can't get most anywhere else...
Man, the stuff people believe in regards to motor oil performance is just... wow.
Go by proven specifications and approvals instead of state fair performances.
I love to buy stuff from the slice-em, dice-em guys and gals. It's stuff I can't get most anywhere else...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
This tester looks to handle both EP and AW testing. They make no specific distinction on what lubricants it can or can't test - it's touted as a "universal" tester. So seems you could use it for comparing engine oils ... don't see why not.
http://www.tribologia.eu/ptt/inst/rad/T-02U-eng.pdf
I took a quick peek at the ASTM standards mentioned in that PDF:
ASTM D2783
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 This test method, used for specification purposes, differentiates between lubricating fluids having low, medium, and high level of extreme-pressure properties. The user of this method should determine to his own satisfaction whether results of this test procedure correlate with field performance or other bench test machines.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the load-carrying properties of lubricating fluids. The following two determinations are made:
1.1.1 Load-wear index (formerly Mean-Hertz load).
1.1.2 Weld point by means of the four-ball extreme-pressure (EP) tester.
ASTM D2596
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 This test method, used for specification purposes, differentiates between lubricating greases having low, medium, and high level of extreme-pressure properties. The results do not necessarily correlate with results from service.3
5.2 It is noted that lubricating greases that have as their fluid component a silicone, halogenated silicone, or a mixture comprising silicone fluid and petroleum oil, are not applicable to this method of test.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the load-carrying properties of lubricating greases. Three determinations are made:
1.1.1 Load-Wear Index (formerly called Mean-Hertz Load),
1.1.2 Weld Point, by means of the Four-Ball Extreme-Pressure (EP) Tester, and
1.1.3 Last nonseizure load (LNSL).
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.
ASTM D4172
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 This test method can be used to determine the relative wear preventive properties of lubricating fluids in sliding contact under the prescribed test conditions. No attempt has been made to correlate this test with balls in rolling contact. The user of this test method should determine to his own satisfaction whether results of this test procedure correlate with field performance or other bench test machines.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D2266.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
ASDM D2266
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 The four-ball wear-test method can be used to determine the relative wear-preventing properties of greases under the test conditions and if the test conditions are changed the relative ratings may be different. No correlation has been established between the four-ball wear test and field service. The test method cannot be used to differentiate between Extreme Pressure (EP) and Non-Extreme Pressure (Non-EP) Greases.4
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the wear preventive characteristics of greases in sliding steel-on-steel applications. It is not intended to predict wear characteristics with metal combinations other than steel-on-steel or to evaluate the extreme pressure characteristics of the grease.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard except where the test apparatus or consumable parts are only available in other units. In such cases, these will be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
So, obviously the ones we are interested in are ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172, as those specify fluid rather than grease.
For D4172, Mobil has the following fluid:
Quote:
Mobil Glygoyle™ 11, 22, and 30 oils are polyalkyleneglycol-based (PAG) high performance lubricants that provide outstanding lubrication in extreme-temperature gear, bearing and circulation system applications in conditions well beyond the capabilities of mineral oils. They are shear-stable and have outstanding resistance to thermal degradation, oxidation and the formation of sludge and deposits. They incorporate a proprietary additive package designed to enhance EP/anti-wear protection, corrosion and rust protection and foam resistance without detracting from the intrinsic attributes of the PAG base oils.
For D2783, Mobil has the following fluid:
Quote:
The Mobil SHC Gear 1500, 3200, and 6800 find application in a wide range of enclosed gear applications, as well as plain and rolling element bearings. Because of the very high viscosities they can meet the lubrication needs of very slow speed and high load/high temperature gears and bearings; they are ideal for situations in which conventional products operate in the boundary regime. There may be situations where a lubricant bath or recirculation system is used to apply the oil.
I cannot find any examples from the majors of these protocols being used on products that are not industrial lubricants of this type. This reinforces the statement from Mobil regarding the applicability of this test.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Here is a link from M1 concerning these friction type test that have nothing to do with engine oil. These test are designed for gear lube and such, not engine oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...th-royal-purple
This tester looks to handle both EP and AW testing. They make no specific distinction on what lubricants it can or can't test - it's touted as a "universal" tester. So seems you could use it for comparing engine oils ... don't see why not.
http://www.tribologia.eu/ptt/inst/rad/T-02U-eng.pdf
I took a quick peek at the ASTM standards mentioned in that PDF:
ASTM D2783
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 This test method, used for specification purposes, differentiates between lubricating fluids having low, medium, and high level of extreme-pressure properties. The user of this method should determine to his own satisfaction whether results of this test procedure correlate with field performance or other bench test machines.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the load-carrying properties of lubricating fluids. The following two determinations are made:
1.1.1 Load-wear index (formerly Mean-Hertz load).
1.1.2 Weld point by means of the four-ball extreme-pressure (EP) tester.
ASTM D2596
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 This test method, used for specification purposes, differentiates between lubricating greases having low, medium, and high level of extreme-pressure properties. The results do not necessarily correlate with results from service.3
5.2 It is noted that lubricating greases that have as their fluid component a silicone, halogenated silicone, or a mixture comprising silicone fluid and petroleum oil, are not applicable to this method of test.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the load-carrying properties of lubricating greases. Three determinations are made:
1.1.1 Load-Wear Index (formerly called Mean-Hertz Load),
1.1.2 Weld Point, by means of the Four-Ball Extreme-Pressure (EP) Tester, and
1.1.3 Last nonseizure load (LNSL).
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.
ASTM D4172
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 This test method can be used to determine the relative wear preventive properties of lubricating fluids in sliding contact under the prescribed test conditions. No attempt has been made to correlate this test with balls in rolling contact. The user of this test method should determine to his own satisfaction whether results of this test procedure correlate with field performance or other bench test machines.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D2266.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
ASDM D2266
Quote:
Significance and Use
5.1 The four-ball wear-test method can be used to determine the relative wear-preventing properties of greases under the test conditions and if the test conditions are changed the relative ratings may be different. No correlation has been established between the four-ball wear test and field service. The test method cannot be used to differentiate between Extreme Pressure (EP) and Non-Extreme Pressure (Non-EP) Greases.4
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the wear preventive characteristics of greases in sliding steel-on-steel applications. It is not intended to predict wear characteristics with metal combinations other than steel-on-steel or to evaluate the extreme pressure characteristics of the grease.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard except where the test apparatus or consumable parts are only available in other units. In such cases, these will be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
So, obviously the ones we are interested in are ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172, as those specify fluid rather than grease.
For D4172, Mobil has the following fluid:
Quote:
Mobil Glygoyle™ 11, 22, and 30 oils are polyalkyleneglycol-based (PAG) high performance lubricants that provide outstanding lubrication in extreme-temperature gear, bearing and circulation system applications in conditions well beyond the capabilities of mineral oils. They are shear-stable and have outstanding resistance to thermal degradation, oxidation and the formation of sludge and deposits. They incorporate a proprietary additive package designed to enhance EP/anti-wear protection, corrosion and rust protection and foam resistance without detracting from the intrinsic attributes of the PAG base oils.
For D2783, Mobil has the following fluid:
Quote:
The Mobil SHC Gear 1500, 3200, and 6800 find application in a wide range of enclosed gear applications, as well as plain and rolling element bearings. Because of the very high viscosities they can meet the lubrication needs of very slow speed and high load/high temperature gears and bearings; they are ideal for situations in which conventional products operate in the boundary regime. There may be situations where a lubricant bath or recirculation system is used to apply the oil.
I cannot find any examples from the majors of these protocols being used on products that are not industrial lubricants of this type. This reinforces the statement from Mobil regarding the applicability of this test.
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
Note that I'm not saying they can't be used on your typical motor oils, simply that there are no examples of it being used in that manner from any of the majors. Every example I've found has been like the above, which supports Mobil's statement as to why these protocols are not generally used on motor oils.
And you are quite welcome.
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
Note that I'm not saying they can't be used on your typical motor oils, simply that there are no examples of it being used in that manner from any of the majors. Every example I've found has been like the above, which supports Mobil's statement as to why these protocols are not generally used on motor oils.
And you are quite welcome.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
Another test that can't be found is a taste test. It doesn't mean it can't be used on typical motor oils.
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
Another test that can't be found is a taste test. It doesn't mean it can't be used on typical motor oils.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
Note that I'm not saying they can't be used on your typical motor oils, simply that there are no examples of it being used in that manner from any of the majors. Every example I've found has been like the above, which supports Mobil's statement as to why these protocols are not generally used on motor oils.
And you are quite welcome.
On the same page with you OVERKILL. Appreciate your inputs.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Just because you can't find any Mobil products referencing ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 doesn't mean those tests can't be used on typical motor oils. ASTM D2783 and ASTM D4172 makes no specific statement on what lubricants can or can not be tested under those test procedures. Thanks for digging up that info though.
Note that I'm not saying they can't be used on your typical motor oils, simply that there are no examples of it being used in that manner from any of the majors. Every example I've found has been like the above, which supports Mobil's statement as to why these protocols are not generally used on motor oils.
And you are quite welcome.
On the same page with you OVERKILL. Appreciate your inputs.
His machine is nearly identical to the o...il shear".
So I guess it must be a fairly authoritative way to measure things:
So I guess it must be a fairly authoritative way to measure things:
- Status
