Tech Facts, Not Myths

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
More zinc provides “longer” wear protection, NOT “more” wear protection. So, if someone tells you that you must have a high level of zinc for sufficient wear protection, no matter who they are, or no matter what Company they may represent, DO NOT believe it. Because they are proving that they DO NOT understand how zinc really works, and are only repeating the same old wives’ tale with absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

I’ve also “wear tested” a handful of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, this is even further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability.


Why should I believe the guy telling me not to believe anyone?
 
/Rant On

Far be it for me to make the claim that I am "perfect" in this aspect and I will not contest his results (though they seem more of a sales pitch than a scientific test routine). However, for a supposedly "working Professional Degreed Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder, who deals with Engineering technical matters for a living", his sentence structure and vocabulary make him appear far less educated than he is touting to be.

I realize an Internet posting can lead one to be casual, but most engineers that I know (especially those attempting to prove an argument) would not describe themselves using the text above and would not make a point worded in a manner like this:

Quote:
For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost.

Some of his points are interesting, but would likely be shredded in a peer review (which is what he should do if he truly wants to "validate" his paper and have it be credible).

/Rant Off
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
/Rant On

Far be it for me to make the claim that I am "perfect" in this aspect and I will not contest his results (though they seem more of a sales pitch than a scientific test routine). However, for a supposedly "working Professional Degreed Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder, who deals with Engineering technical matters for a living", his sentence structure and vocabulary make him appear far less educated than he is touting to be.

I realize an Internet posting can lead one to be casual, but most engineers that I know (especially those attempting to prove an argument) would not describe themselves using the text above and would not make a point worded in a manner like this:

Quote:
For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost.

Some of his points are interesting, but would likely be shredded in a peer review (which is what he should do if he truly wants to "validate" his paper and have it be credible).

/Rant Off


I thought the same thing when I read it, still it was somewhat interesting.
 
Hey says that *thinner oil provides the best wear,period* basically,BUT says this:

"Chrysler is so impressed with Pennzoil Ultra, that they selected the 0W40 version of it as the only Factory Fill oil for their latest 8.4L, 640 HP, V-10, 200+ mph, Dodge SRT Viper."

So then why doesn`t Chrysler use Ultra in a 20 or 30 weight,BUT uses a thicker 0W40?

He needs to seach the UOA`s here and see my perfect UOA with RP SJ rated Synerlec 20W50. Thick AND loaded with zinc and moly :^)
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Hey says that *thinner oil provides the best wear,period* basically,BUT says this:

"Chrysler is so impressed with Pennzoil Ultra, that they selected the 0W40 version of it as the only Factory Fill oil for their latest 8.4L, 640 HP, V-10, 200+ mph, Dodge SRT Viper."

So then why doesn`t Chrysler use Ultra in a 20 or 30 weight,BUT uses a thicker 0W40?


I picked up on that as well.
 
Quote:
those who know me personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by posting data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear...


Yes I can see that 540RAT would not want to jeopardize his reputation or integrity!
lol.gif


Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: TechnoLoGs
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Hmmm... he ranks M1 5w30 above Amsoil Signature Series 0w30...

35.gif



I can go to store and buy M1 WITHOUT planning in advance. So, +1
M1 also has 0W-30 as does Redline. Royal Purple does not.


Store availability and what options oil companies provide have absolutely nothing to do with this testing.
 
That's good, because the types of cars that you are likely to be able to drive with those oils has nothing to do with the testing either...

Could be testing unicorn snot for sleigh grease really.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Quote:
those who know me personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by posting data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear...


Yes I can see that 540RAT would not want to jeopardize his reputation or integrity!
lol.gif


Tom NJ


LOL
 
I have seen this guys posts on other forums his "research" is flawed. He seems to equate film strength with wear protection. There are plenty of reasons why bearings lose the protective oil film and I imagine being pushed out by cylinder pressure is low on the list.

Fyi he does use a modified "one armed bandit" he outlined his methods of testing on another forum it involves a torque wrench acting on the load tester with oil heated to operating temp.

I admire his curiousity but I think this test holds even less weight than the russian scorched earth test. Its interesting but it doesn't prove anything
 
Originally Posted By: volk06
The ZDDP bonds to the engine surfaces. This shows that a lot of zinc is sometime detrimental to protecting an engine.

Except that his test in no way could show that. It's not like he had an extraordinarily high ZDDP oil in contact with engine components long enough to display cam spalling. Besides, that's already been demonstrated and we don't need it to be shown again even if that were his goal.
 
I would like to see a list of typical pressure levels in an engine. if a 100,000 psi film strength oil is needed because of the engine design then by all means use it. But what if the pressure in the engine never passes 75,000 psi? then is any oil over 75k perfectly good? or is higher always better?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's not a 1 arm bandit, but we can't show you what it is....and has about the same relevance to what goes on in an engine as one.

If you are exploring film strength, you've lost the lubrication game in a street engine.

Plus some of his concluding statements have zero relevance to the test regime, or the apparent advertorial for an oil additive.


+1
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's not a 1 arm bandit, but we can't show you what it is....and has about the same relevance to what goes on in an engine as one.


To me, this sounds a little like it.

Quote:
The “dynamic wear testing under load” I use, is intentionally designed to find the SPECIFIC LIMIT of each individual oil’s “Load carrying capacity/film strength”, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. Or in other words, to determine each oil’s “wear protection capability” psi value, which can be compared to any other oil tested on the same equipment. The results that come out of my testing are NOT my opinion, and they are NOT my theory. They are the FACTS that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the tests.

Performing “dynamic wear testing under load”, is the ONLY TYPE OF TESTING that will provide accurate data regarding an oil’s film strength. Dynamically testing motor oil under load, is the same concept as dynamically testing an engine under load on a dyno. That is the only way to truly find accurate performance data of a motor oil, or of an engine.
 
All that writing, and never once does he define what he means by "high" and "low" zinc content.

And he seems to be unaware that Phosphorous is the parameter that is used to track zddp content.

He also doesn't seem to realize that there are differenct types of zddp. Some are activated at low temperatures and some activate at high temperatures. I wonder if his test procedure took that into account.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
That's good, because the types of cars that you are likely to be able to drive with those oils has nothing to do with the testing either...

Could be testing unicorn snot for sleigh grease really.


Exactly. Imagining that Chrysler's SRT group chose Ultra because it's the BEST oil is just another nail in his coffin.

Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff...
 
I'll give him credit for one of the most ironically-named article titles I've seen in quite a while.
 
One (of many) red flags in the article for me is that he is ranking oil quality based on one single parameter. That's as foolish as ranking oils according to just TBN level, pour point, or whatever.

His number 10 oil, Motorcraft 5W50 has a very well established reputation of shearing to 40 grade or lower in very few miles of use. While the shearing may not reflect use results, it's still not a good trait for a "best oil".

I do give him credit for crafting a very good sales pitch (for the uninformed).
 
This is a good example of the difference between listening to a mechanic / someone who is mechanically inclined vs a true engineer / expert in their field.

Drawing any conclusions out of this would be a mistake. I am sure you could run a test that shows lighter oils are better and another test that shows heavier oils are better.

But before relying on any test, you should be asking yourself if it is the right test!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top