Oil Tests - long read

sdeeter19555 · August 24, 2016

I have only read bits and pieces of the following document, but the oil test results are kinda interesting. The thing printed is 202 pages, the oil test results start around page 80 or so.

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/motor-oil-wear-test-ranking/

I for one have ran Schaeffers oil in almost everything for the last ten years, and only because of cost; have I recently returned to Mobil 1 (for engine oil anyway). It was interesting to see just where some "great" oils ranked. I have not had an oil related failure, so a "good" oil must be alright for most. Another interesting part was his thoughts on OCIs...no more than 5000 miles for ANY oil, regardless.

Thoughts?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Grumpy Bear · August 24, 2016

What's to say? Some of the results were surpising but the methods and reason seem flawless. I'm a stationary power plant engineer, retired with 35 years in refining and chemical industries. Over half that with Chevron Research and Chevron USA. I've run 10 W 40 weight Redline in my Twin Cam Harley bagger since 2005 and the Sportster since 2002 and came to the same conclusions on many of his points. Like cooling and wear rates vs viscosity.

It was nice to see a cheaper oil placed higher than the Mobil 1 I've been running.

barry G · August 25, 2016

that guy was bored.

I was a quick lube grunt, 40 cars a day many days.

at about a yea rin, the boss told me I serviced 1500...

I then went another few months. I was age 20 in 1993 to take on that low paying job.

A time when mobil 1 was just getting going. the gm manual tranny had a super fluid invented..

..and some engines needed oil that broke down into carbon (old subaru for example), and old nitrile seal engines, the seals failed on synthetic. Needed crap carbon to keep them full.

the only error i found is similar to his findings.. there is no better oil than the other in its liquid state.

it can only change to chemistry.

I then learned recycled oil simply uses a catalyst screen like stainless steel, and adds the advertised braggin rights additives back in...

resells.

first thing I did was find a billet filter to help cool, and a 20 micron stainless mesh.. only for my rare or favorite engines.

I took an oil interval to 6000 miles...just last week. my 96 truck. Mobil 1.

-18F to 100 above. (october to august - 10 months)

10w30 is challenged at 18 below..but for an iron v8, it really does not notice. the stainless smashes into molecular in a hurry anyway.

the only finding in the filter?

carbon traces left behind in the white pot I used as contrast to see what was in it after cleaning.I agree with his 5k interval, only for that reason. The filter still won however..never let it back in.

synthetic is greatness, he did prove that

.

Grumpy Bear · August 29, 2016

Why do engine parts need lubrication? Sound like a silly question?

Sounds about as silly as trusting likes, tweets, shares and thumbs up hits to make decisions about something as important as motor oil or brain surgery.

That is exactly what a consumer review is and exactly what this isn’t. A consumer review is what the average Joe likes or dislikes about an item or topic he or she hasn’t a clue about. A “Family Feud” survey of the top X percentage of opinions says...

In a subjective survey such as what is your favorite flavor of ice cream “The Survey Says” answer chocolate, for example, is meaningless if you personally like vanilla better. If your making your subjective choices actually based on any survey then you have bigger issues to worry about. Like identity validation.

Anecdotal evidence sharing in a scientific inquiry is as useless as “The Survey Says”.

A fella who is actually qualified to do such a scientific study does so to educate HIMSELF. That kids is important.

He didn’t do it for you. He shared it with you.

He has no vested interest in you accepting the results. He didn’t buy your car/truck/bike and he won’t be hurt by your decisions one way or the other. He isn’t paid by those whose products he test. He has no investment in even defending his results outside his egos needs.

Those yelping the loudest on other boards about his methods, equipment, and even qualifications who are demanding an accounting are not themselves qualified to even understand ANY offer of proof he would share. If they were they wouldn’t be attacking him. They would be in the lab with him or in some way his work. Some things don’t take a huge amount of thought.

When a fella such as Rat540 does a work he loves that cuts against the grain…that is to say when science voids anecdotal experience, preferences and voiced opinion then those individuals are the ones with an axe to grind, are they not?

In the many write ups he has done he ask the most basic question that can be asked. What is an oils most important property and why hasn’t any one, and I mean anyone given the topic is due for the hundred plus years the oil companies have been doling out marketing smoke to an ignorant public?

Do not kid yourself. They, the oil companies do this testing. Shell four ball and the Timken test. They know exactly where the chips fall. Not a one of them is willing to play “Pick Up Sticks”. There is only one winner in that game and margins are their ruler. Not the truth.

The answer to the opening question is; to keep moving parts apart. His test and results are an answer to the question unasked. Are they THE answer? What else with tooth have you to work with?

Without ever meeting the man or ever conversing with him you can tell from his rhetoric and method he has an education in a field of substance that covers this topic. As his top answer has changed from printing to printing and from company to company he isn’t on anyone’s payroll. What he is, is a man on a mission. Cut him some slack, Enjoy the read and ignore his egos need to justify his results to an ignorant and unappreciative public.

Ya asked for “thoughts”. There are mine.

Cowpie · September 4, 2016

Right away I caught an error they made in that paper. They stated that Group V are synthetic base stocks other than PAO. Wrong. Group V is a inclusive group that includes everything that doesn't fit in the other groups.

The author seems to concentrate his efforts on ZDDP levels. That is not a total story. Moly and Boron offer properties that complement of replace the need for ZDDP. I could not see one instance of him mentioning levels of boron. Without testing for that, which many oils use varying amounts of it, to equate wear protection with ZDDP is skewed.

He mentioned that used oil analysis doesn't really give a clear picture. On one level he would be correct, but I am not sure he knows the proper way to utilize UOA information. You do regular UOA's to develop trend lines in the samples and track deviations in the samples looking for the relationship between engine and oil to determine proper drain intervals. A UOA could show the oil as still good, but based on deviations from the trend line, your engine could be telling you it wants the oil changed. No mention of this primary aspect of UOA's.

I do concur with him that thicker does not mean better. I have found that 30w oils fulfill all my needs from my JD Gator UTV on up thru my commercial semi truck. The paper is a interesting read, but hasn't changed anything about how I select oils for my applications.

Grumpy Bear, you mention the 4-ball and timken bearing test. The 4 ball is only applicable to gear driven components like differentials, wheel bearings, etc. Hardly anyone really relies on the 4-ball thing for motor oils. And the timken bearing test thing? If it is something substantive, then why is it referred to the "one armed bandit" in oil industry circles? A little slight of hand stuff with a Timken Bearing Machine, and it can be made to show that Head and Shoulders shampoo does better than a top end synthetic motor oil.

Here is a good video that shows this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5WXbj5jbN8

sdeeter19555 · September 4, 2016

I thought that was more of the statement he made about ZDDP, that it isn't THE anti-wear component anymore, and that more isn't better? I took away from his discussion that ZDDP is not the determining factor if an oil is good or not.

I had already learned that thicker isn't better...that is old news. I was surprised to see how well the 30Ws did against the 20Ws though. It was also impressive to see that diesel oils, that were long thought of as being "more robust" than gasoline oils were not nearly as impressive as they should have been.

It was also neat to see all these oils tested on one test stand...one would hope there is uniformity in that and the results could be comparable.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

SnakeEyeSS · September 5, 2016

I remember when I was struggling to get people (around here?) to understand the landmark Mobil vs Castrol lawsuit over group III vs IV YEARS ago. (TLDR version, A lot of people didn't realize Mobil 1 had changed as a result, and that's why EP exists now)

elcamino · September 5, 2016

Fyi

There was never any lawsuit between Mobil and Castrol. Mobil claimed Castrol was using false advertising. It was a decision by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. It was all about advertising.

To explain this 2 magazine articles and here is a snippet from those..

Moment for

SYNTHETICS

By Katherine Bui

While the field is not wide open, a new ruling confirms that the definition of "synthetic" is still largely in the hands of marketers.

Part 1 of 2

The Ruling

In a ruling released April 1999, the NAD addressed complaints filed by Mobil Oil Corp. regarding the truthfulness of Castrol North America Inc.'s claim that its Syntec® provides "superior engine protection" to all other motor oils, both synthetic and conventional, and that Syntec's esters provide "unique molecular bonding." Mobil charged that the advertisements inaccurately represented that the current formulation of Syntec is synthetic. The challenge was filed based on statements Castrol made in a series of television commercials, Web site publications, package labels, and brochures.

The Complaint
Mobil's Position
Mobil contended that Castrol misleads consumers that Syntec is a fully synthetic motor oil despite the fact that Syntec is no longer synthetic. The challenger alleged that after years of manufacturing Syntec with PAO, Castrol replaced the PAO, which had constituted nearly 70% of the volume of the product, with hydroprocessed mineral oil in approximately December 1997. As a result of an independent laboratory test conducted by Savant Inc., Mobil maintained that samples of Syntec purchased in June and December 1997 contained 93% and 80% PAO. Other samples of Syntec, one purchased in December 1997 and four purchased in 1998, contained no PAO, and instead contained 100% mineral oil.

Furthermore, Mobil alleged that Castrol degraded Syntec by substituting hydroprocessed mineral oil for PAO to the detriment of the consumer. Even though Syntec was able to meet the minimum industry standards, Mobil contended that in no way does it prove the current Syntec is as good as it was when it was made with PAO.

sdeeter19555 · September 5, 2016

The results of one "lawsuit" was a disclaimer on Mobil 1 bottles "Synthetic*" which was qualified with "*exclusive of carrier oil". And it was a lawsuit, not just a grievance...that was actually a suit against Mobil 1 at the time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Grumpy Bear · September 5, 2016

How would we suggest testing the strength of a film without placing it between two surfaces and applying pressure until it ruptures? Or testing compressive strengths of materials without a squeeze until it crumbles or tensile without a stretch until it snaps? Torsional loads without a twist or defection without a bend until it fractures? Company A says balls are best. B says cones. C says cylinders and yet another spouts plates. Each slings mud at the other. If it sounds like a political debate its because it is. These tools were developed to help men understand the nature of materials. Marketing types have distorted these tools function to tell us something of the nature of men and to play on their weaknesses.

I take little interest in "claims" and debates over same. I prefer results. Independent testing doesn't claim anything. I lays out results of some test and the reader supplies the interpretation. I read his papers. Made my observations and am moving on.

SnakeEyeSS · September 16, 2016

Real world results and oil analysis of using the Honda Maintenance Minder system(built in oil life monitor). On the 4 cylinders people it tells people to change the oil on average every 10k miles by the MM (or 12 months regardless of maintenance minder).

http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/86-9th-generation/425370-3rd-oil-analysis-%4031k-miles.html

diyer2 · September 16, 2016

IMO if the oil meets the standard required for the motor it's fine. Just change it and the filter at your desired intervals, which is another choice. I have used a lot of different brands over the years, even Supertech from Walmart and never had an issue with a failure of any type.

Cowpie · September 17, 2016

All sounds nice and simple, but it isn't. There is a heck of a lot more to glean from an oil sample than whether the oil is still technically "good".

For my commercial stuff, I run samples at every oil change. I follow trend lines in the samples. In my Detroit 12.7L engine, for instance, the OEM recommended drain interval is 15,000 miles / 300 hrs. Thru numerous oil samples, I have zeroed in on 22,500 miles / 450 hrs. Up to that point, there is nice uniform trend lines in wear metals, TBN depletion, etc. After that point, there are slight but noticeable deviations from those trend lines. Slight uptick in wear metal rates, and slight but noticeable increase in TBN depletion. The engine, in its own nice way, is letting me know it wants to sever the current relationship with the oil in it. So I oblige my engine and change it. The oil is still "technically" good. But that doesn't mean it actually is wise to keep using it. Just a cursory look at an oil sample doesn't give a good picture of anything. You have to track samples over time and read the signs that the reports are giving you. It is as much an art form as it is a science.

I guess it is ok for others to play fast and loose with oil change intervals. But a reman Detroit 60 crate engine is going to run me $25K, not including install and equipment downtime and lost revenue. I pay attention to what the oil samples are showing me in subtle ways. My Cadillac and Silverado.... I just change at 5,000 miles and call it a day. That fits my normal time pattern to do complete under chassis inspections and greasing, if applicable. Might as well change the oil while I am there.

elcamino · September 17, 2016

The results of one "lawsuit" was a disclaimer on Mobil 1 bottles "Synthetic*" which was qualified with "*exclusive of carrier oil". And it was a lawsuit, not just a grievance...that was actually a suit against Mobil 1 at the time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

That's a myth....

This ruling has no "legal" standing. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil.

The notion that there was some sort of lawsuit regarding the use of the term synthetic still persists and is attaining "urban legend" status.

There was not and never has been any suit AT LAW regarding the use of the term "synthetic" for Group III base oil, and no court or ALJ has made a ruling on this matter. Mobil simply filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau in the US claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was now being made with Group III base oil. Castrol was able to present enough "evidence" to convince the NAD that Group III base oil could legitimately be called synthetic, so they rulled in Castrol's favor.

This ruling has no "legal" standing. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil.

The NAD is merely a self-regulatory arm of the BBB and has no legal standing whatsoever in the U.S. Hence, their ruling in this matter does not make it "legal" to claim that a Group III oil is "synthetic." It merely means that for any entity willing to abide by the NAD's guidelines, a Group III oil can be ADVERTISED under those guidelines as a synthetic.

Colossus · September 17, 2016

IMO if the oil meets the standard required for the motor it's fine. Just change it and the filter at your desired intervals, which is another choice. I have used a lot of different brands over the years, even Supertech from Walmart and never had an issue with a failure of any type.

AMEN. So many people get up in arms over oil and think the only right choice is using expensive fancy name brands like Amsoil or Royal Purple. If people want to throw away $$$, give it to me, for crying out loud!