from 540Rat.....
" IT’S WORTH REPEATING THAT SOME KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS TESTING ARE:
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here’s why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil’s load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
........
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also “wear tested” a number of those oils, both synthetic and conventional, when they were used with 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, even though those oils had been subjected to heat and stress over a significant length of time, 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, as well as absolute proof and validation that testing new oils is representative of what we can expect from those oils as they accumulate time and miles on them.
.
I’m a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.
.
And again, most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world race track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance street experience, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track, during flat tappet or roller break-in, or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oil. It also bears repeating, that all the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. It is the Science that tells us what is going on with motor oils. And no one can argue with Physics and Chemistry. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world."
I read above and shaked my head.
I am an engineer myself and one time in my career did lot of mechanical testing as living. There is no such thing as a test set-up that EXACTLY MATCHES real world situation.
Engineer will refrain from stating that. If I had that kind of test machine, I will be selling my service to motor oil companies or work for them and propose new ASME test by writing SAE technical papers.
He states his test set-up doesn't duplicate engine internal pressure, but claims it matches the real world engine experience EXACTLY.
There is no single scientific research paper quoted. There is no single graph showing how his numbers match with real world engine usage, but he claims it EXACTLY matches.
He is measuring wear scars but magically converting them to magic PSI numbers ranging from 136,658 to 47,483 down to single digit accuracy.
He doesn't understand how ZDDP works [hence why used oil (>3000 miles) is better for engine wear than new oil] and used that argument to state that ZDDP level has no relationship to wear protection.
I stick with 10k miles OCI and do oil UOA to make sure oil is good with that OCI.
I will leave with a couple of research papers as reference.
Full text may not not be freely available.
1. Automobile engine tribology — approaching the surface M. Priest, C.M. Taylor, Wear 241 (2000) 193–203
2. Raman Characterization of Anti-Wear Films Formed from Fresh and Aged Engine Oils (SAE 2006-01-1099)
Dairene Uy, Steven J. Simko, Ann E. O'Neill, Ronald K. Jensen, Arup K. Gangopadhyay and Roscoe O. Carter III
Research and Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company
3. The Effect of Oil Drain Interval on Valvetrain Friction and Wear (SAE 2007-01-4133)
A. K. Gangopadhyay, R. O. Carter III, D. Uy, S. J. Simko and M. Riley, Ford Motor Company
C. B. Phillips and H. Gao, ConocoPhillips Company
Bookmarks