Interesting Oil Testing - What say you?
11-21-2016, 10:55 AM
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,310
Total Cats: 98
Interesting Oil Testing - What say you?
Very long, but interesting read here --> https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/201...-test-ranking/
TL/DR: Shell Rotella T6 doesn't perform especially well in this engineers testing (156th out of 190 oils tested). This is just one test, but the author concludes it is a very important test of an oils wear protection capability. Other testing info is also given (thermal breakdown temp for instance).
So what do you guys think? I'm a little surprised of the T6s performance in this test considering the generally good experience the Miata turbo world has had with this oil, at least on BP/B6 motors.
Sorry if this is a repost.
TL/DR: Shell Rotella T6 doesn't perform especially well in this engineers testing (156th out of 190 oils tested). This is just one test, but the author concludes it is a very important test of an oils wear protection capability. Other testing info is also given (thermal breakdown temp for instance).
So what do you guys think? I'm a little surprised of the T6s performance in this test considering the generally good experience the Miata turbo world has had with this oil, at least on BP/B6 motors.
Sorry if this is a repost.
Reply
-1
-1
11-21-2016, 12:24 PM
#3
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
He sure likes that additive he kept talking about.
Amsoil dominator is 45th on the list.
Mobil 1 Full synthetic tests well and is reasonably priced. Wonder how it does under high temps?
Amsoil dominator is 45th on the list.
Mobil 1 Full synthetic tests well and is reasonably priced. Wonder how it does under high temps?
Last edited by aidandj; 11-21-2016 at 12:53 PM.
Reply
0
0
11-22-2016, 02:09 PM
#4
One important aspect of engineering is present findings in a logical and methodical fashion. If your doing testing, clearly state results of testing, and present the data in a way that is easily referenced.
This blog seems relevant from a technical standpoint, but I can't think of a worse way to present it than having one blog page that is 7 miles long. I'll eventually read some sections of it, but this format is incredibly annoying.
This blog seems relevant from a technical standpoint, but I can't think of a worse way to present it than having one blog page that is 7 miles long. I'll eventually read some sections of it, but this format is incredibly annoying.
Reply
0
0
11-22-2016, 03:55 PM
#10
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
If you read the ridiculously long winded article he talks about blackstone reports. And how it has no bearing on the actual wear prevention.
I too am going to give the Mobil 1 10w30 Full Syn a try.
Its cheaper than rotella on amazon. $25 for 6 quarts.
I too am going to give the Mobil 1 10w30 Full Syn a try.
Its cheaper than rotella on amazon. $25 for 6 quarts.
Reply
0
0
11-22-2016, 09:27 PM
#13
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
What real world results?
And he didn't say useless. But they have no information on the wear prevention of the oil. Gimme a sec and I'll quote it from the article on a comp.
And he didn't say useless. But they have no information on the wear prevention of the oil. Gimme a sec and I'll quote it from the article on a comp.
LOOKING AT PETROLEUM QUALITY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA (PQIA) INFORMATION, OR SENDING OIL SAMPLES TO TYPICAL MOTOR OIL LABS LIKE “ALS TRIBOLOGY” OR “BLACKSTONE LABS” IS NOT SUFFICIENT
What many people don’t understand is, that looking at PQIA information, or sending oil samples in to a typical motor oil lab, does NOT tell us everything we need to know about how well a motor oil performs. Some people think that if they look at PQIA on-line, or get a lab printout of their motor oil, that they know everything they need to know. But, that is simply NOT true. Here’s why.
PQIA information might be interesting to look at, but it doesn’t really provide any truly significant or meaningful information beyond what the API certifications of “reputable brands”, already tells us. The wind-up is that API has already done all that for you by granting the appropriate certification to various oils. If an oil’s performance was far enough off to be a problem, it would not meet the requirements for the specific API certification it was being considered for. So, all the end user has to do is look at the bottle of a “reputable brand” for the certification the oil has, and to change the oil at reasonable intervals, which for most street driven vehicles is ideally 5,000 miles. Doing that will provide an engine with the protection it needs in terms of acid neutralization and deposit and/or sludge build-up prevention. But, looking at PQIA, will NOT give you any information at all, about how well a given motor oil can provide wear protection, which is THE most important thing any motor oil does.
Motor oil lab printouts will only provide information such as the amount of metals, the amount of contaminants, the amount of additive package components in the oil, and its viscosity rating in centistokes (cSt) at 100*C (212*F). And the cost for this test is usually around $30.00 US per sample sent in.
According to a Royal Purple Motor Oil Engineer I spoke with a few years ago, he said only people outside of the Motor Oil Industry, use the unprofessional terminology of calling new oil lab tests, virgin oil analysis (VOA), and used oil lab tests, used oil analysis (UOA). The VOA and UOA references are commonly used on Internet Forum discussions about motor oil, even though they are not legitimate names. Even so, in order for the most people to follow along, I’ll continue to use that wrong terminology for a moment here.
For a VOA, you will NOT get any information on absolutely THE most important thing any motor oil does for your engine, and that is PREVENT WEAR. Everything else a motor oil does for your engine, comes AFTER that. There is not one thing in that lab printout that will tell you how good that oil is at preventing wear. And looking at the zinc and phosphorus levels is completely worthless, because as you will see below, those levels DO NOT predict an oil’s wear protection capability, even though countless people have been brainwashed to believe it does. Therefore, you still have no idea if that oil is any good at performing job number one for your engine. So, you are left with guessing, believing Advertising hype, or Internet chatter, as to which oil you should choose for your engine. In other words, you wasted $30.00 for the lab test, plus the cost of shipping, and your time, all for nothing.
If you have a lab printout from when an oil was brand new, and then you get a UOA of that exact same oil, you can compare those two printouts to see how the oil has changed during that particular change interval. There is definitely some value to that, for indications of engine health, how much of the factory additive package has been depleted, etc. But, it still doesn’t provide any meaningful direct information about how that motor oil compares to other motor oils in terms of wear protection. And if you do see extra metal quantity in the used oil that might be of concern, it is too late, because you are looking at results after the fact. Wear and/or damage has already begun. That is like closing the barn door after the horse already got out. And you still wouldn’t know if the extra metal is because of a poor choice of motor oils or because of a mechanical problem.
So, you need something FAR BETTER than looking at PQIA info or motor oil lab printouts for selecting the best motor oil for your engine, if you are interested in the best possible wear protection for it.
What many people don’t understand is, that looking at PQIA information, or sending oil samples in to a typical motor oil lab, does NOT tell us everything we need to know about how well a motor oil performs. Some people think that if they look at PQIA on-line, or get a lab printout of their motor oil, that they know everything they need to know. But, that is simply NOT true. Here’s why.
PQIA information might be interesting to look at, but it doesn’t really provide any truly significant or meaningful information beyond what the API certifications of “reputable brands”, already tells us. The wind-up is that API has already done all that for you by granting the appropriate certification to various oils. If an oil’s performance was far enough off to be a problem, it would not meet the requirements for the specific API certification it was being considered for. So, all the end user has to do is look at the bottle of a “reputable brand” for the certification the oil has, and to change the oil at reasonable intervals, which for most street driven vehicles is ideally 5,000 miles. Doing that will provide an engine with the protection it needs in terms of acid neutralization and deposit and/or sludge build-up prevention. But, looking at PQIA, will NOT give you any information at all, about how well a given motor oil can provide wear protection, which is THE most important thing any motor oil does.
Motor oil lab printouts will only provide information such as the amount of metals, the amount of contaminants, the amount of additive package components in the oil, and its viscosity rating in centistokes (cSt) at 100*C (212*F). And the cost for this test is usually around $30.00 US per sample sent in.
According to a Royal Purple Motor Oil Engineer I spoke with a few years ago, he said only people outside of the Motor Oil Industry, use the unprofessional terminology of calling new oil lab tests, virgin oil analysis (VOA), and used oil lab tests, used oil analysis (UOA). The VOA and UOA references are commonly used on Internet Forum discussions about motor oil, even though they are not legitimate names. Even so, in order for the most people to follow along, I’ll continue to use that wrong terminology for a moment here.
For a VOA, you will NOT get any information on absolutely THE most important thing any motor oil does for your engine, and that is PREVENT WEAR. Everything else a motor oil does for your engine, comes AFTER that. There is not one thing in that lab printout that will tell you how good that oil is at preventing wear. And looking at the zinc and phosphorus levels is completely worthless, because as you will see below, those levels DO NOT predict an oil’s wear protection capability, even though countless people have been brainwashed to believe it does. Therefore, you still have no idea if that oil is any good at performing job number one for your engine. So, you are left with guessing, believing Advertising hype, or Internet chatter, as to which oil you should choose for your engine. In other words, you wasted $30.00 for the lab test, plus the cost of shipping, and your time, all for nothing.
If you have a lab printout from when an oil was brand new, and then you get a UOA of that exact same oil, you can compare those two printouts to see how the oil has changed during that particular change interval. There is definitely some value to that, for indications of engine health, how much of the factory additive package has been depleted, etc. But, it still doesn’t provide any meaningful direct information about how that motor oil compares to other motor oils in terms of wear protection. And if you do see extra metal quantity in the used oil that might be of concern, it is too late, because you are looking at results after the fact. Wear and/or damage has already begun. That is like closing the barn door after the horse already got out. And you still wouldn’t know if the extra metal is because of a poor choice of motor oils or because of a mechanical problem.
So, you need something FAR BETTER than looking at PQIA info or motor oil lab printouts for selecting the best motor oil for your engine, if you are interested in the best possible wear protection for it.
Reply
0
0
11-22-2016, 09:37 PM
#14
So when FoMoCo recommends 10k intervals for their synth blend Motorcraft 5w20 (I use this as example that's most relevant to me right now) and UOA's show it breaking down to water in just 3k miles, while AMSOIL is nearly unchanged, how is that not valid info?
I'm not an expert, I'm trying to comprehend what he's really saying
I'm not an expert, I'm trying to comprehend what he's really saying
Reply
0
0
11-22-2016, 09:39 PM
#15
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
That is valid info. And he states that his test doesn't deal with long term testing of the oil. Or high temperature testing.
It is purely "When this oil is in its best state, which one prevents the most wear"
So in your case blackstone tests are very good and helpful.
In my mind this article is just another tool to be used in picking the best oil for your application.
It is purely "When this oil is in its best state, which one prevents the most wear"
So in your case blackstone tests are very good and helpful.
In my mind this article is just another tool to be used in picking the best oil for your application.
Reply
0
0
11-23-2016, 01:51 PM
#16
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 80
Total Cats: 4
This article is a rant, ranging from oil, oil testing procedures, to connecting rod design.
If he wants to make a point his findings need to be succinctly presented with the same comparative criteria discussed for each oil. Too much fluff.
Verbosity which does not provide additional meaningful data is generally a sign of the overall weakness of the study. In other words: Why risk losing your most important findings by scattering them among a forest of irrelevant text.
M1 10w 30 is a good example of the lack of discussion or comparative data.
I am also suspicious of anyone touting the miraculous qualities of an additive. Prolong or whatever else he used.
Reply
0
0
11-23-2016, 01:58 PM
#17
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
Because he is an engineer. Never trust an engineer to properly explain themselves.
That's why marketing exists.
As I stated before. This is not the end all be all of tests. But yet another piece of data to take into account when making your own decisions.
Personally I am a fan of scientific testing. And will take its word over "real world results". You might have a different opinion. In fact I know people on this forum do have different opinions.
Thats the beauty of it. You do what you want. I'll do what I want.
That's why marketing exists.
As I stated before. This is not the end all be all of tests. But yet another piece of data to take into account when making your own decisions.
Personally I am a fan of scientific testing. And will take its word over "real world results". You might have a different opinion. In fact I know people on this forum do have different opinions.
Thats the beauty of it. You do what you want. I'll do what I want.
Reply
0
0
12-02-2016, 04:49 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dousman, WI
Posts: 147
Total Cats: 14
I tried to get into a discussion with the guy but he kinda deliberately didn't understand me because what I was saying contradicted his worldview. I spent about 2 years in an R&D lab for one of the only bearing manufacturers in the world that runs an R&D lab of their own, running stuff to failure here and there, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. No, I'm not ye greatest expert in ye world, but I picked the brains of some who were.
Long story short, he's testing boundary lubrication - which is important for some things like lifters. But his testing says jack and **** about lubrication of fully developed fluid films, ala rod and crank bearings, which contrary to what he has said to me, are perfectly possible to break through. Yes, even if there's adequate oil flow. Yes, even if temperatures are controlled. How do I know? Because I took a test rig with able to throw a thousand horsepower at bearing friction (seriously, just dumping a thousand horsepower into heating up oil in highly loaded bearings) and I did it.
He's extrapolating his test (which is a perfectly reasonable test for one thing) to everything, and rationalizing that because of the failure's he's seen follow a given pattern (hint: drag racing does not have enough time to dump heat into oil and thin it out much) he assumes it's a universal truth. If you're tracking a car, especially one with a turbo, ignore damn near every single thing he says about viscosity.
Long story short, he's testing boundary lubrication - which is important for some things like lifters. But his testing says jack and **** about lubrication of fully developed fluid films, ala rod and crank bearings, which contrary to what he has said to me, are perfectly possible to break through. Yes, even if there's adequate oil flow. Yes, even if temperatures are controlled. How do I know? Because I took a test rig with able to throw a thousand horsepower at bearing friction (seriously, just dumping a thousand horsepower into heating up oil in highly loaded bearings) and I did it.
He's extrapolating his test (which is a perfectly reasonable test for one thing) to everything, and rationalizing that because of the failure's he's seen follow a given pattern (hint: drag racing does not have enough time to dump heat into oil and thin it out much) he assumes it's a universal truth. If you're tracking a car, especially one with a turbo, ignore damn near every single thing he says about viscosity.
Reply
0
0
12-02-2016, 05:08 PM
#19
Ok, do you have a good way to evaluate oil in OUR engines besides just trial and error?
Most people use Rotella T6. I am personally not convinced that it's the right choice but as of right now it's the best choice we know of and that has a track record. What say you?
Most people use Rotella T6. I am personally not convinced that it's the right choice but as of right now it's the best choice we know of and that has a track record. What say you?
Reply
0
0
12-03-2016, 09:58 PM
#20
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dousman, WI
Posts: 147
Total Cats: 14
Honestly, no. Piston engines are a lot of special cases for bearings - the instantaneous loading during peak cylinder pressure is enough to squeeze the oil film out of the bearing if it was constantly at that force, but piston engines get away with it because viscosity and the width of the bearings means it takes a given amount of time to squeeze the oil out. There's no good, inexpensive way to build a test rig to do that. You can look at working viscosity though - keeping oil cooler raises viscosity (and means it doesn't get to temperature limits of bearing materials) and increasing viscosity also increases viscosity obviously. But increasing viscosity means it heats up more too because of friction and so by the time it gets to the rod bearings you might be worse off. And for that matter, viscosity works against flow rate, which is necessary to remove heat from the bearings.
Yes, this sucks and there are no easy answers. How much viscosity is "needed" is, if you're trying to calculate things, a function of a lot of things including cylinder pressure, bearing width (and to a lesser degree diameter) bearing clearances, and stuff upstream. A thicker oil might bandaid a lack of a cooler, or might be necessary to cope with more heat input... and that's ignoring aeration. And assuming the calculations are right. I've done enough testing to know that even in (much simpler!) steady state loading they aren't always.
I use Rotella in my WRX, for what it's worth though.
Yes, this sucks and there are no easy answers. How much viscosity is "needed" is, if you're trying to calculate things, a function of a lot of things including cylinder pressure, bearing width (and to a lesser degree diameter) bearing clearances, and stuff upstream. A thicker oil might bandaid a lack of a cooler, or might be necessary to cope with more heat input... and that's ignoring aeration. And assuming the calculations are right. I've done enough testing to know that even in (much simpler!) steady state loading they aren't always.
I use Rotella in my WRX, for what it's worth though.
Reply
0
0
