Well, I suppose that I am misunderstood.
I didn't try exactly to defend Amsoil's testing policy. Just wanted to show that ASTM D 4172 testing method is appropriate for oils (too) what is different opinion than of some "speakers" (not only from this thread). Results shouldn't be the most important ones (definitely) but why not to be included in oil technical data list as one (more) index of anti-wear characteristics. Particularly if it is comparative oil test.
If that method is exclusively designated for greases and (other than Amsoil) manufacturers are well aware of that fact they (strictly) shouldn't test any oil if they still want to be counted as prestigious company.

Let me to ask something: why would be that test method good for (Chevron) compressor oils and unthinkable for motor oils? Working conditions are different but there are some similarities such as: fast moving parts, tight tolerances, raised temperatures, oxygenation, ..., friction, wear, oil degradation,...

I wouldn't speculate now about tampered test results because it will completely change point of this (and some others) thread. We shouldn't start discussion about who is posting false results, who not because all of oil manufacturers are able to do it. What would be our qualifiers to determine that company X is prone to post false results while company Y is not?

Completely agreeable are posts about different marketing tactics. All manufacturers have some "jewels". Castrol with "full synthetic" Syntec which actually is not synthetic, Mobil with being "the first major oil company to introduce a line of high-endurance motor oils designed for longer oil change intervals" (up to whole 15.000 miles!), Pennzoil with full synthetic oil made of petroleum oil and just few drops of (synthetic lubricant) pennzane in a bottle, ...

What would be worse hoax - posting an achieved real results of (let's say inappropriate) testing at first place of some advertising campaign or deceive customers with completely false statement?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Djordan,

Whats funny to me is when I saw 4 ball testing RPM and RUN TIME changed when it was used to advertise a different oil"s" in the companies line-up .

I forget who the company is . Maybe Buster can refresh my memory ? It's on the tip of my toungue so to say just can't seem to remember at the moment

Look at the testing parameter differences in these two Amsoil 30wts .

Now why does Amsoil do this ?

https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/tso.aspx

That one is - Four-Ball Wear Test (ASTM D 4172: 40kgf, 150°C, 1800 rpm, 1 hr) Scar diameter, mm

https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/asl.aspx

And for the second oil - Four Ball Wear Test
(ASTM D-4172B: 40 kgf, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 1 hr), Scar, mm

If you scroll down the page of each of these, you will see the results of each in the group. Are you asking why parts of the test are different for these two examples you highlight? If the lab has these two options for this catagory, I would suggest it's not Amsoil's choice. The comparison oils in these groups are also interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Rudy Hiebert:

Are you asking why parts of the test are different for these two examples you highlight? If the lab has these two options for this catagory, I would suggest it's not Amsoil's choice.

Hi Rudy . Since Amsoil does these bench tests in-house I would assume it is indeed , Amsoils choice .

Amsoil owns their lab , correct ?

Amsoil choses testing to make their products look better. To be consistant they should keep all the testing the same.

IMHO I would perfer a low scar diameter "oil" over a higher one BUT if the difference is only 5-7% I would call both oils even.

That said in a IC engine the closest you can get to a 4 ball test regime would be the cam lifter noise and cam drive gear.

Bye the way the most common test for a 4 ball rig is EP gear oil.

So the test as related to a IC is OK but not a big deal I would perfer a Camshaft lobe wear test of which ASTM has one.

I suspect Amsoil happens to have a 4 ball test machine and has decided to use it, I do not blame them but it just does not apply to well.
bruce

"...Amsoil owns their lab , correct?"
...If it's Oil Analyzers Inc. you're thinking of, yes I'm sure you're right but for these spec tests to meet industry standards, wouldn't API etc. who do tests for the whole enchilada do them?

Tests are done on products to satisfy customers of its performance. A customer can choose between two products if, and only if, the same tests are carried on the two products.

It is against this background that ISO, ASTM, IP etc., tests may have evolved. In short, a uniform or standard test adopting uniform or standard procedure for testing and delivering the same result would be termed consistent. It would be grossly unfair to the customer if results ( for any two products) are given where parameters (for testing) are different from the standard procedure.

Innovation, or tailor made tests, are a good practice. But this has to be as an "add-on" and revealed with an analysis and an appropriate conclusion. This would be fair to the custmer.

Thus, with relevance to the topic "4-ball Wear Test - Slick Marketing," if the Amsoil product meets the above criterion then it has been fair to its existing customers and potential customers.

I invite the readers to debate on this.

M Hussam Adeni

quote:

Originally posted by Rudy Hiebert:
"...Amsoil owns their lab , correct?"
...If it's Oil Analyzers Inc. you're thinking of, yes I'm sure you're right but for these spec tests to meet industry standards, wouldn't API etc. who do tests for the whole enchilada do them?

Those two oils are not API certified . None of the Amsoils are except for the group III's and 15w-40 as far as being submitted , liscenses paid , API donut of the containers last I saw .

Rudy , your an Amsoil dealer correct ? Did you not know that Amsoil does not submit but a few of their oils to the API ?

quote:

Did you not know that Amsoil does not submit but a few of their oils to the API ?

You're inadvertently or at a purpose misinformed about Amsoil's API certification. Just a few of the oils aren't API certified! You're going to ask now - why! Answer is: isn't it much better (and useful for customers, too) to spend $300.000 (or more!) a year for each oil type on to research or upgrades than for useless certification. Why useless? Wouldn't you call it exactly same if you had to yearly renew your high (or even primary) school diploma despite having been an (experienced) engineer (at least!) holding a bachelor's degree (or higher).

Five " 5 " are listed with the API and four " 4 ' of those are the XL group III oils .


http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0995

quote:

Originally posted by Motorbike:
Five " 5 " are listed with the API and four " 4 ' of those are the XL group III oils .
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0995

The service catagories & performance specs in the above link are incomplete.

quote:

Originally posted by Djordan:

quote:

Did you not know that Amsoil does not submit but a few of their oils to the API ?

(Knowing or not knowing what a company does or doesn't do in this instant is a non-issue for me in this topic.) If it's important to you, go for it.)

You're inadvertently or at a purpose misinformed about Amsoil's API certification. Just a few of the oils aren't API certified! You're going to ask now - why! Answer is: isn't it much better (and useful for customers, too) to spend $300,000 (or more!) a year for each oil type on to research or upgrades than for useless certification. Why useless? Wouldn't you call it exactly same if you had to yearly renew your high (or even primary) school diploma despite having been an (experienced) engineer (at least!) holding a bachelor's degree (or higher).

A non-Amsoil, industry publication writes, "Instead, the consumer is fed baloney such as "tough anti-wear protection, fights volatility burn-off, protection against corrosion and high temperature" and similiar technobable. (Duh, isn't that the bare minimum one should expect today from an engine oil? Isn't that what the API starburst logo means?"
API is only a part of the big picture.

4 ball wear test is for testing EP, as mentioned in a few of the above posts. Engine oils don't contain much in the way of EP additives.

4 ball test is more applicable for greases and gear oils.

quote:

Originally posted by Rudy Hiebert:

The service catagories & performance specs in the above link are incomplete.

But Rudy , it is as complete as it gets.


PCO 15W-40 CI-4/SL**
XL 10W-30 SM/CF*
XL 10W-40 SM/CF
XL 5W-20 SM/CF*
XL 5W-30 SM/CF*

* Notes Energy Conserving
** Notes CI-4+

quote:

Originally posted by Lube MATE:

4 ball test is more applicable for greases and gear oils.

I agree as have some other posters previous to this .
The line of posting got off the original topic when the API was brought into the conversation .

I am not certain paying for the API donut to be placed on a bottle of oil guarantee's the best oil formula / protection /performance available anyway .

Mr. Rudy Heibert wrote:

quote:

... isn't that the bare minimum one should expect today from an engine oil? Isn't that what the API starburst logo means?"
API is only a part of the big picture.

I can (partially) agree with you! But, if you’re really skeptic about Amsoil's quality because of not having API donut as (bare) minimum - do not use it! There is a lot other good synthetic (or even petroleum) products which do not guarantee you 7500, 25000 or 35000 miles drain period, however. Even Wal-Mart oils have the donut! So, choice is up to you.

Not mentioning to customers that they can extend drain periods with synthetics, maybe, is more honest approach? Perhaps Castrol's approach with fooling customers and having the donut is more appropriate? Being a huge company they allowed themselves to do what they want. Money does everything! Who cares about quality and customers?