Test Data on 3 more Diesel Oils – Surprising results - Chevelle Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 2 (permalink) Old Aug 15th, 13, 7:48 PM
540 RAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Test Data on 3 more Diesel Oils – Surprising results

I'm a total perfectionist when it comes to technical issues. And 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, unless I was absolutely sure about the data I put out there. Of course I've always known my carefully generated data was completely accurate, but now my data has been validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today's best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

2. The GM Oil Report titled, "Oil Myths from GM Techlink", concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.

3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, "More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil", concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection.

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.

Those who are familiar with my test data, know that my test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn't get any better than this.

So, with all those sources in total agreement, that should provide more than enough proof to anyone who questioned my test data, that my data is absolutely correct. And that questioning any one of those sources, questions them all, and questions Physics and Chemistry that determined all those identical results. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Because that is a battle no man can win.

The motor oil testing I performed to generate my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, is worst case torture testing using oil testing equipment (and for the record, it is NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester), which subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine ever could. The test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. And 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.

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 cannot be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes no sense. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at an earlier point. And that is why my test data psi values may appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines. Keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit. And if oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also offer twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.

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.

And obtaining accurate oil film strength data is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY WAY to determine an oil’s wear protection capability, because an oil’s film strength is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact. In order to reach metal to metal contact, and subsequent wear or damage, you MUST penetrate the film strength of the oil. And oil thicker than a mere film becomes liquid oil. Of course liquids are NOT compressible, which is how hydraulics work. Since liquids cannot be compressed, ALL oils provide THE SAME wear protection when they are in liquid form, no matter if they cost $1.00 per quart or $20.00 per quart. So, oil film strength testing is the GOLD STANDARD for determining how capable an oil is at preventing wear, and how different oils directly compare to each other. In other words, the ONLY THING that separates one oil’s ability to prevent wear from another oil’s ability to prevent wear, is the difference in their individual film strength capabilities.

But, testing motor oil in a running engine CANNOT determine the EXACT SPECIFIC wear protection LIMIT of an oil, which is necessary, in order to make an accurate comparison between various oils. So, attempting to test various motor oils for comparison in a running engine, provides no meaningful data, other than perhaps that a given oil did not cause a failure in that particular engine combo. If you were to test say a half a dozen different oils in your engine combo, and you had no problems with any of them, how can you tell how they rank against each other? It’s a proven fact that all oils do not provide the same wear protection capability. That means you have no way of knowing which of those 6 oils provides you with the highest level of protection. Therefore, motor oil testing in a running engine, is a waste of time, effort and money, when it comes to gathering accurate data for comparison between various oils. And that is precisely why I perform all my testing with motor oil test equipment, rather than in an engine.

Many, many Industries worldwide use test equipment to determine the actual capability of their products, before they are put to use by consumers. Using the test results that come out of my testing, allows us to see exactly how various oils compare head to head, under the exact same conditions, regarding their individual wear protection capabilities. Since my oil testing COMPARES various oils under worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If oils rank higher in my “Wear Protection Ranking List” than the oil you currently use, those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION than your current oil. It’s really that simple. This is NOT Rocket Science.

If folks see that the oil they prefer to use does not rank all that high on my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, and they have not had a problem using it, then they don’t need to stop using it. I’ve never said that at all. And I have never said that any oil failed my testing, nor have I ever said that any oil is bad. I’ve only said that some oils provide a higher level of wear protection than others, and that most folks would probably want the best protection they can get. For the folks who have had good success with whatever oil they use, that does not mean they have been using a great oil, it only means that they are not exceeding the capability limit of that oil. If they continue to stay below that oil’s capability limit, they will never have a problem. But, if they want to choose a better oil, for extra wear protection insurance in case things ever start going south, all they have to do is look at my ranking list and choose a higher ranked oil. The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

It should also be noted that I do NOT get paid by any Oil Company, nor by any Motor Oil Retailer, nor do I sell anything myself. So, I have no vested interest in what oil people choose to run. Therefore, all the data here is totally independent, unbiased, and is reported exactly how the test results came out. I have no agenda here, other than simply sharing the FACTS with like-minded gear heads.

And you will NOT find this many oils tested on the exact same equipment, using the exact same procedure, using the exact same real world representative oil temperature, by the exact same operator, anywhere else. Therefore, this is the best apples to apples motor oil comparison you will ever find.

The “Wear Protection” test data here DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces (no matter how wicked the engine), distributor gear/cam gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces, and all highly loaded engine interfaces.

***************

Finally, the data on the 3 new Diesel Oils tested. Some time back, I had previously tested 13 different Diesel Oils. And the Wear Protection Capability results on all those oils were disappointing. But, I had not included Amsoil Diesel Oils in that test. And later, I felt that Diesel Oil testing effort was incomplete without them. So, I got 2 Amsoil Diesel Oils to test, and another Diesel oil that a Forum member asked me to test for him. Here are those 3 new Diesel Oils:

** 15W40 Cenpeco (Central Petroleum Company) S-3 Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF, CE, CD, SL, SJ, SH = 74,593 psi “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength
This is a little known regional Diesel Oil, out of the Mid-Western U.S. farm country. As Diesel oils go, this small company Diesel oil did very well, by beating out a good number of big name Diesel oils. These guys do know what they are doing, within the context of Diesel oils.

** 5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 77,207 psi “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength
I had expected impressive results out of this Diesel oil, since it came from Amsoil with the name “Premium” on it. It turns out that this oil is a good oil as Diesel oils go, but it just wasn’t as impressive as I’d expected it to be. Even its onset of thermal breakdown point was only mediocre. So, that just goes to show you, that a big name brand, with a fancy name (and even a pretty bottle), doesn’t necessarily represent what’s inside the bottle. You have to perform “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load”, to find out the truth about how good an oil is at protecting against wear.

** 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength
Now, THIS is the SURPRISING RESULT that came out of this latest Diesel Oil testing. Even though this oil doesn’t have a fancy name or pretty bottle, it is BY FAR, the highest ranked Diesel oil I have ever tested. This oil is Engineered for Diesel engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters (DPF). Amsoil says this oil delivers better wear protection than other popular Diesel oils. And in this case, their hype is absolutely true. They also say it effectively reduces fuel consumption, with its advanced fuel efficient formula. This oil costs $11.15 per quart in the 2013 Amsoil Factory Direct Retail Catalog, which is 10% more than Amsoil’s 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. So, in this case, you pay only 10% more for the Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, but you get a whopping 33% more wear protection than you get with the Amsoil’s 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. Money very well spent, if you run a Diesel oil intended for engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters. The next highest ranked Diesel oil only ranks a very unimpressive 44th out of the 101 motor oils I’ve tested so far. Even its onset of thermal breakdown point was impressive. So, this 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil is in a class of its own, among all the Diesel oils I have tested.

Here’s how these 3 new Diesel Oils ranked, just among the Diesel Oils that I tested previously. And they are ranked in the order of their “Wear Protection Capability” values:

Wear protection reference categories for use in gasoline engines:

• Over 90,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection

• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection

• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection

The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.


1. 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 280*

2. RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 285*

3. 5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 77,207 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 267*

4. ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 76,997 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

5. 15W40 Cenpeco (Central Petroleum Company) S-3 Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF, CE, CD, SL, SJ, SH = 74,593 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately TBD

6. MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 270*

7. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL, “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

8. MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL , “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*

9. Farm Rated 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

10. “NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,CF/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*
NOTE: This new Rotella T has SIGNIFICANTLY MORE zinc than the OLD Rotella T, NOT LESS as is often claimed. And these two Rotella oils were Lab tested more than a month apart. So, their component quantities had no chance of being mixed up. This new Rotella’s wear protection capability is just slightly BETTER than the OLD Rotella. Therefore, the new Rotella is NOT the junk some have claimed.

11. “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*
NOTE: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING special about this OLD Rotella, as so many have always claimed. That was only folklore. It is simply ordinary Diesel oil.

12. VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 70,869 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

13. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM,
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 69,631 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

14. SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 260*

15. LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*

16. CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 66,323 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

Diesel oils with regard to Wear Protection Capability, rank overall between number 9 and 82 out of the 101 motor oils I’ve tested so far. But, if you omit the highest ranked Diesel oil which is FAR, FAR MORE CAPABLE than all the other Diesel oils, the rest only rank between 44 and 82.
The poor overall wear protection performance of all but the one particular top ranked Diesel oil, makes it very clear that in general, Diesel oils are a poor choice for wear protection in High Performance gas engines.

When you look at the onset of thermal breakdown of these Diesel oils, you see the following. On average, for synthetic Diesel oils, the onset of thermal breakdown was 269*F, and on average for conventional Diesel oils, it was 255*F. Overall, these Diesel oils fell victim to heat 13-17*F lower than gas engine oils. So, that is even more reason that using Diesel oils in High Performance gas engines, is a poor choice.

BOTTOM LINE:
High Performance gasoline engines are far better protected against wear by selecting from the much more capable gas engine oils. The only exception is the excellent synthetic 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, which is also SL rated for gas engines. In the past, I have never recommended using Diesel Oil in a High Performance gas engine. But, this top 10 ranked oil, out of 101 motor oils tested so far, is the only Diesel oil I’ve tested that is actually worth considering for High Performance gas engines, if you just have to run a Diesel oil in your gas engine. And if you have a Diesel engine and can run a Diesel oil intended for engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters, then choosing this oil is an easy no brainer.

***************

If you’d like to see how all 16 of these Diesel oils rank in my entire 101 motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech info, here’s a link:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/


540 RAT

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 2 (permalink) Old Aug 15th, 13, 8:44 PM
Senior Tech Team
Mike
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of AZ
Posts: 1,648
Garage
Re: Test Data on 3 more Diesel Oils – Surprising results

Series 3000 is all I have ever run in my big FORD. Great oil, independent data to back up Amsoil's claims, thanks for posting the results.

1971 Chevelle Triple Black
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

VortecPro 496, 9.8:1 comp. 049 heads 2.25/1.88 valves, [email protected] Isky Hyd Roller, Eddy Air Gap, Holley HP1000, Doug's D316 Headers, Hughes TH400, ATI converter, GM 12 Bolt, 3.42 Posi, SEE DYNO VIDEO
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Indiansprings is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Old Thread Warning
This Thread is more than 2254 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome