The original “Motor Oil Wear Test Results” thread was getting old, tired and I imagine confusing for some. So I decided to start a new follow-up thread to discuss the “Lessons Learned” from that testing. But first I want to address a couple of things that came up during that first discussion, so that those who may be confused by the whole thing, can get things straight in the minds.
Some folks complained that this “Lab” testing was basically worthless because the testing wasn’t performed in an actual running engine. The uninformed should be aware that “Lab” testing is the gold standard for countless companies in many, many industries. It shortens development time, and allows them to design and build a quality product in a timely manner. And of course time is money, in industry. In fact, many companies simply could not compete or even exist without lab testing.
Here’s one example. You simply cannot test a new jet aircraft in actual flight, to see at what point its wings will break off. So, you MUST perform static “Lab” testing on the ground, to determine that information.
It is similar with this oil testing, in that not all testing is practical in a running engine, even though in a perfect world that would be ideal. Try testing 44 different oils in an engine, with the "exact same" conditions every time, and doing all that in a timely manner. That simply would NOT be possible. So, that’s were oil “LAB” testing comes in. And wouldn't you rather select an oil that "Lab” tests well, rather than one that does not? Or even worse, have no real idea what oil to select, and simply have to go by your gut feeling, or have to go by advertising hype, or have to pick the prettiest bottle, or to have to simply guess?
I choose to use technical data for determining which oil to select for myself. So, I invested a lot of time and money to perform motor oil “Lab” torture testing, at a representative oil temperature, in order to generate that data. Because you simply cannot find this data anywhere else.
The tester's psi numbers are generated from a non-rotating test specimen simply being “gradually” pressed down onto a spinning ring, that's it. And that gradual application of the load, allows time for the local friction point to heat up to so that the heat activated zinc can become effective. No engine parts are designed that way. Testers and engines are NOT the same, and are NOT intended to be the same. Lab testing speeds up the evaluation process so that you don't have to wait 100,000 miles to see what happened.
And some folks also complained that the “Lab” testing did not allow high zinc/phos oils the ability to perform as well as they could, because the high zinc/phos oils did not dominate the top of the ranking list. But I beg to differ. The following high zinc/phos oils were ranked in the top OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category of the ranking list, and all had over 90,000 psi capability.
*** Lucas 10W30 Racing Only
*** Valvoline 10W30 NSL (not street legal) Conventional Racing Oil
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle)
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle)
*** Amsoil 10W30 Z-Rod Oil
It is very clear here, that the “Lab” testing DID in fact, allow high zinc/phos oils to perform as well as they could. If the testing did not allow those oils to perform as well as they could, then these oils would NOT have ended up in the top ranked category, and would have instead ended up near the bottom with some of the other lower performing high zinc/phos oils. This stuff is NOT hard to grasp, comprehend or understand. It is NOT Rocket Science. The testing was a real world test, not some flaky theory. And it is pretty darn hard to argue with a real world test. If someone cannot grasp all this, then perhaps they should consider switching to a less technical hobby like Bowling.
And if anyone thinks they can provide BETTER data, this extensive, that directly compares all these oils at a meaningful temperature, then I challenge them to do so.
So, now on with the “LESSONS LEARNED” from this testing:
*** The latest API certified street oils that use a newer and different chemistry instead of old school high levels of zinc/phos, have generally surpassed the traditional High Performance and Racing Oils in wear prevention capability. The oil industry knows what it is doing, and the latest API certified oils are generally outstanding, in spite of what Hotrodders and Racers have been brain-washed to believe. And as further proof that you do NOT need high levels of zinc/phos for High Performance engines, I present exhibit A:
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 (NASCAR) Racing Oil
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
This oil is also in the OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category, with over 90,000 psi capability.
This oil has zinc/phos levels like modern API SN oils. It is nothing like traditional high zinc/phos oils. And no engines are subjected to more demanding endurance stress that NASCAR racing engines. Is there anyone here who has the courage to put their credibility on the line, and say that this low zinc/phos oil is no good for Racing engines? I didn’t think so, and I rest my case.
*** Simply having high levels of zinc/phos was absolutely NOT a guarantee of high “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Some high zinc/phos oils had excellent test results, while other high zinc/phos oils had only fair test results.
*** This testing has clearly shown that a particular oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, is NOT determined just by its zinc/phos levels, but rather, it is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. So, if people choose an oil strictly based on its zinc/phos levels, they could easily end up having a “LOT LESS” protection than they think they have.
*** People need to get with the program, and realize that you do not HAVE to have high levels of zinc/phos for engine protection. Alternate motor oil chemistry now in use, can be as good or better than high levels of zinc/phos. Its fine if you do want to use high levels of zinc/phos, but it is NOT mandatory.
*** This testing has clearly shown that an oil’s viscosity is also absolutely NOT an indicator of its “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Among the 44 oils tested here, 50 wt type oils ranked from 6th to 40th, 30 wt type oils ranked from 1st to 44th, and 20 wt type oils ranked from 10th to 35st. So again, an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”, nothing else.
*** This testing has clearly shown that you simply CANNOT PREDICT an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” by looking at its specs or its viscosity. You can only determine that capability by performing some type of actual wear testing.
*** The latest “LOW” zinc/phos API certified oils, both synthetic and conventional, are very good oils. In fact, they are so good that their capability has surpassed most of the traditional high zinc/phos High Performance and Racing oils. There are other motor oil additive components that provide extreme pressure protection besides zinc and phos. And some of those other components are used in modern oil so that the catalytic converters are not fouled.
*** There is not much real difference between synthetic and conventional oils in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength” or wear protection. The biggest difference is that synthetic oils can tolerate temps up to around 325*F before breaking down. But conventional oils can only tolerate temps up to around 290*F before breaking down.
*** “Low cost” conventional API certified oils have extremely good capability. If an oil has the API SN certification, it will be quite good.
*** There were no BAD oils in this test. Some are simply better than others in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Those that have a higher capacity, offer a higher margin of safety than those with a lower capacity, that’s all.
At the end of the day, you can simply run the oil you have always run, or you can consider some highly capable oils that you would have never ever considered, before this testing was done. There is really nothing to get all worked up about here. You just have more data for reference, than you had before. It’s all good…………….
Some folks complained that this “Lab” testing was basically worthless because the testing wasn’t performed in an actual running engine. The uninformed should be aware that “Lab” testing is the gold standard for countless companies in many, many industries. It shortens development time, and allows them to design and build a quality product in a timely manner. And of course time is money, in industry. In fact, many companies simply could not compete or even exist without lab testing.
Here’s one example. You simply cannot test a new jet aircraft in actual flight, to see at what point its wings will break off. So, you MUST perform static “Lab” testing on the ground, to determine that information.
It is similar with this oil testing, in that not all testing is practical in a running engine, even though in a perfect world that would be ideal. Try testing 44 different oils in an engine, with the "exact same" conditions every time, and doing all that in a timely manner. That simply would NOT be possible. So, that’s were oil “LAB” testing comes in. And wouldn't you rather select an oil that "Lab” tests well, rather than one that does not? Or even worse, have no real idea what oil to select, and simply have to go by your gut feeling, or have to go by advertising hype, or have to pick the prettiest bottle, or to have to simply guess?
I choose to use technical data for determining which oil to select for myself. So, I invested a lot of time and money to perform motor oil “Lab” torture testing, at a representative oil temperature, in order to generate that data. Because you simply cannot find this data anywhere else.
The tester's psi numbers are generated from a non-rotating test specimen simply being “gradually” pressed down onto a spinning ring, that's it. And that gradual application of the load, allows time for the local friction point to heat up to so that the heat activated zinc can become effective. No engine parts are designed that way. Testers and engines are NOT the same, and are NOT intended to be the same. Lab testing speeds up the evaluation process so that you don't have to wait 100,000 miles to see what happened.
And some folks also complained that the “Lab” testing did not allow high zinc/phos oils the ability to perform as well as they could, because the high zinc/phos oils did not dominate the top of the ranking list. But I beg to differ. The following high zinc/phos oils were ranked in the top OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category of the ranking list, and all had over 90,000 psi capability.
*** Lucas 10W30 Racing Only
*** Valvoline 10W30 NSL (not street legal) Conventional Racing Oil
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle)
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle)
*** Amsoil 10W30 Z-Rod Oil
It is very clear here, that the “Lab” testing DID in fact, allow high zinc/phos oils to perform as well as they could. If the testing did not allow those oils to perform as well as they could, then these oils would NOT have ended up in the top ranked category, and would have instead ended up near the bottom with some of the other lower performing high zinc/phos oils. This stuff is NOT hard to grasp, comprehend or understand. It is NOT Rocket Science. The testing was a real world test, not some flaky theory. And it is pretty darn hard to argue with a real world test. If someone cannot grasp all this, then perhaps they should consider switching to a less technical hobby like Bowling.
And if anyone thinks they can provide BETTER data, this extensive, that directly compares all these oils at a meaningful temperature, then I challenge them to do so.
So, now on with the “LESSONS LEARNED” from this testing:
*** The latest API certified street oils that use a newer and different chemistry instead of old school high levels of zinc/phos, have generally surpassed the traditional High Performance and Racing Oils in wear prevention capability. The oil industry knows what it is doing, and the latest API certified oils are generally outstanding, in spite of what Hotrodders and Racers have been brain-washed to believe. And as further proof that you do NOT need high levels of zinc/phos for High Performance engines, I present exhibit A:
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 (NASCAR) Racing Oil
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
This oil is also in the OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category, with over 90,000 psi capability.
This oil has zinc/phos levels like modern API SN oils. It is nothing like traditional high zinc/phos oils. And no engines are subjected to more demanding endurance stress that NASCAR racing engines. Is there anyone here who has the courage to put their credibility on the line, and say that this low zinc/phos oil is no good for Racing engines? I didn’t think so, and I rest my case.
*** Simply having high levels of zinc/phos was absolutely NOT a guarantee of high “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Some high zinc/phos oils had excellent test results, while other high zinc/phos oils had only fair test results.
*** This testing has clearly shown that a particular oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, is NOT determined just by its zinc/phos levels, but rather, it is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. So, if people choose an oil strictly based on its zinc/phos levels, they could easily end up having a “LOT LESS” protection than they think they have.
*** People need to get with the program, and realize that you do not HAVE to have high levels of zinc/phos for engine protection. Alternate motor oil chemistry now in use, can be as good or better than high levels of zinc/phos. Its fine if you do want to use high levels of zinc/phos, but it is NOT mandatory.
*** This testing has clearly shown that an oil’s viscosity is also absolutely NOT an indicator of its “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Among the 44 oils tested here, 50 wt type oils ranked from 6th to 40th, 30 wt type oils ranked from 1st to 44th, and 20 wt type oils ranked from 10th to 35st. So again, an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”, nothing else.
*** This testing has clearly shown that you simply CANNOT PREDICT an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” by looking at its specs or its viscosity. You can only determine that capability by performing some type of actual wear testing.
*** The latest “LOW” zinc/phos API certified oils, both synthetic and conventional, are very good oils. In fact, they are so good that their capability has surpassed most of the traditional high zinc/phos High Performance and Racing oils. There are other motor oil additive components that provide extreme pressure protection besides zinc and phos. And some of those other components are used in modern oil so that the catalytic converters are not fouled.
*** There is not much real difference between synthetic and conventional oils in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength” or wear protection. The biggest difference is that synthetic oils can tolerate temps up to around 325*F before breaking down. But conventional oils can only tolerate temps up to around 290*F before breaking down.
*** “Low cost” conventional API certified oils have extremely good capability. If an oil has the API SN certification, it will be quite good.
*** There were no BAD oils in this test. Some are simply better than others in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Those that have a higher capacity, offer a higher margin of safety than those with a lower capacity, that’s all.
At the end of the day, you can simply run the oil you have always run, or you can consider some highly capable oils that you would have never ever considered, before this testing was done. There is really nothing to get all worked up about here. You just have more data for reference, than you had before. It’s all good…………….
