MOTOR OIL “WEAR PROTECTION” RANKING LIST

Lee ODell

Interesting link on motor oil wear protection and ranking.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

[Deleted User]

Interesting in this study about how ZDDP added to a particular motor oil seems to lower the protection of that oil.

Kdancy

Has anyone here had oil sample analysis done on used oil from their Hudson engines? I have it done on my modern equipment and I think it is more accurate than the supposed test above.

Link to post on Bob is the oil guy site discussing the so called "wear protection test" -

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3060985&nt=2&page=1
and another-
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30596&sid=56f72f95b4cd4b6d8f1d0c6679e87724&start=15

Re: Lessons learned from Motor Oil Wear Testing

Postby dirtracr5 » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:12 pm
in my real world testing i've found joe gibbs works best for me. my crank grinder is impressed every time i bring it in for a polish. lifters look great even with very aggressive flat tappet stuff.
gibbs has a nice story about a few different oils and a lifter wear test. much more revealing than the test we are talking about here.

http://joegibbsdriven.com/trainingcente ... rtest.html

Re: Lessons learned from Motor Oil Wear Testing

Postby Kevin Johnson » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:09 pm
I am glad he shared the results but the issues mentioned are pertinent and important.

I know this data is not from running a strict Timken test. 540 Rat's deviation from the relatively low temperature, for example, has also been followed for, say, ATF testing. The Timken OK Load test referenced here: http://www.swepcousa.com/lubesite/lubepdf/TG_200104.pdf requires a new ring and test specimem for each trial and this could quickly become prohibitively expensive for 44 samples.

This next research, outlined by the abstract below, indicates how important surface finish and orientation of that finish is:

The influence of surface roughness on the results of the Timken lubricant extreme pressure test
Original Research Article in:
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Volume 35, Issue 2, February 1995, Pages 357-361
Gang Wei, Will Scott

Abstract
Experiments were conducted on a Timken Lubricant Extreme Pressure Tester, according to standard test method ASTM D2782 77[1], to study the effect of surface roughness on the break down of the lubricant film. Specimen blocks with a range of surface roughness were produced by varying the grinding parameters. It was found that for one of the groups of tests the Timken OK load was virtually unchanged for a roughness range of 0.226 − 0.676 μm Ra at a value of about 12.27 kg. For another group of tests where the OK load range was higher (14–22 kg) the OK load reduced significantly for the increase of specimen roughness. It is believed that within a certain range of roughness, the surfaces at the contact area were initially modified/smoothed to a similar level in the very first period of contact so that the effect of the original roughness on the break down of lubricant film becomes less sensitive. However the effect of this surface modification is influenced by the load range. i.e. for a lubricant with low load-carrying capacity, the surface roughness may have little effect on the OK load. The roughness orientation was found important in the Timken ring-block contact. With blocks having the roughness lay transverse to the direction of sliding, the load capacity was reduced significantly.



This is why it is important to outline the test procedure in minute detail so that it can be examined for confounds and repeatability.