FlyLS6

I happened to be looking at oil this evening. I noticed that on the back of a can of VR1, it said it was suitable for "high performance passenger car" in addition to racing cars. That surprised me. Is VR1 not "racing oil" in the sense that the racing "only" oils are? If that question makes sense.

63mako

There is Valvoline VRI racing oil and Valvoline "off road use only" Racing oil and Valvoline VR1 synthetic racing oil. All have varying levels of ZDDP and detergent levels. I believe this has caused a lot of confusion as to what the ZDDP levels are and some questionable levels in past test results.

http://www.valvoline.com/products/co...ing-motor-oil/

540 RAT

Many of you know that I've performed extensive motor oil "Wear Testing" over that past year. And among the most profound results that came out of my testing, was the fact that the zinc levels made no difference on how well a motor oil can provide wear protection.

Of course many people could not accept that, even though they had no hard data to prove otherwise. So, I got pounded a lot for my real world test results, even though real world testing is the Gold Standard for determining how well various oils can protect engines from wear.

Below is a link to a GM report that includes info on zinc in motor oil. And their report says the exact same thing that I found in my testing. So, with my testing and the GM report saying the same thing, maybe now naysayers will believe that my oil test data was in fact valid all along.

Between the two, this proves you cannot put any value in a motor oil list of zinc levels. And you cannot believe cam and lifter Companies who tell you that you need a certain zinc level.

Here's the link:

http://www.nonlintec.com/sprite/oil_myths.pdf

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

63mako

I have read this numerous times. These are the requirements for backward compatability. It is a joke.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil
formulations must pass these two tests.
1 Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft
engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

Link is Here:

http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/gastests/ivatest/

The first test is done with a 1994 Nissan KA24E, 2.4-liter, water-cooled, fuel-injected engine, 4-cylinder in-line, overhead camshaft with 2 intake valves, and 1 exhaust valve per cylinder.
It is a 100 hour test. each hour is broken down to 50 Min @ 800 RPM and 10 min @ 1500 RPM. The test sequence never exceeds 1500 RPM.

It has no correlation to a flat tappet cam and lifter set in an american V8 especially a high lift, high RPM, aftermarket or solid lifter flat tappet cam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system,
similar to those used in the 1980s.

This test is done with an RPM limit of 3500 and an open spring pressure of #205. I am linking the original testing protocol below. Of signifigant interest should be the chart on page 6. I shows average wear with #180 springs and .03, and .05 phosphorous (The protective element in ZDDP) and again with #205 springs with .03, .05 and .095 Phosphorous. The increase in spring pressure required a higher percentage of ZDDP to protect the cam according to the chart. The difference in average wear with a #205 spring and .05 Phosphorous is 153. with .095 phoshorous average wear is 16. That is a wear reduction of 89%. Your typical BBC solid flat tappet spring might be in the neighborhood of #160 seat pressure and 450 open, over twice the spring pressure in the test. It might also see shift points of 7000 RPM, again twice the top RPM in the test. The difference in pressure measured in PSI seen at the lifter foot/cam lobe interface between a #205 spring @ 3500 RPM and a #450 spring @ 7000 RPM is astronomical. Again this backward compatability test has no real relevence in the real world other that the proof in the chart on page 6 that as spring pressures increase HIGHER LEVELS OF ZDDP ARE NEEDED TO REDUCE WEAR!

You are also breaking down ZDDP as you run the engine. An oil that starts with 800 PPM might have 400 PPM at 3000 miles. If it has heavy springs and run hard it might have 200 PPM. The v6 3800 engine with #205 springs might have 600 PPM left.


Here is the test Evolution and requirements.
ftp://ftp.astmtmc.cmu.edu/docs/gas/s...2002-24-04.pdf


The biggest positive to be taken from reading this paper is that the optional Phosphate coatings being done today by some of the cam manufacturers is the very best protection against premature wear if your using a flat tappet cam.

You are an engineer. Do some real in depth research before you post.

LeMans Pete

Sorry 540RAT, I'd rather be safe than sorry and get a good oil with higher levels of ZDDP than one without. Until someone says higher ZDDP levels are bad for my flat tappet cams, I will continue to use oils with higher ZDDP levels.

As an engineer, I do appreciate in-depth research, but as a forum peruser, I appreciate concise summaries even more.

lance m p

Seems to me we've beat the horse completly ta death and I thought I was redundant! I went through this WHOLE thing when my NEW in 2006 T/Buick motor hyd. cam failed at 110 miles AFTER cam break-in [$12,000] due to 2 reasons too much valve spring pressure and not enough ZINC!...NOW roller cammed and $16,000 in it! Whew! some people just want a simple answer to a simple question.......you won't find that here. I quess keep on posting! and race on!!

QIK59

Hey Motorhead - Our mutual friend Greg (gdh) is going to do a mutual introduction with us one of these days

Where did you have motor oil tested ?
Anywhere local to us (Toronto etc) ?

I have some old school diesel CI-4 , CI-4 , SL rated oil I would like to check.
And maybe some old NOS Esso oil I used to run also.

Can you help me out here ?
Thank you,
Jerry

540 RAT

I have “Wear Test” data on a dozen more oils. Here’s how they all rank in terms of “wear protection capability”, just among themselves:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This oil is the next step “below” Pennzoil’s Ultra.

2. 5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
Havoline used to be Texaco’s oil brand, but since Chevron took them over, it is now a Chevron brand. It appears that this oil may be a re-bottled version of 5W30 Chevron Supreme oil.

3. 10W60 Castrol TWS Motorsport, API SJ conventional = 90,163 psi
This oil is manufactured in Europe and is sold in the US for BMW models M3, M5, M6, Z4M, and Z8. This is a somewhat odd multi-viscosity, so the interest here was to get some insight as to why BMW calls for this oil in some of their models.

4. 5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
Havoline used to be Texaco’s oil brand, but since Chevron took them over, it is now a Chevron brand

5. 5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
The interest here was to see just how good recycled oil might be.

6. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (formerly Castrol Syntec) black bottle, synthetic = 85,179 psi
The Castrol Edge w/Syntec line of oil, falls well below the capability of the Castrol Edge w/Titanium line, which is Castrol’s top of the line oil.

7. 5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
I was curious to see how their oil line shaped up.

8. 5W30 Edelbrock "Cat-Safe", API SM synthetic = 78,609 psi
This oil is made for Edelbrock by Torco

9. 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN yellow bottle, conventional = 76,989 psi

10. 10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 76,806 psi

11. 5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi

12. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL conventional = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
The bottle makes some bold claims, such as:

* Double the zinc for superior flat tappet cam protection.

* The additive package contains 1800 ppm ZDDP, providing levels of protection unattainable from conventional motor oil. Provides excellent protection from metal to metal contact.

Problem is, this oil fell FAR SHORT of living up to that inflated boasting. These claims were obviously created by the Marketing Department with no regard for what this oil can actually do. This oil ranked a pathetic 85th out of the 94 new oils I’ve tested so far. And once again, the supposed high levels of zinc DID NOT help this oil perform very well. Buyer beware. Motor oils are among the worst products for false advertising.

Now let’s consider that claim of 1800ppm ZDDP. Is that 1800ppm the TOTAL if you add the zinc and the phos individually? Or is that 1800ppm of zinc AND 1800ppm of phos? Or is it something else? When people throw around ZDDP values, do they even know what they are saying? I will be Lab Testing this oil soon to see just what is really in it, and to see how that claim of 1800ppm ZDDP compares to reality. I’ll post my findings when they are available, so stay tuned for that.

This Summit oil and the Castrol 10W60 oil have appeared in recent posts of my motor oil wear protection ranking list, but they have not appeared in any write-up until now. Below is some motor oil tech info, info on my testing, and my latest complete motor oil ranking list, which now includes the 12 oils above.

You DO NOT need a high level of zinc in your motor oil for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, not even for flat tappet engines. Contrary to popular belief, the zinc level alone is NOT what determines an oil’s wear protection capability. Zinc does NOT build up a coating on parts like some sort of plating process. Zinc is consumed/sacrificed A LITTLE AT A TIME as needed by the heat and load on mating parts, to help prevent wear as the engine is operated. And it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for more zinc to provide more wear protection, because zinc simply does NOT work that way. More zinc simply lasts longer because it takes longer for a larger quantity of it to be depleted. It’s much like the way more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas in your tank does NOT give you more HP.

The thinking that more zinc provides more wear protection is only FOLKLORE that has been repeated so many times that most people just ASSUME it’s true without any proof. And repeating wrong information a million times will NOT magically make it become true. Among those who just assume it is true, includes people at Cam Companies, and even people at some of the smaller Oil Companies who apparently don’t bother to perform any wear protection testing, since their oils often fall WAY SHORT of their own outlandish hype. The fact is, there is absolutely NO real world test data proof to back up the incorrect urban legend that more zinc is needed for more protection. That is merely a MYTH that has been BUSTED by actual real world dynamic motor oil wear testing under load. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and additive package “as a whole”, NOT just by how much zinc is present. And newer motor oil anti-wear additive components that have replaced a good percentage of the zinc that used to be used, are equal to or better than zinc. There is absolutely NOTHING magical about zinc that makes it the only component worthy of being used.

If someone insists that you must have high levels of zinc for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, no matter WHO they are, and no matter WHAT Company they may represent, ask them to PROVE IT by providing actual REAL WORLD TEST DATA that backs up that claim (and mere links to Internet Oil articles that call for high levels of zinc, is NOT real world test data proof). But, they will NOT be able to prove that old myth, because as mentioned above, zinc simply does NOT work that way. Some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils provide very poor wear protection. So, you can throw away that useless motor oil zinc level reference chart. Because it cannot help you choose the best oil for protecting your engine. If you rely on zinc levels alone, to choose what you "think" is the best oil, you can very easily shoot yourself in the foot, and NOT end up with the wear protection you think you have.

You can use the link just below, to take a look at a GM Motor Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, which backs up the facts above and matches my own motor oil wear test results. If the link below does not take you directly to the website, then Copy/Paste the link in your browser:

http://www.nonlintec.com/sprite/oil_myths.pdf

This GM Oil Report is meaningful regardless of how stiff the valve springs were in their test engines. Because they were looking at wear protection capability DIFFERENCES between various levels of zinc/phos, and their finding that “more was NOT better” (the same thing I found in my testing), applies to wear protection in any engine, no matter what the spring pressures are.

I have performed extensive motor oil “Wear Testing” over the past year or so, to measure the “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of nearly a hundred different motor oils. The results of this dynamic friction testing under load, are used to compare the wear protection capability of the various oils. I’ve done this because I wanted to cut through all the misinformation and misunderstanding that is out there about motor oil, get to the truth, and to find out what the FACTS really are. The resulting oil test data is NOT a theory. It is NOT an opinion. It is the real deal, because it is REAL WORLD TEST DATA, just like engine dyno output data is real world test data.

The motor oil tester I use, is a valuable tool for determining an oil’s operating characteristics, yet it is not testing oil inside an engine, because that is simply impractical on a scale this large. It is somewhat similar to how an engine dyno is a valuable tool for determining an engine’s operating characteristics, yet it is not a test of an engine inside a car going down the track or road.

Every single oil I test, is subjected to the EXACT SAME test procedure for an accurate back to back comparison with other oils. My tester and test procedure provide very consistent and repeatable results. And yet, rather than rely on only a single test value, I test each oil multiple times, then those results are averaged. This allows the most accurate and representative final value to be reached for comparison. So, every oil has the exact same opportunity to perform as well as its chemical composition will allow.

As a calibration check to make sure that the tester is always consistent, I periodically recheck the number one highest ranked oil that achieved that ranking position around a year or so ago. No matter when I recheck it, and no matter what kind of test values any other oils have been generating in between, that number one oil has always retested to within a couple of percent or so of its original highest ranking value. That shows me that the test value generated by any oil is correct, because the tester is still operating exactly the same as it always has. Even though I am not splitting atoms here, I do everything I can to ensure that all the test results are accurate, meaningful and worthy of comparison.

My tester is NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester that can have its manually operated loading arm manipulated by the operator to provide false data to promote a certain product. I purposely did NOT get one of those testers, because I’m only interested in the facts, NOT propaganda. My tester does NOT even have an arm that is manually operated. On my tester, small individual weights are applied one at a time to gradually increase the applied load, so that the oil is not shock loaded, which could artificially penetrate the oil’s film, and invalidate the results.

I don’t sell oil, and I don’t get paid by any Oil Companies, so I have no vested interest in what oil people buy or use. But, I share my test data on Forums as a courtesy to other like-minded gearheads, for them to make use of for choosing the best possible oil for their needs, if they choose to. This dynamic motor oil wear testing is straight forward and most technically knowledgeable gearheads have no problem seeing the value in it. And they understand the significance of this type of motor oil test data, which CANNOT be found ANYWHERE else. This is the ONLY data available where this many oils are all tested on the same equipment, at the same representative temperature, using the same procedure, by the same operator. So, this is the best apples to apples motor oil comparison information you will ever find. I get a good number of PM’s and emails from folks thanking me for my data. A lot of people do appreciate it and make use of it. Even a number of other Degreed Engineers I know, use it to choose their own oil. And some people even post copies of it and links to it, all over the Internet. On top of that, quite a few folks have sent me oil to test for them. So, I do have a lot of supporters who consider this test data their best source for motor oil comparison.

On the flip side, there will always be those who disagree with information that is posted. And that’s fine, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, there are usually a few guys who don’t want to engage in a normal discussion, and immediately get nasty, insulting, and make incorrect comments and assumptions without even knowing what they are talking about. Though, some of them “think” they are motor oil experts simply because they’ve done some Internet research. Yeah right, if something is on the Internet, it has to be true……..NOT!! But, these people believe everything they read about zinc being the answer to everything, and take it at face value even with no supporting test data to back it up. Yet, they do not believe the actual real world test data I provide, nor do they believe that GM Oil Report above that backs up my findings. Go figure. But, they feel the need to attack my data, even though they have never done any back to back oil testing themselves, and have absolutely no real world test data of their own to backup what they say. It is almost comical when they do that, because it just points out that they are NOT technically capable of comprehending the significance and value of this real world test data, which is not difficult to grasp.

And you don’t have to be a Rocket Scientist to know that real world testing trumps Internet articles every day of the week. The concept of product performance “lab testing” like I’ve done, is commonly used throughout many, many industries. So, none of the kicking and screaming these guys do, will change the Physics involved, nor change the oil’s chemical formulation that generated the test results. In other words, shooting the messenger will not change the FACTS of the oil test results. And rather than asking questions and learning something, these guys just want to argue, make foolish comments, and embarrass themselves. It is their loss, since they cannot get any meaningful direction from a useless zinc level reference chart. So, they’ll just have to guess which oils provide outstanding wear protection and which oils do not. And we all know how much guessing is worth.

I let the test data show me what’s truly going on, because that is absolute. And as mentioned above, my test results mirror the results of that GM Oil Report above, which is further proof that my test data is spot on. Also, a good number of folks, who understand and appreciate my test data, have asked me to continue posting it, in spite of what the naysayers say. And my oil test write-ups typically get a lot of views and replies on the Forums. It's not unusual for some of my write-ups to get thousands of views and hundreds of replies. This shows that there is a tremendous amount of interest in my write-ups on actual real world testing of motor oil. So, I will continue posting that data for the folks who want to know the FACTS about motor oil. And if the non-believers don’t like that, they can always close out and go on to the next topic.

I’ve also wear tested a handful of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, this is even further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability.

We also still see from time to time, wiped lobes in properly built flat tappet engines that were using high zinc oils. And flat tappet users will typically use a somewhat elaborate procedure to try and NOT wipe any lobes during break-in of a new cam and lifter set, even when using high zinc oils. And they will also often add in zinc additives to further increase the zinc level. But, adding zinc additives to any oil is a huge mistake, no matter what those snake oil salesmen claim. Most major oil companies say to NEVER EVER add anything to their oils, because doing so will upset the oil’s carefully balanced additive package. I tested doing that very thing in several different oils, and found that adding zinc additives in every case, ruined the oil by significantly REDUCING its wear protection capability. That of course, is just the opposite of what people “think” they will be getting. Those oil Companies were absolutely correct about not adding anything to their oil. So, when people follow that high zinc level nonsense, they are often making things WORSE, not better. If people chose an oil based on its “wear protection capability” rather than its “zinc level”, then a lot of oiling concerns would go away. And losing sleep over flat tappet break-in would be a thing of the past.

Performing some type of oil film strength testing 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 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.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, oil film strength capability DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, cam gear/distributor gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces and other highly loaded engine component interfaces.

Due to size limitations, the ranking list will be posted below.

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

540 RAT

Here's the ranking list:

For those folks who are interested in this real world test data, below is the “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” ranking list from all the real world motor oil “Wear Testing” I’ve performed so far on new oils, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. The list includes modern API certified low zinc oils, traditional high zinc High Performance/Racing oils, Diesel oils, low zinc oils with zinc additives added in, and Break-In oils.

Lower ranked oils are not necessarily “bad”, they simply don’t provide as much wear protection capability as higher ranked oils. If you have been running a low ranked oil in your engine without issue, that doesn't mean you have a great oil, it only means that your engine's wear protection needs have not exceeded that oil's capability. And as long as your engine's needs don't exceed that oil's capability, you will never have a problem. But, if unexpected circumstances come up that make your engine's needs exceed that oil's capability, such as an overheating condition, an oiling condition, a loading condition, some parts heading south, or whatever, your engine can end up junk. But, if you'd been using an oil with a much higher capability, it could still provide enough extra protection to save your engine. So, each person has to decide for themselves, which motor oil provides the wear protection capability they are comfortable with, for any given engine build.

All oil bottles involved in the testing were thoroughly shaken before the samples were taken. This ensured that all the additive package components were distributed uniformly throughout all the oil in the bottle, and not settled to the bottom.

Test result differences between oils of less than 10% are not significant, and oils within that range can be considered approximately equivalent.

An oil's "wear protection" capability that was tested here, and an oil's "friction reduction" capability, are two entirely different things. While this test data provides excellent information about an oil's ability to prevent wear, it says nothing about an oil's ability to reduce friction. So, the data here will not provide any information regarding differences in HP potential.

The ppm quantities of zinc, phos, moly and in some cases titanium, shown in the list, are directly from the Lab Reports that came back from the Professional Lab “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils have more zinc than phos, while other oils have more phos than zinc. It just depends on the particular oil’s formulation. Either way, the numbers are correct and are NOT typos.

NOTE: The higher the psi value, the BETTER the wear protection. And this applies to ANY engine, including High Performance flat tappet engines.

That psi value is determined by the testing "load" being applied (which of course, is the EXACT SAME for every oil tested), over the "area" of the wear scar that is created on the test specimen, as the test is being performed. So, the result is "pounds" of force being applied over the wear scar "area", which is in square inches. Or in other words, pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to "psi". The better an oil's wear protection capability, the smaller the wear scar will be on the test specimen, and the higher the resulting psi value will be.


Oil categories for 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




1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification. The bottle says, “No leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection”. For once, a product’s hype turns out to be true. And this oil provides MORE THAN TWICE as much wear protection as the lowest ranked oil on this list.
zinc = 806 ppm
phos = 812 ppm
moly = 66 ppm

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi
zinc = 801 ppm
phos = 842 ppm
moly = 112 ppm

4. 0W30 Amsoil Signature Series 25,000 miles, API SN synthetic = 105,008 psi
zinc = 824 ppm
phos = 960 ppm
moly = 161 ppm


5. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

6. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 103,517 psi
zinc = 606 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 28 ppm

7. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

8. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm

9. 5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 100,011 psi
This oil only cost $4.29 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 1018 ppm
phos = 728 ppm
moly = 161 ppm

10. 5W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 99,983 psi
zinc = 1042 ppm
phos = 857 ppm
moly = 100 ppm
titanium = 49 ppm

11. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

12. 20W50 Castrol GTX ,API SN conventional = 96,514 psi
zinc = 610 ppm
phos = 754 ppm
moly = 94 ppm

13. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

14. 0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN synthetic = 96,364 psi
zinc = 742 ppm
phos = 677 ppm
moly = 81 ppm

15. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN synthetic = 95,920 psi
zinc = 877 ppm
phos = 921 ppm
moly = 72 ppm

16. 5W30 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 95,717 psi
zinc = 818 ppm
phos = 883 ppm
moly = 90 ppm
titanium = 44 ppm

17. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic = 95,543 psi
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
moly = 1125 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

18. 5W20 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,543 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
NOTE: Oil numbers 17 and 18 were tested weeks apart, but due to the similarities in their wear scar sizes, their averages ended up the same.

19. 5W30 Castrol GTX ,API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm

20. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm

21. 5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

22. 5W30 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,942 psi
zinc = 969 ppm
phos = 761 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

23. 5W30 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 94,744 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

24. 5W20 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 94,663 psi
zinc = 764 ppm
phos = 698 ppm
moly = 76 ppm

25. 5W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,460 psi
zinc = 1045 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

26. 5W30 Lucas, API SN conventional = 92,073 psi
zinc = 992 ppm
phos = 760 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

27. 5W30 O'Reilly (house brand), API SN conventional = 91,433 psi
This oil only cost $3.99 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 863 ppm
phos = 816 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

28. 5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm
moly = 181 ppm

29. 5W30 Red Line, API SN synthetic = 91,028 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

30. 5W20 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 90,434 psi
zinc = 964 ppm
phos = 892 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

31. 10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm

32. 10W60 Castrol TWS Motorsport, API SJ conventional = 90,163 psi
This oil is manufactured in Europe and is sold in the US for BMW models M3, M5, M6, Z4M, and Z8.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

33. 5W20 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 90,144 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

34. 5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

35. 30 wt Castrol Heavy Duty, API SM conventional = 88,089 psi
zinc = 907 ppm
phos = 829 ppm
moly = 56 ppm

36. 20W50 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 87,930 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

37. 5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
zinc = 947 ppm
phos = 778 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

38. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
moly = 24 ppm

39. 5W20 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 86,034 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

40. 15W40 RED LINE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm

41. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (formerly Castrol Syntec) black bottle, synthetic = 85,179 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

42. 5W30 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 84,009 psi
zinc = 942 ppm
phos = 817 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

43. 20W50 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 83,487 psi
zinc = 588 ppm
phos = 697 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

44. 20W50 Kendall GT-1 High Performance with liquid titanium, API SN conventional = 83,365 psi
zinc = 991 ppm
phos = 1253 ppm
moly = 57 ppm
titanium = 84 ppm

45. 5W30 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 15,000 mile, API SN synthetic = 83,263 psi
zinc = 890 ppm
phos = 819 ppm
moly = 104 ppm

46. 0W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 82,867 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

47. 5W30 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 81,800 psi
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm
moly = 598 ppm

48. 5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

49. 5W30 Edelbrock "Cat-Safe", API SM synthetic = 78,609 psi
This oil is made for Edelbrock by Torco
zinc = 924 ppm
phos = 659 ppm
moly = 28 ppm

50. 15W40 ROYAL PURPLE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4 = 76,997 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

51. 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN yellow bottle, conventional = 76,989 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

52. 10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 76,806 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

53. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

54. 5W30 GM's AC Delco dexos 1 API SN semi-synthetic = 76,501 psi
zinc = 878 ppm
phos = 758 ppm
moly = 72 ppm

55. 5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, formerly Castrol Syntec, black bottle = 75,409 psi
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm
moly = 71 ppm

56. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
moly = 204 ppm
NOTE: This particular bottle of oil was just opened, but was out of a 3 ˝ year old case.

57. 5W40 MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm

58. 5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

59. 15W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil, conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM, = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm

60. 15W40 MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 1944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm

61. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel Oil conventional CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm

62. 15W40 SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

63. Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 Nitro 70 Racing Oil semi-synthetic = 72,003 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

64. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

65. 15W40 “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

66. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

67. 15W40 VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 70,869 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

68. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm

69. 5W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 69,631 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

70. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm

71. 5W30 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 68,782 psi
zinc = 796 ppm
phos = 830 ppm
moly = 75 ppm

72. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
moly = 121 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.


73. 5W40 SHELL ROTELLA T6 Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

74. 15W40 LUCAS MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm

75. 15W40 CASTROL GTX DIESEL Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN = 66,323 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

76. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
moly = 189 ppm

77. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil, API SJ conventional = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

78. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
moly = 339 ppm

79. “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Most major Oil Companies say to NEVER add anything to their oils, because adding anything will upset the carefully balanced additive package, and ruin the oil’s chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

80. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

81. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
moly = 871 ppm

82. 0W20 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 60,941 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

83. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend = 60,413 psi
zinc = 1673 ppm
phos = 1114 ppm
moly = 67 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Comp Cams by Endure.

84. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
moly = 227 ppm

85. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

86. 10W40 Edelbrock conventional = 59,120 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.

87. 0W20 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 57,228 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


88. “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.


89. “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 76 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

90. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

91. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm

92. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

93. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 89 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

94. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

At the end of the day, it is not my goal to convince anyone of anything. I’m simply sharing valuable real world test data for folks to consider. Everyone can obviously decide for themselves if they want to embrace this data and make use of it, or if they simply want to ignore it.

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

LeMans Pete

I stand by what I said before, especially about concise summaries.

73, Dark Blue 454

Read the first response to his post here:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-t...more-oils.html

...which cites real scientists (you know, physicists and chemists):

I would call 540-Rat's conclusions 'junk science' but it would be an insult to junk.

63mako

Those links say exactly what I have been saying since this "wear testing" was originally posted. A 30 second film strength test result in no way can be extrapolated to conclude the effectiveness of extreme pressure additives. There are 2 major flaws with this conclusion. 30 seconds will not allow enough time to build the protective sacrificial layer and the PSI numbers posted to break the film strength are 1/2 or less of the pressure a mild stock cam sees at the lobe/ lifter interface. ZDDP and the coating resulting of the breakdown of it from heart and pressure is the barrier of last resort once the film strength is broken and any flat tappet cam will exceed the pressures needed to break the film strength. The last paragraph here stresses this but the entire article debunks the testing here.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm

LeMans Pete

Does 540 RAT have a name? Credentials go a long way in helping support ones test data. Papers? Degrees? Patents? Being a "Member SAE" only requires that you give them $81.

LeMans Pete

But, you don't even need an engineering degree to get an SAE membership. Infact, you can specifically check you do NOT have an engineering, math, or science degree.

When people find holes in your test methods, you should modify these methods to answer these questions. Engineers/scientists know this. Clearly 540 Rat continues to plug along with his same testing method with disregard to any comment or criticism.

63mako

Yes, no degree needed. Send in $81 and you too can be a SAE member! The key here is there have been tribologists, lubrication engineers and oil additive engineers that have posted on his thread on speedtalk regarding the testing methodology and incorrect assumptions from the results of improper testing protocol yet they keep coming. Testing methodology needs to pass peer review. The only test results that are valid are that these results let you know the film strength of different oils at the tested temperature. Nothing more, nothing less. Assuming anything else from this testing is invalid. The film strength testing has merit for what it is.

lionelhutz

Using a SAE membership as proof your data is more important than anyone else is as invalid as claiming your ISO9001 registration means you build your products to a higher standard.

540 RAT

In case you missed my response on another oil thread:

I am not some nameless and faceless person floating around on the Internet. A number of folks on this Forum know me personally. They know what major Engineering Company I work for, and some of them are familiar with a few of my accomplishments as well as the Patents that I've been awarded in the Engineering world. But, I don't think it is the whole world's business to know what my personal credentials are. How many others provide that about themselves? But, I will say that I'm a Professional Degreed Engineer and leave it at that. And this should not come as any surprise, because it is always at the bottom in my signature.

I typically do not follow along with the my oil testing threads, because this is not my first Rodeo. I'm well aware that there are a few people who just want to argue back and forth continuously for days on end, or even longer. And I don't have time for that nonsense. I try to include all the necessary information in each of my posts, so they can stand alone without further explanation. But, for folks who have a legitimate question, they can always PM me.

The oil testing I perform is not some flaky voodoo snake oil hype. I don't sell any oil, so I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy any certain oil. People can buy whatever they want and it doesn't make any difference to me. I did the oil testing for my own knowledge because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there about motor oil. My findings surprised me as much as anyone, because I also had been brainwashed to believe that high zinc levels were needed to provide high levels of wear protection. Now I know from my testing that the whole high zinc level deal was nothing more than a MYTH that has now been BUSTED. The GM oil report that I have referenced in my recent write-ups, came to the same conclusion as my testing. So, to the naysayers I ask, how do you explain that my testing is invalid if it matches GM's findings?

I do not need to remake my test rig, because it is accurate enough to pick fly specks out of the pepper, as they say. It provides very good consistency and repeatability, which is paramount in any type of testing. I test every single oil exactly the same, and the results come out how they come out. It doesn't matter how I mix up the order of the oils I test, it doesn't matter when I test the oils, it doesn't matter how many times I test the oils. The results for any given oil are always the same within a couple of percent or so. And I consider that more than good enough for back to back motor oil comparison. The oils are being compared relative to each other, nothing else.

You will not find back to back oil testing that is done on the same equipment, using the same procedure, at the same temperature, by the same operator, anywhere else. So, this is the best apples to apples oil comparison you will ever find.

If certain readers are so stuck in their beliefs about the old high zinc Folklore, and can't grasp the value of this actual real world oil test data, then that is their loss. Instead of them trying to slam my test data with no proof to back up what they say, I challenge them to come up with something that is any better.

And for those who just can't get past the idea of high zinc levels being questioned, try to find any real world wear test data like I have provided that proves that zinc performs any better than what I have found. You can't do it and Cam Companies can't do it, because people simply have a misconception of how zinc works and what it can do. Every last claim that you need high levels of zinc for high levels of protection, is only words without test data proof to back it up.

The number one oil in my testing is 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, which is a modern low zinc API certified oil. It has OVER TWICE the wear protection capability of the lowest ranked oil which is very high zinc 30wt Lucas Break-In oil. For those who can't believe that, test both of them in high spring pressure flat tappet motors and you will see for yourself.

Everything I have posted about my motor oil test data is pure fact from real world testing. Actual real world testing is absolute. If you drop a sledge hammer on your foot, it will hurt. That is real world testing. It is absolute, and you cannot argue with that. My oil testing is no different. Only a fool would argue against real world test proof.

BOTTOM LINE: In order to choose the best possible wear protection for ANY engine, including flat tappet engines, you must choose from a "Wear Protection Capability" ranking list, such as I have put together. If you choose only from a zinc level reference chart, you will only be guessing. Because zinc levels alone, cannot tell you anything about how well an oil provides wear protection. Some high zinc oils perform very well, while other high zinc oils perform very poorly.

I provide my real world test data as a courtesy to like-minded gearheads, because some buddies had asked to, so that everyone could share in the findings. So I did, and I have had a huge number of positive responses from all over the world. And a good number of them have asked me to continue posting my data, in spite of what the nasty people say. So, I will. People can choose to embrace my factual test data and make use of it, or they can simply choose to ignore it. I doesn't affect me one way or the other.

540 RAT
Member: SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

QIK59

Wow you can get away saying stuff like that ?! : I was recently looking to buy a transmission jack and commented that I wasn't like some pathetic folks that ask to BORROW a floor jack.
Well I had an individual take exception to my comment to the point that he was daring me to say it to his face "any where, any time, blah blah blah" !!!

Anyway to add fuel to the "oil fire" - I just had some motor oils tested :
and have decided to go with off road diesel (farm tractor LOL) oil : Case IH Akcela non-synthetic 10w30 - it specs out almost identical to Brad Pen with Zinc 1553 & P 1242.
Those levels are higher than I was looking for but it is also high in detergent (Ca 2964) which counteracts the high Z & P levels.
It also has higher levels of Boron and Molybdenum.

I live in the country and want to use a readily available oil that I can source easily (locally or on trips).
I don't need to be chasing around for a boutique oil when I'm out in **** intercourse Egypt on a road trip somewhere.

The Akcela 15w40 was IDENTICAL in composition to the 10w30.

Also tested CJ-4 rated Mobil DELVAC 1300 Super 10w30 ; it had Zn - 1145 , P - 921 and detegent (Ca) of 2055.
Zn & P levels seemed pretty marginal so am going to go with the Case IH Akcela.

63mako

You are referencing the GM test and the backward compatibility myth again. Read response 104 above and read the actual links. You need to open your mind. Your testing is a film strength test done with a film strength tester and in no way tests extreme pressure additives or their effectiveness. That 30 second testing protocol is intentionally designed to test film strength only. If extreme pressure additives entered the picture the film strength test results would be skewed by them. This is not wear testing. It is film strength testing.

69427

I see you've been similarly exposed to the ISO 9000 religion too.