[wkohn]

I just Googled "Mobil 1 four ball wear test scar" and (of course...) got about 70,700 hits ... The first 2 pages were ALL links to different Amsoil distributor sites (most with EXACTLY the same data repeated over and over again ...) with names like 'syntheticoildealer.com', 'bestsynthetics.com', 'eastcoastsynthetics.com', and even 'amsoil.com' ... after 2 pages of this my eyes rolled up into my head and I believe I suffered a mild stroke. After regaining consciousness, I decided that if there is ANY real, independent data out there, I ain't gonna find it on an internet search, because Amsoil has all the search engines stacked.

Marketing and hype, superstition and distinctions without difference ... .

Oh wait there is more. The oil analyst companies offer the ASTM D-4172 test. I knew those scientist were superstitious. Are we having fun yet?

 

[TomB]

I did my search using the test # in quotation marks and then started adding oil company names. Comes up with far less Amsoil web sites. If all else fails. Go to the major oil companies sites.

Yeah, but the underlying point remains ... what do these differences in test results translate to in actual real-world use in a H-D motor? For example, if the 4-ball test at 150deg/C, 40kg for 1 hour produces a smaller scar on the test if I use Amsoil than Mobil 1, that's great .... but if my engine melts into a pile of slag because the bearings couldn't handle that temperature and pressure over that period of time, spending the extra $4 a quart on Amsoil didn't help me one diddly-darn bit, now did it?

Distinctions without (demonstrated) difference ...

 

[wkohn]

Yeah, but the underlying point remains ... what do these differences in test results translate to in actual real-world use in a H-D motor? For example, if the 4-ball test at 150deg/C, 40kg for 1 hour produces a smaller scar on the test if I use Amsoil than Mobil 1, that's great .... but if my engine melts into a pile of slag because the bearings couldn't handle that temperature and pressure over that period of time, spending the extra $4 a quart on Amsoil didn't help me one diddly-darn bit, now did it?

Distinctions without (demonstrated) difference ...

That is the whole idea behind a standard test. 150deg/C=302deg/F It is an extreme (but not that extreme) test that gives you extra protection in case you lose oil pressure or get a leak. Give you time to shut down without destroying everything. Plus the better an oil does in that test the less friction/wear you will have and the more power you will have (very small percentage) to drive you down the road.

 

[TomB]

That is the whole idea behind a standard test. 150deg/C=302deg/F It is an extreem (but not that extreem) test that gives you extra protection in case you lose oil pressure or get a leak.

The test results give me no extra protection at all. The theoretical benefit of an oil that performs better on that test may well be extra protection under those circumstances, but until the lab test differences are shown to make a real-world difference in an H-D engine that loses oil pressure or develops a leak (ie, Amsoil lubed engine ran 0.04 seconds longer than Mobil 1 lubed engine before melting into a pile of slag) it's all just hype. I mean, it'd be great to get that extra 0.04 seconds going down the highway, but c'mon ...

Here's an analogy (because I love analogies...). Supposed there was a laboratory test that demonstrated that a surplus NASA spacesuit provides better isolation from weather than my leather jacket and chaps. Does that test results necessarily mean that I'd be better off riding down the road on a motorcycle while wearing a spacesuit than my leathers?

 

[wkohn]

The test results give me no extra protection at all. The theoretical benefit of an oil that performs better on that test may well be extra protection under those circumstances, but until the lab test differences are shown to make a real-world difference in an H-D engine that loses oil pressure or develops a leak (ie, Amsoil lubed engine ran 0.04 seconds longer than Mobil 1 lubed engine before melting into a pile of slag) it's all just hype. I mean, it'd be great to get that extra 0.04 seconds going down the highway, but c'mon ...

Here's an analogy (because I love analogies...). Supposed there was a laboratory test that demonstrated that a surplus NASA spacesuit provides better isolation from weather than my leather jacket and chaps. Does that test results necessarily mean that I'd be better off riding down the road on a motorcycle while wearing a spacesuit than my leathers?

So if you take a .45 and put it up to your head and pull the trigger with a 2" thick steel plate between your head and the gun. Then do the same test without the 2" thick steel plate. In which test will the bullet put a hole through your head?

Tests are designed to give us something to make our educated decisions on. Without the tests. Your just guessing.

 

[TomB]

So if you take a .45 and put it up to your head and pull the trigger with a 2" thick steel plate between your head and the gun. Then do the same test without the 2" thick steel plate. In which test will the bullet put a hole through your head?

Uhhh, this is much more analogous (I love analogies...) to my previous statement about 'any oil being better than no oil' than it is to a comparison between oils. A better analogy would be between different thicknesses of steel plate. However, it seems to me that the 4-ball wear test says something similar to "would you rather have a 2.0001 inch thick plate, or a 2 inch thick plate costing half as much", without the whole being dead issue ...

Tests are designed to give us something to make our educated decisions on. Without the tests. Your just guessing.

Oh, I agree. In fact, I based my statement that any synthetic is better than any crude stock based oil on lab tests that showed DRAMATIC differences between the 2 types of oil in terms of resistance to thermal breakdown. The sticky point is whether the much smaller test differences between different brands of synthetic oil have any real-world application. My stance (despite having no plate in my head...) is that the tests do not demonstrate any real-world difference.

 

[wkohn]

Uhhh, this is much more analogous (I love analogies...) to my previous statement about 'any oil being better than no oil' than it is to a comparison between oils. A better analogy would be between different thicknesses of steel plate. However, it seems to me that the 4-ball wear test says something similar to "would you rather have a 2.0001 inch thick plate, or a 2 inch thick plate costing half as much", without the whole being dead issue ...



Oh, I agree. In fact, I based my statement that any synthetic is better than any crude stock based oil on lab tests that showed DRAMATIC differences between the 2 types of oil in terms of resistance to thermal breakdown. The sticky point is whether the much smaller test differences between different brands of synthetic oil have any real-world application. My stance (despite having no plate in my head...) is that the tests do not demonstrate any real-world difference.

This is to the point of being ridiculous. The test demonstrates wear of a part (4 balls), at a set temp (150deg/C), at a set pressure (40KG), at a set speed (1,800rpm), for a set time (1 hour) and producing a wear scar that varies with different types and brands of oils.

If this is not a real world test then you need to see if it works on your 2 balls in 302 deg/F oil, under 88# of pressure, against a 1,800rpm spinning piece of steel, for 1 hour. Tell me if there is a wear scar after. And if it was real world enough for you. :roflback:

 

[TomB]

If this is not a real world test then you need to see if it works on your 2 balls in 302 deg/F oil, under 88# of pressure, against a 1,800rpm spinning piece of steel, for 1 hour. Tell me if there is a wear scar after. And if it was real world enough for you. :roflback:

First a .45 to the side of my head, now you've got my balls in a vice. I thought we were talking about whether one synthetic oil was better than another in a Harley-Davidson ... ^rolleyez^

 

[wkohn]

First a .45 to the side of my head, now you've got my balls in a vice. I thought we were talking about whether one synthetic oil was better than another in a Harley-Davidson ... ^rolleyez^

It is 302 deg/F synthetic oil in the test that is used with your balls in the vice. :yes:

 

[jrrhdmust]

Here's an analogy (because I love analogies...). Supposed there was a laboratory test that demonstrated that a surplus NASA spacesuit provides better isolation from weather than my leather jacket and chaps. Does that test results necessarily mean that I'd be better off riding down the road on a motorcycle while wearing a spacesuit than my leathers?

Well how about this true test. There were some taxi cabs. The taxi cabs were all run for 60k miles. A couple were run with just regular dino oil with it changed every 3k. Then some of them were run with Amsoil with oil changed at 6k miles and anotther set of cars had Amsoil changed at 12k. The cars with the 3k dino showed cam/lifter wear of .02 -.06. The 6k Amsoil cars and the 12k Amsoil cars had cam/lifter wear of .01 - .03. So the oil actually protected the engine with less wear to the components. So your spacesuit analogy is not correct.

 

[TomB]

Well how about this true test. There were some taxi cabs. The taxi cabs were all run for 60k miles. A couple were run with just regular dino oil with it changed every 3k. Then some of them were run with Amsoil with oil changed at 6k miles and anotther set of cars had Amsoil changed at 12k. The cars with the 3k dino showed cam/lifter wear of .02 -.06. The 6k Amsoil cars and the 12k Amsoil cars had cam/lifter wear of .01 - .03. So the oil actually protected the engine with less wear to the components. So your spacesuit analogy is not correct.

Actually, this example has nothing to do with my spacesuit analogy (I love analogies...), nor does it have anything to do with the question at hand. The taxi cab experiment (setting aside for the moment any suspicion about whether it's true or not, let's just assume it is ...) only serves to provide real-world evidence for my 2nd proposition, as follows:

Sigh ...

Any oil is better than no oil. Any synthetic is better than crude-base...

It does nothing to provide evidence that, in the real world, one synthetic oil is, practically-speaking, better than another. It does nothing to provide evidence that one synthetic oil is, practically-speaking, worth twice as much as another.

Put Amsoil in a LARGE # of taxi cabs (not just a few, so that random differences between different samples of the same vehicle wash out, and same make, model, year and equipment so that differences between different vehicle are not a factor) and put Mobil 1 (or whatever brand of synthetic ...) in another large number of the same make, model and year of taxi cab, run both groups for the same # of miles under the same conditions, and serviced by the same fleet service group at the same intervals and THEN you'll have a viable, believable real-world study with meaningful results.


Did I mention that I studied critical analysis of research design in school? ...

 

[jrrhdmust]

Actually it does. Your spacesuit analogy is comparing apples and oranges, to put it in simplistic terms. I am comparing oils that are run in vehicles.

They did not test against other synthetics. However, you are trying to defend oils that have not been tested, while some of us are giving the data from tests. I am not saying Amsoil is better than Redline. I am saying that Amsoil is better than most other oils, and since I do not have any data on Redline for instance, I will go with the oil that I have a performance sample test set on, instead of gambling on an unknown.

 

[TomB]

Actually it does. Your spacesuit analogy is comparing apples and oranges, to put it in simplistic terms. I am comparing oils that are run in vehicles.

They did not test against other synthetics. However, you are trying to defend oils that have not been tested, while some of us are giving the data from tests. I am not saying Amsoil is better than Redline. I am saying that Amsoil is better than most other oils, and since I do not have any data on Redline for instance, I will go with the oil that I have a performance sample test set on, instead of gambling on an unknown.

Actually, we were discussing Mobil 1, which apparently was tested and scored lower than Amsoil on the balls-in-a-vice test. Let me reiterate ...

Yeah, but the underlying point remains ... what do these differences in test results translate to in actual real-world use in a H-D motor? For example, if the 4-ball test at 150deg/C, 40kg for 1 hour produces a smaller scar on the test if I use Amsoil than Mobil 1, that's great .... but if my engine melts into a pile of slag because the bearings couldn't handle that temperature and pressure over that period of time, spending the extra $4 a quart on Amsoil didn't help me one diddly-darn bit, now did it?

Distinctions without (demonstrated) difference ...

Let's try a different analogy (I love analogies...), perhaps a bit closer to home than the spacesuit one.

We have 2 helmets. Helmet A costs $50. Helmet B costs $400. Both are DOT-approved, meaning they both passed standard laboratory tests. But helmet B is advertised as being able to withstand 4 times as many g-forces as helmet A because they retested both helmets, but dropped the ball from a higher distance than the standard DOT test.

Is helmet B a better choice for me? I dunno, what do these forces translate to in the real world? If helmet B really can withstand a high level of g-force, but my neck cannot, why should I pay $350 more for it? I'm still dead.

So, (to spell it out...) if Amsoil scores better under extreme conditions than Mobil 1, but my engine is dead (data not available...) before it ever reaches those extremes, why spend twice as much?

Again we get back to distinctions without (demonstrated) difference ...

 

[wkohn]

Actually, we were discussing Mobil 1, which apparently was tested and scored lower than Amsoil on the balls-in-a-vice test. Let me reiterate ...



Let's try a different analogy (I love analogies...), perhaps a bit closer to home than the spacesuit one.

We have 2 helmets. Helmet A costs $50. Helmet B costs $400. Both are DOT-approved, meaning they both passed standard laboratory tests. But helmet B is advertised as being able to withstand 4 times as many g-forces as helmet A because they retested both helmets, but dropped the ball from a higher distance than the standard DOT test.

Is helmet B a better choice for me? I dunno, what do these forces translate to in the real world? If helmet B really can withstand a high level of g-force, but my neck cannot, why should I pay $350 more for it? I'm still dead.

So, (to spell it out...) if Amsoil scores better under extreme conditions than Mobil 1, but my engine is dead (data not available...) before it ever reaches those extremes, why spend twice as much?

Again we get back to distinctions without (demonstrated) difference ...

Good analogy. Bad reasoning.

 

[TomB]

Good analogy. Bad reasoning.

Really? Why?

 

[wkohn]

Really? Why?

You know why and I don't have the time to type it all out for you to still come back with another analogy and more bad reasoning.

 

[TomB]

OK, so if I read this correctly, you're right and I'm wrong. Now that's an ironclad argument.

 

[jrrhdmust]

Amsoil and Mobil 1 are really close in price. So is your argument that the extra dollar or so for Amsoil is not worth it? On the odd chance the wear on your engine might be less? SO far you have used analogies that are ridiculous. This analogy is closer, if you bought a Dodge Viper for 70k or a corvette for 65k? The dodge viper has better statics when tested (such as Amsoil and the 4 ball wear test). The bottom line comes out to be what are you personally willing to pay for?

 

[Sheriff]

This analogy is closer, if you bought a Dodge Viper for 70k or a corvette for 65k? The dodge viper has better statics when tested...

Actually, your analogy isn't very good. Being a Corvette owner and fanatic, the only $65K Corvette is the new C6 Z06 and its numbers are actually better than the Vipers, so therefore the lower priced option is better. This testing was also done by an INDEPENDENT testing facility which makes the results A LOT MORE BELIEVABLE!

You know, I don't think anyone is really questioning the fact that Amsoil is an excellent synthetic oil (at least I'm not), what really frustrates a fair amount of folks is Amsoil's OVER marketing of their products primarily by utilizing this test report. Again, I am really giving Amsoil a try because a lot of folks stand by it (not just the independent sales people!). I am pretty confident that it will be good for my Harley!

OK...to be real honest....I am getting my Amsoil from a guy at work....for free!:harhar:

 

[TomB]

Amsoil and Mobil 1 are really close in price.

Their MOTORCYCLE oils are very close in price, that's true. But, I'm not using that, I'm using Mobil 1 15w50 automobile oil (I believe I've mentioned that a few times in this thread ...), which I can get from several sources for less than $4 per quart on sale.

Why would I put auto oil in my precious Harley? Because several independent reports have shown that there is no significant difference between 'auto' and 'motorcycle' oils ...

You know why and I don't have the time to type it all out for you to still come back with another analogy and more bad reasoning.

Ya know, it struck me this weekend ... this is analogous (I love analogies...) to what my wife says at the end on an argument after I have clearly demonstrated that mine is the logically correct position ... thanks!