Thought this might be of interest to some people switching oils. Not sure how relevant the tests are to us, but some of the results are surprising, especially since Mobil 1 is supposed to be recommended by a lot of the manufacturers

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil%20Tests.pdf

It doesn't measure oxidation stability, detergency, deposit formation on the turbo, rings, and combustion chamber, viscosity stability, acid neutralization capacity, evaporation, anti foaming, etc. So, it's not the end all be all, but just a bit interesting on metal to metal wear.

 

mobil 1 is the only syn oil that has been mentioned to be bad for the rotary.. that was a long time ago..

i got to give you a search for sticky threads on this.

you might rethink this post.

beers

 

The problem with that test is it was just one type of many types of tests. Amsoil oil has all kinds of tests that they say proves they are number 1. You have to have a 3rd party test all the top oils in many different types of tests. The other issue is that rotary engines have some unique requirements in comparison to piston engines. The ability for the oil to burn clean and not leave any damaging deposits is important too.

 

LOL ? Royal Purple has almost no damage

Wow ..... Synthetic Rules.

Yeah I know this test does not cover everything. but its still a good test.

Yeah what happen to Amsoil ? Its such a popular brand and they dont test it .... fishy

 

make sure you read the results....

the royal purple r51 picture isn't from the standard test, the damage you see came from them removing the oil bath completely, and running the test. With the oil bath there was almost no damage.

 

Very interesting. Looked like a very well done test until it came up with two very different answers on the same oil. Not everyone who bottles and sells oil actually makes it. One of them is almost an exact clone of another except for the dye, and I doubt dye improves the quality.

 

While not exhaustive for what really happens in an engine, let alone a rotary, the results are interesting and worthy of presenting. I see many conclusions coming from the test:
- the RedLine is not ILSAC/SAE approved (hence no such label on it)
- European/Australia markets have the better oils (ever seen a 5W-60 at PepBoys?!?)
- best bang-for-the-buck: Valvoline Durablend (the one I use for sometime... ;o) )
- Racing 51 is not in the same boat with the rest and will not be gentle on the cat converter... so unless you have a race car without a catalyst, no need for it, the 10W-40 is good enough (though the one tested is really old technology - SJ, not SM or even SL). Those days, SJ could use lots of moly and ZDDP in oils, which are the antiwear agents (but in SM are reduced because they hurt the catalyst).
Now, this test would cover piston engine parts, such as cam roller followers or tappets. Not sure to which rotary engine part this test is relevant... but it cannot hurt to have good oil film strength ;o)

PS can you buy Amsoil in normal stores? never seen it in US, not sure about outside (where are these guys from? Australia?)

 

AMSOIL used to make the base stock for Valvoline synthetic, I think they still do. Valvoline may add a few grams per liter of additives but they don't change the properties much.

I would suggest that the report was probably influenced (and financed) by one of the oils identified in the test. Guess which one?

 

it doesn't necessarily mean anything relative to what actually occurs inside an engine

 

dude!! i've been using mobil 1 for the past 10k miles!!!!
ima change to royal purple

 

What is it with Amsoil users? It's almost like they are all AmWAY salesmen pushing this product that doesn't quite meet some federal standard and can only be purchased out of a garage. It's all a little too shady for me. I don't doubt the users, it's just a little too StoneCutters to me.

I do think the test is beneficial. How reliable is your oil under load? Will it's film protect your internals as the rotor rolls around? Here's one way of analysing it.

 

i agree with teamrx8, i cant see how this "pressure" test would simulate friction involved in engines. i also couldn't grasp the idea of the pressure resistances being different, did they mean of the oil or what they used on thier test, oh well...

 

oh dear god, not the blasted Timkne test... why is it every old test with shocking results is always some version of the damn Timken test???

This is an old test and has been determined to have unreliable and unrepeatable results. Basically, to pass their testing all you have to do is run a number of samples until a good one comes out. Timken themselves have even discreditied the test.

 

I agree that this isn't indicitive of real world engine running. It is a good test to show what goes on in your engine at startup though when the oil is cold. Film strength is important as that is all your "bearings" are. Bearings never break in. They can't. They don't touch and we want to keep it that way. That means a good oil with good film strength matters. Most of your wear is at startup anyways.

 

This test is NOT indicative of an oil's ability to perform - they even put up an apology/retraction after publishing this article here:

http://www.streetforce.com.au/news/0..._aint_oils.php

 

You need to read into that statement a little bit and you'll see why they said that.

 

L-a-w-y-e-r-s