First, let me state that I am not trying to criticize the article in the latest rag, nor am I claiming to know more than the author, nor do I think his findings are incorrect. I only wish to clarify what this oil testing was actually doing, and what the results actually mean.
The article lists several oils, which have had some ZDDP/Phosphorus additive mixed with them. It shows a resultant PSI finding, and would seem to justify not adding anything to the oil based upon this PSI reading. Without knowing how this test was applied, I assert that the findings are useless. For example, if two pieces of metal are clamped together, and the PSI is the force used to make the two slip upon each other, then the VR1 oil looks horrible compared to the others. I don't imagine that this is the case, but who knows, the article does not state the method of testing used.
Also, it is my understanding that ZDDP/phosphorus when mixed with oil, doesn't really do anything for the lubrication quality of the oil until it is "run in", so to speak, and has a chance to leave the deposit of a micro layer of phosphorus on the base metals. It is this micro layer that builds up over time and use, that is the wear preventive, by providing a super slick, boundary layer that prevents metal to metal contact. So with that in mind, to test the oil without the wear in that allows for the deposition of the phosphorus layer, is not really a valid test at all.
Now I gotta tell you that I am not an oil engineer, nor an expert at anything much, and I only know what I read, much of which comes from the internet and is questionable at best. Given that knowledge base, or lack of it, I'd like to understand what these test results actually mean. This probably has to do with the test method, and how it relates to the real world application, with micro depositions, high and low temperatures, contamination, etc. But, I'd love to learn more... My personal opinion is that we worry way too much about oils, but it is an interesting subject. I mostly use whatever is cheapest at Wallyworld.
MAYBE, it is a case of "Tell me what results you want, and I'll design a test to give you that result" . ??? (Maybe not.
)
The article lists several oils, which have had some ZDDP/Phosphorus additive mixed with them. It shows a resultant PSI finding, and would seem to justify not adding anything to the oil based upon this PSI reading. Without knowing how this test was applied, I assert that the findings are useless. For example, if two pieces of metal are clamped together, and the PSI is the force used to make the two slip upon each other, then the VR1 oil looks horrible compared to the others. I don't imagine that this is the case, but who knows, the article does not state the method of testing used.
Also, it is my understanding that ZDDP/phosphorus when mixed with oil, doesn't really do anything for the lubrication quality of the oil until it is "run in", so to speak, and has a chance to leave the deposit of a micro layer of phosphorus on the base metals. It is this micro layer that builds up over time and use, that is the wear preventive, by providing a super slick, boundary layer that prevents metal to metal contact. So with that in mind, to test the oil without the wear in that allows for the deposition of the phosphorus layer, is not really a valid test at all.
Now I gotta tell you that I am not an oil engineer, nor an expert at anything much, and I only know what I read, much of which comes from the internet and is questionable at best. Given that knowledge base, or lack of it, I'd like to understand what these test results actually mean. This probably has to do with the test method, and how it relates to the real world application, with micro depositions, high and low temperatures, contamination, etc. But, I'd love to learn more... My personal opinion is that we worry way too much about oils, but it is an interesting subject. I mostly use whatever is cheapest at Wallyworld.
MAYBE, it is a case of "Tell me what results you want, and I'll design a test to give you that result" . ??? (Maybe not.
)
Comment