h20warrior,

That's exactly what I think too. The last thing I am going to do is defend Amsoil because Amsoil says it's the best. If some other lube is the best, I want to know that too, but I want to know why and what information was provided to justify that claim. I like independant tests but they are not always readily available. There are also ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) tests that measure a lubricants performance. I just am not knowledgeable enough to know how critical the different aspects of these tests really affects a lubricants ability to keep a drive together. I don't really think there are many who do, although they would like us to think they do. Here are some of the tests that I know of but even Amsoil does not have all of these results for all their lubricants. I also don't know if they would all apply to Gear Lubes.

Noack Volatility test; (ASTM D5800)
The NOACK Volatility Test determines the evaporation loss of lubricants in high-temperature service. The more motor oils vaporize, the thicker and heavier they become, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption and excessive wear and emissions. A maximum of 15 percent evaporation loss is allowable to meet the API SL and ILSAC GF-3 specifications.

Four Ball Wear; (ASTM D4172B)
The Four Ball Wear Test determines the wear protection properties of a lubricant by measuring the wear scars produced by four metal balls in sliding contact under the test parameters. The smaller the average wear scar , the better the wear protection provided by the lubricant.

Flash/Fire Point; (ASTM D92)
The Flash/Fire Point Test determines the lowest temperatures at which application of a flame will cause lubricant vapors to ignite (flash point) and sustain burning for five seconds (fire point). Lubricants with higher flash and fire points exhibit more stable volatility characteristics and are safer to use and transport.

Pour Point; (ASTM D97)
The Pour Point Test determines the lowest temperature at which a lubricant flows. The lower a lubricant's pour point, the better protection it provides in low-temperature service.

Total Base Number; (TBN)
Total Base Number (TBN) is the measurement of a lubricant's reserve alkalinity. The higher a motor oil's TBN, the more effective it is in handling contaminants and reducing the corrosive effects of acids for an extended period of time.

There are also the Kinematic viscosity test (ASTM D445) which tests at different temperatures, the Brookfield viscosity test (ASTM D3829) which also tests at specific temperature. I just don't know enough about them either.

If I am going to promote or sell anything, I need to know a lot more about it than the average person. If it's good, I want to know why. If it's better than the other guy's stuff, I want to know why and be able to prove it. At least beyond a reasonable doubt, with facts, not specualtion.

I will now attend to my continued search for the answers.
;)

Thanks,

I can see this is not going to be easy.

Redline tests their lube using different ASTM tests than Amsoil does. Redline is using;

ASTM D2266 Coefficient of Friction and
ASTM D2596 Coefficient of wear.

I am not sure how these tests are performed or how they would compare to the Four ball wear test, but in my opinion, they have very little to do with shock resistance. A gears ability to absorb shock does not have a great deal to do with the lubricant but more to do with the chemical and molecular make-up of the material the gear is made from and how it is heat-treated.

Certain tool steels such a the S-5 and S-7 grades are Shock resistant alloys designed to operated in those conditions. Imagine clamping a gear in a vise. Now grab a big hammer and smack the gear teeth. You can pour all the gear oil on it you want and you are still going to break off a couple of teeth. How hard you have to hit it will depend on the gear material.

I believe most drive failures are due to metal fatigue, not lubricant issues. That is why most of the effort has been on making stonger drive gears, shafts, Thrust caps, etc. You don't generally snap a shaft from an inadequate lubricant.

If anybody cares to throw the Bull$**** flag at any time, feel free to do so. I am no expert (yet) on lubricants, but I do know a little about metalurgy.

Wear and longevity due to inferior lubrication is another issue. I will continue my search.

Why does this not suprise me. There is no way the everyday guy is going to know what is best. All the test data on these lubes is different. Apples and Oranges.

Royal Purple uses the Four Ball test, but not the wear test. They use the weld test. They do not list an ASTM number for any of their tests so I cannot compare.

Looks like I will have to send some emails and make some phone calls. This is really starting to piss me off. Good thing I don't have a job anymore. I've got lots of time to harrass people. :D

I'll post back when I find out more info. I want apples and apples, side by side, on black and white. A little color would be OK. ;)

NW_Jim,

Your point is good about actual drive failures not being caused by inadequate lubrication. My Bravo failed this year. At the time of failure it was 6 years old. It is powered by a mild 385hp 454 Mag. The drive failure was a broken shaft. I believe that none of the magic oils would have prevented the failure. I was using Mercury high performance gear oil and other than the metal bits in it after the failure, the oil looked and smelled good.

It is good to keep in mind the failure mechanisms when trying to prevent failures. The main reason that I am considering a synthetic lube is for other reasons mentioned by people here: Easier shifting and piece of mind.

JIM READ WHAT JAFO POSTED HE'S RIGHT ON WITH THE POST !!

RIC232 PLEASE USE THE LIGHT WEIGHT REDLINE IT WILL WORK GREAT EVEN THE HEAVY IS NOT THICK LIKE MOLASSES ,BUT LIGHT IS WHAT YOU NEED UNLESS YOUR DRIVE GETS HOT FROM LONG RUNS OR NO COOLER

JIM THE 4 BALL TEST IN REDLINE IS ALITTLE BETTER THAN AMSOIL, AND MOBILE IN GEAR OIL ONLY THIS IS NOT WHY I RECOMEND IT !! AGAIN WE MADE A 9INCH FORD REAR END AT A LOCAL NASCAR SHOP WITH A CLEAR COVER AND CHUCKED IT UP IN A DRIVE SHAFT MACHINE TO SEE WHICH OIL WOULD STAY ON THE GEARS ,ECT,---- THE SHOK PROOF REDLINE WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT PAST OUR TEST AND LONG ONE WEEK AT VERY HIGH RPM TEST -- THATS WHY WE USE IT IT STAYS ON THE GEARS,AND NOTHING ELSE WOULD AND MOST EVEN SHOWED WEAR,EVEN THE SYN. I LOVED ,
IF YOU HAVE WEAK METAL NO OIL WILL HELP BUT THE CUSHION OF LUBE BETWEEN GEARS HELPS ALOT
I DO'T SELL THE STUFF JUST USE IT ,JUST TRYING TO HELP

Bobby, just to clarify, you do mean LIGHT and not the SUPERlight, correct ?? Also, I do have a drive shower, but what qualifies as a long run? 5 mins @ near WOT or 1 hour?

RIC
YES SIR LIGHT ,NOT SUPER LITE ,10 MINS. AT WOT OR LONG ENOUGH TO HEAT THE DRIVE AND NOT GIVE IT TIME TO COOL BEFORE RUNNING AGAIN OR NO COOLER IS WHY I WOULD RUN HEAVY ,I FEEL VERY SURE EITHER WOULD DO GREAT IN YOUR BOAT ,PM ME IF YOU NEED MORE NFO ,SUMMIT CAN SELL TO YOU
OR I COULD FIND SOME AT A NASCAR SHOP AROUND HERE IF NOT
I ONLY KEEP ENOUGH IN STOCK FOR MY CUSTOMERS
ENJOY

Lucas products makes some good stuff, most all the lubes today are good, I like the synthetic stuff for less friction, maybe a little more speed, Royal purple, Redline, are also very good, but like you said most of the failures are going to happen no matter what oil you run

I'm not want to dis any product at this time but found it interesting that Redline used ASTM D2266 and ASTM D2596. These tests are for GREASE, not for FLUID. They do not even apply to the product they are promoting.

Amsoil uses this test method;

D4172 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.L0.11
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.02


1. Scope


1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact
by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D2266.

1.2 The values stated in either inch-pound units or SI units are to be regarded separately as standard. Within the test the inch-pound units are shown in brackets.
The values stated in each system are not exact equivalents, therefore each system must be used independently of the other.
Combining values of the two systems may result in nonconformance with the specification.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents


D2266 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)ANSI Standard:
B3.12 Specification for Metal Balls



Here is the ASTM descriptions for the method Redline uses;

D2266-01 Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.G0
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.01


1. Scope

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the wear preventive characteristics of greases in sliding steel-on-steel applications.
It is not intended to predict wear characteristics with metal combinations other than steel-on-steel or to evaluate the extreme pressure characteristics of the grease.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard except where the test apparatus or consumable parts are only available in other units.
In such cases, these will be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents


D4172 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)
D6300 Practice for Determination of Precision and Bias Data for Use in Test Methods for Petroleum Products and LubricantsANSI Standard:
B3.12 for Metal Balls

Next one'

D2596-97(2002)e1 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Extreme-Pressure Properties of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.G0
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.01


1. Scope

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the load-carrying properties of lubricating greases. Two determinations are made:

1.1.1 Load-Wear Index (formerly called Mean-Hertz Load), and

1.1.2 Weld Point, by means of the Four-Ball Extreme-Pressure (EP) Tester.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 7.1 and 7.2.

2. Referenced Documents


D235 Specification for Mineral Spirits (Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry Cleaning Solvent)
B3.12Metal Balls


I was up really late researching this. I will find out more later. Got other work to do right now.

Jafo's post is interesting, but it lacks any facts. Where is the documetation that polyester based lubicants are better? Where are the test results. What does "WET and STICK" mean. I mean really! These are salesman terms. I need facts. I am not a salesman and these terms do nothing for me.

I have not researched polyester based lubricants, but if someone else has, I would like to see the data. It would most likely come in the form of an ASTM test.