[curiosity]

To put the contrary view (before somebody else puts it):

I've seen the ball test performed with a PTFE boundary lubricant and it failed to show any great improvement.

However it should be noted that
1) PTFE type boundary lubricants are not oils (the ball test is an oil test)

2) Boundary lubricants using PTFE generally require a bit of time to coat (ball tests are usually performed without any coating time)

3) According to at least one manufacturer PTFE is not the key ingredient in their boundary lubricant.. although PTFE dispersion is probably necessary for the lubricant to work properly (a secondary component not the primary one). Thus poor dispersion (not shaking the bottle) might account for some of the poor results.

4) Not all lubricants containing PTFE are made equal: some are oil additives (enhance the properties of the oil) while others are boundary lubricants. Some lubricants (boundary and conventional) have a lot of testing... and most have none. There is a huge difference between lubricants. Testing one lubricant with PTFE and claiming the results are representative of all is about as sensible as claiming that all oils are the same.

5) Boundary lubricants can last varying amounts of time... just as normal lubricants can. At least one boundary lubricant lasts the life of your engine (is not removed with an oil change) and others do not. There are no traditional lubricants which claim to last the life of your engine and some oil additives break down very quickly:

Chlorine is often added to oils as a high pressure additive. Such oils pass the ball pressure test with flying colours. However as soon as heat and pressure start working on the chlorine it turns into HCl (hydrochloric acid) and starts to corrode your engine. At least one highly promoted oil additive ran foul of the FTC because of this problem.

This is why one person can claim that the ball test didn't work and another to claim it did work... with the same product... and yet both could be right.

As always the devil is in the detail.

The best way to figure out what works is usually to look for proper testing... and to carry out testing as the companies suggest: Each company knows which tests work best with its products.

A competitor is not interested in being fair when it tests (it is looking for ways to show its product is superior): What would be the point of showing that another product is superior? Thus you should never rely on a competitors tests without asking "What didn't they mention?" Always give the other company the right of reply.

Always try to figure out what the limitations of a product are. Most manufacturers never mention these... but competitors might. Once you understand how things work you can often combine two or more products that work together. Often that effect is synergistic (the sum of the whole is greater than the parts).

Surprisingly despite the claims ~99% of companies have no testing on their web sites. Why is this so?