It is very hard for a test like this to simulate running conditions, you really need to run the oil for 5 to 10,000 klms then carry out ppm for oil condition and Filtergram wear metal analysis. Then change to the next oil and run under the same conditions then you have a real test. If you compare the results of the 3 Filtergrams on page 2 of this post, that is a real indication of wear sustained over a distance. Things like heat and contamination (the biggest killer of any machine) take there toll in real situations that don’t show up in lab tests.

you are right this test has very little to do with oil performance and should never have been published, we also entered the metric system 40 years ago! The primary role of lubrication is to keep parts apart and maintain oil integrity, not see what happens when metal to metal takes place, a symptom of some other problem...

Testing to reveal actual oil performance would have been beneficial, this may involve: testing oil chemical and physical properties , inspection (microscopic particle examination) of oil debris for wear modes/indicators and testing oil cleanliness to established ISO standards. These are the true tests of oil/machine performance.

For our application the best thing you can do is to use the correct viscosity (quality stable oil, may or may not be synth) and change out the oil regularly. We do not change oil out because it has 'broken down', we change it out to remove normal wear debris, the oil chemical and physical properties at this point should still be good.

so long life oils may hold there spec (synth for eg.) but you are still pumping all that wear debris through your bearings!!

BTW oils that 'polish' or chemically etch components when put through studies of MPE and ISO cleanliness can actually initially create a lot of wear debris before the ISO codes settle down.. go figure.