0w-20 Man-O-Man Thats Lite
- Thread starter CarbDude
- Start date
- Status
User name "CarbDude" is your first clue. Second clue is a contentious topic that has been hashed, re-hashed and beat to death on here for the past 10 years.
I've always wondered, is it possible to spoof your join date when you sign up?
I've always wondered, is it possible to spoof your join date when you sign up?
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by NO2
Most wear happens on cold starts, so 0w-20 may actually reduce wear in typical modern auto engine applications.
Sort of -
It's more accurate to say that a cold start causes as much wear as the next several hours of continuous running.
UD
And where did you find that information?
trusted sources here on Bitog referencing SAE and taxi run data.
How many hours/ miles of running does one cold start equal - unsure but the two cross at some point
UD
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by NO2
Most wear happens on cold starts, so 0w-20 may actually reduce wear in typical modern auto engine applications.
Sort of -
It's more accurate to say that a cold start causes as much wear as the next several hours of continuous running.
UD
And where did you find that information?
trusted sources here on Bitog referencing SAE and taxi run data.
How many hours/ miles of running does one cold start equal - unsure but the two cross at some point
UD
Last edited:
Actually I thought the "trusted sources" with the data showed it was not the start, but the warm-up phase that did the most damage.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Actually I thought the "trusted sources" with the data showed it was not the start, but the warm-up phase that did the most damage.
Ill concede to that - typically lumping the two together as a single phase.
UD
Actually I thought the "trusted sources" with the data showed it was not the start, but the warm-up phase that did the most damage.
Ill concede to that - typically lumping the two together as a single phase.
UD
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by CarbDude
I understand why it is that GM recommends this lite weight viscosity (tight manufacturing clearances; less drag; helps cafe' ratings; etc, etc).
But man-o-man that's some light stuff. Like cooking oil.
2019 Tahoe - 5.3 - 6L80 - 3:42 gear
This is a popular myth. If you look at a salad oil such as olive oil it looks pretty thin. Then when you heat is up in a pan it gets even thinner. At 100 C the kinematic viscosity of olive oil is 43 cSt. And yes 0W20 is thinner, at about 6 cSt, but 5w30 is about 9 cSt and 0W40 is about 14 cSt. At the operating temp of 100 c they are all thinner than salad oil. The fact that most people look at the oil at room temperature exaggerates the apparent viscosity differences.
I don't think that's correct. Looking at this doc:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10942912.2017.1360905
The 100C visc for common household oils are as follows (mPa, same as cSt):
Soybean - 8.3
Canola - 8.2
Peanut - 8.8
Olive - 9.6
Corn - 9.0
Sorry Overkill. Your units are incorrect. From the chart, you are describing a Dynamic viscosity. My units are Kinematic viscosity. The Dynamic viscosity units are are mPas, not mPa. To convert to cSt you have to multiply by density in g/cm3.
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by CarbDude
I understand why it is that GM recommends this lite weight viscosity (tight manufacturing clearances; less drag; helps cafe' ratings; etc, etc).
But man-o-man that's some light stuff. Like cooking oil.
2019 Tahoe - 5.3 - 6L80 - 3:42 gear
This is a popular myth. If you look at a salad oil such as olive oil it looks pretty thin. Then when you heat is up in a pan it gets even thinner. At 100 C the kinematic viscosity of olive oil is 43 cSt. And yes 0W20 is thinner, at about 6 cSt, but 5w30 is about 9 cSt and 0W40 is about 14 cSt. At the operating temp of 100 c they are all thinner than salad oil. The fact that most people look at the oil at room temperature exaggerates the apparent viscosity differences.
I don't think that's correct. Looking at this doc:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10942912.2017.1360905
The 100C visc for common household oils are as follows (mPa, same as cSt):
Soybean - 8.3
Canola - 8.2
Peanut - 8.8
Olive - 9.6
Corn - 9.0
Sorry Overkill. Your units are incorrect. From the chart, you are describing a Dynamic viscosity. My units are Kinematic viscosity. The Dynamic viscosity units are are mPas, not mPa. To convert to cSt you have to multiply by density in g/cm3.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by NO2
Most wear happens on cold starts, so 0w-20 may actually reduce wear in typical modern auto engine applications.
Sort of -
It's more accurate to say that a cold start causes as much wear as the next several hours of continuous running.
UD
And where did you find that information?
trusted sources here on Bitog referencing SAE and taxi run data.
How many hours/ miles of running does one cold start equal - unsure but the two cross at some point
UD
I'm sure they do, but you said "several hours." If you aren't on the highway much, then even several hours doesn't do much for you. I'd love to know how many hours of running it takes to get to the point they cross.
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by NO2
Most wear happens on cold starts, so 0w-20 may actually reduce wear in typical modern auto engine applications.
Sort of -
It's more accurate to say that a cold start causes as much wear as the next several hours of continuous running.
UD
And where did you find that information?
trusted sources here on Bitog referencing SAE and taxi run data.
How many hours/ miles of running does one cold start equal - unsure but the two cross at some point
UD
I'm sure they do, but you said "several hours." If you aren't on the highway much, then even several hours doesn't do much for you. I'd love to know how many hours of running it takes to get to the point they cross.
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by NO2
Most wear happens on cold starts, so 0w-20 may actually reduce wear in typical modern auto engine applications.
Sort of -
It's more accurate to say that a cold start causes as much wear as the next several hours of continuous running.
UD
I like this statement better. It is worth mentioning that the oil viscosity has little to do with this wear.
Originally Posted by NO2
Most wear happens on cold starts, so 0w-20 may actually reduce wear in typical modern auto engine applications.
Sort of -
It's more accurate to say that a cold start causes as much wear as the next several hours of continuous running.
UD
I like this statement better. It is worth mentioning that the oil viscosity has little to do with this wear.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by CarbDude
I understand why it is that GM recommends this lite weight viscosity (tight manufacturing clearances; less drag; helps cafe' ratings; etc, etc).
But man-o-man that's some light stuff. Like cooking oil.
2019 Tahoe - 5.3 - 6L80 - 3:42 gear
This is a popular myth. If you look at a salad oil such as olive oil it looks pretty thin. Then when you heat is up in a pan it gets even thinner. At 100 C the kinematic viscosity of olive oil is 43 cSt. And yes 0W20 is thinner, at about 6 cSt, but 5w30 is about 9 cSt and 0W40 is about 14 cSt. At the operating temp of 100 c they are all thinner than salad oil. The fact that most people look at the oil at room temperature exaggerates the apparent viscosity differences.
I don't think that's correct. Looking at this doc:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10942912.2017.1360905
The 100C visc for common household oils are as follows (mPa, same as cSt):
Soybean - 8.3
Canola - 8.2
Peanut - 8.8
Olive - 9.6
Corn - 9.0
Sorry Overkill. Your units are incorrect. From the chart, you are describing a Dynamic viscosity. My units are Kinematic viscosity. The Dynamic viscosity units are are mPas, not mPa. To convert to cSt you have to multiply by density in g/cm3.
I think you have that backwards. To convert Dynamic (in mPa-s / cP) to Kinematic (cSt), you divide by the density.
The density of all those oils is close to 1, so corrected for, we still aren't anywhere near the figures you posted
For the sake of being pedantic though, factoring in density:
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/07/full-21028-34091-screen_shot_2019_07_03_at_3.47.10_pm.png "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/07/full-21028-34092-screen_shot_2019_07_03_at_3.47.47_pm.png "[Linked Image]")
@100C:
1. Soybean: 9.57 cSt
2. Canola: 9.46 cSt
3. Peanut: 10.20 cSt
4. Olive: 11.14 cSt
5. Corn: 10.36 cSt
Now, Olive Oil is 43.2 cSt @ 100F (37.78C) perhaps that's where the error was?
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by CarbDude
I understand why it is that GM recommends this lite weight viscosity (tight manufacturing clearances; less drag; helps cafe' ratings; etc, etc).
But man-o-man that's some light stuff. Like cooking oil.
2019 Tahoe - 5.3 - 6L80 - 3:42 gear
This is a popular myth. If you look at a salad oil such as olive oil it looks pretty thin. Then when you heat is up in a pan it gets even thinner. At 100 C the kinematic viscosity of olive oil is 43 cSt. And yes 0W20 is thinner, at about 6 cSt, but 5w30 is about 9 cSt and 0W40 is about 14 cSt. At the operating temp of 100 c they are all thinner than salad oil. The fact that most people look at the oil at room temperature exaggerates the apparent viscosity differences.
I don't think that's correct. Looking at this doc:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10942912.2017.1360905
The 100C visc for common household oils are as follows (mPa, same as cSt):
Soybean - 8.3
Canola - 8.2
Peanut - 8.8
Olive - 9.6
Corn - 9.0
Sorry Overkill. Your units are incorrect. From the chart, you are describing a Dynamic viscosity. My units are Kinematic viscosity. The Dynamic viscosity units are are mPas, not mPa. To convert to cSt you have to multiply by density in g/cm3.
I think you have that backwards. To convert Dynamic (in mPa-s / cP) to Kinematic (cSt), you divide by the density.
The density of all those oils is close to 1, so corrected for, we still aren't anywhere near the figures you posted
@100C:
1. Soybean: 9.57 cSt
2. Canola: 9.46 cSt
3. Peanut: 10.20 cSt
4. Olive: 11.14 cSt
5. Corn: 10.36 cSt
Now, Olive Oil is 43.2 cSt @ 100F (37.78C) perhaps that's where the error was?
Keeping oil levels topped up as required is far more important than the trivial difference between W20 and W30 grades.
Fords were using W20s for billions of accumulated miles.
Last time I went to Pick a Part there did not seem to be an abnormal population of Fords with blown motors.
Fords were using W20s for billions of accumulated miles.
Last time I went to Pick a Part there did not seem to be an abnormal population of Fords with blown motors.
I'm sure they do, but you said "several hours." If you aren't on the highway much, then even several hours doesn't do much for you. I'd love to know how many hours of running it takes to get to the point they cross.
I said the next several hours because I recall that being the consensus on general averages.
You also said startup caused the "most" wear- I don't believe that is a universal truth.
- of course, hours aren't equal, or fungible.
A situation where you have a half ton truck hitched up to 8K pounds your start/ warmup wear may be equaled or even exceeded by a climb up Davis dam road 15 minutes later.
I believe we agree that - a car short tripping in the winter may never travel enough miles for them to meet or exceed the startup wear.
UD
I said the next several hours because I recall that being the consensus on general averages.
You also said startup caused the "most" wear- I don't believe that is a universal truth.
- of course, hours aren't equal, or fungible.
A situation where you have a half ton truck hitched up to 8K pounds your start/ warmup wear may be equaled or even exceeded by a climb up Davis dam road 15 minutes later.
I believe we agree that - a car short tripping in the winter may never travel enough miles for them to meet or exceed the startup wear.
UD
Last edited:
The 2.5L I-4 in my old Mazda 5 was spec'd for 0w20 -- I used M1 AFE on a 7K OCI. Never had an oil related engine issue. When I traded it in with 105K on it, it didn't leak, smoke or use any oil. Had I held onto it, I probably would've eventually moved up to a 5w30, but at least that particular engine didn't seem to mind 0w20 up to that point. Just my experience.
Don't forget the OP's vehicle has a 2 gallon sump.
We are running 0w-20 out to 15k per our UOA's.
We are running 0w-20 out to 15k per our UOA's.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
OK, so I have two L83 5.3L's (2017 & 2018) on Dexos 1.2 0w20. I have compared them to my 2010 5.3L on 5w30.
What is different on the lube side? 8 qt vs 6 qt, oil coolers, piston jets, advanced oil pumps, etc …
The engines have redesigned heads/cooling paths, electric fans, shutters in grille etc., and already had 4 bolt mains + cross bolts to keep the bearings concentric ...
Having noted all that - once my 60k warranty is used up - will give 5w30 a try - perhaps do an UOA on my last 0w20 and first 5w30 …
maybe put a db meter to the engine with each oil as well
What is different on the lube side? 8 qt vs 6 qt, oil coolers, piston jets, advanced oil pumps, etc …
The engines have redesigned heads/cooling paths, electric fans, shutters in grille etc., and already had 4 bolt mains + cross bolts to keep the bearings concentric ...
Having noted all that - once my 60k warranty is used up - will give 5w30 a try - perhaps do an UOA on my last 0w20 and first 5w30 …
maybe put a db meter to the engine with each oil as well
Same exact drivetrain as my truck. Last oil fill had 2% fuel dilution and was still in grade albeit thinned after 5k. Wear numbers looked fine. And that was with house brand oil.
The rest of the truck will fall apart or be getting ready to snap in half from rust on a buy here pay here lot before anyone will notice any detrimental effects from 0w20.
The rest of the truck will fall apart or be getting ready to snap in half from rust on a buy here pay here lot before anyone will notice any detrimental effects from 0w20.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by K20FA5
Originally Posted by CarbDude
2019 Tahoe - 5.3 - 6L80 - 3:42 gear
I have the exact same setup in my Silverado. I've often wondered about going to a 0W-30 or a 5W-30, heck, even a 5W-20, but I haven't. At least while I'm under warranty I'm planning to stick with the 0W-20. It seems to run fine on it. No oil burning so far that I can tell. I'm closing in on 10,000 total miles and my OLM is at 63% today(~2,600 miles on this OCI). I've done a couple early changes on it just to get all the manufacturing crud out (more to make my feel better than anything else
). I plan on doing an UOA on this sample when the OLM tells me to. Depending on what I see from it (and others on here tell me
), that will help me decide if the 0W-20 is doing well in there or not. From the UOAs I've seen on these engines running the 0W-20, I think everything will be OK.
I too have a 2018 Silverado with the 5.3 and I too have considered going to to 0W30. Some guys on the Silverado forums have switched over without issue...other guys have switched, and the switched back because of a very slight uptick in fuel economy with the 0W20.
Unlike you, I have experienced some oil consumption, nothing major...maybe 3/4 quart between 5,000 mile oil changes (I'm now at 33,000 miles). Most of the Silverados that I see do use oil between intervals. Most around a quart, some more than that. From techs I've talked to it's because of the low tension rings and 0W20.
I may switch to the 0W30 after my power train warranty is out. I have installed a catch can and I do catch a fair amount.
But I'm loving this truck so far, so smooth and quiet. I'm averaging 24.2 mpg over the 33,000 miles I've owned it since new. The thing I'm really worried about is the GM frame wax, the stuff is junk. Keep an eye on that stuff, it flakes off rather easily and leaves your frame exposed where it can rust very very quickly. I treat mine with fluid film every six months...so far it's working great.
Originally Posted by CarbDude
2019 Tahoe - 5.3 - 6L80 - 3:42 gear
I have the exact same setup in my Silverado. I've often wondered about going to a 0W-30 or a 5W-30, heck, even a 5W-20, but I haven't. At least while I'm under warranty I'm planning to stick with the 0W-20. It seems to run fine on it. No oil burning so far that I can tell. I'm closing in on 10,000 total miles and my OLM is at 63% today(~2,600 miles on this OCI). I've done a couple early changes on it just to get all the manufacturing crud out (more to make my feel better than anything else
I too have a 2018 Silverado with the 5.3 and I too have considered going to to 0W30. Some guys on the Silverado forums have switched over without issue...other guys have switched, and the switched back because of a very slight uptick in fuel economy with the 0W20.
Unlike you, I have experienced some oil consumption, nothing major...maybe 3/4 quart between 5,000 mile oil changes (I'm now at 33,000 miles). Most of the Silverados that I see do use oil between intervals. Most around a quart, some more than that. From techs I've talked to it's because of the low tension rings and 0W20.
I may switch to the 0W30 after my power train warranty is out. I have installed a catch can and I do catch a fair amount.
But I'm loving this truck so far, so smooth and quiet. I'm averaging 24.2 mpg over the 33,000 miles I've owned it since new. The thing I'm really worried about is the GM frame wax, the stuff is junk. Keep an eye on that stuff, it flakes off rather easily and leaves your frame exposed where it can rust very very quickly. I treat mine with fluid film every six months...so far it's working great.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Didn't some Fords get bumped up from a W20 to a W30?
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by UncleDave
... How many hours/ miles of running does one cold start equal - unsure but the two cross at some point ...
... I'm sure they do, but you said "several hours." ... I'd love to know how many hours of running it takes to get to the point they cross.
That hypothetical crossover point would likely vary by component----longer for some parts than others.
Originally Posted by UncleDave
... How many hours/ miles of running does one cold start equal - unsure but the two cross at some point ...
... I'm sure they do, but you said "several hours." ... I'd love to know how many hours of running it takes to get to the point they cross.
That hypothetical crossover point would likely vary by component----longer for some parts than others.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
[
This is a popular myth. If you look at a salad oil such as olive oil it looks pretty thin. Then when you heat is up in a pan it gets even thinner. At 100 C the kinematic viscosity of olive oil is 43 cSt. And yes 0W20 is thinner, at about 6 cSt, but 5w30 is about 9 cSt and 0W40 is about 14 cSt. At the operating temp of 100 c they are all thinner than salad oil. The fact that most people look at the oil at room temperature exaggerates the apparent viscosity differences.
I don't think that's correct. Looking at this doc:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10942912.2017.1360905
The 100C visc for common household oils are as follows (mPa, same as cSt):
Soybean - 8.3
Canola - 8.2
Peanut - 8.8
Olive - 9.6
Corn - 9.0
Sorry Overkill. Your units are incorrect. From the chart, you are describing a Dynamic viscosity. My units are Kinematic viscosity. The Dynamic viscosity units are are mPas, not mPa. To convert to cSt you have to multiply by density in g/cm3.
I think you have that backwards. To convert Dynamic (in mPa-s / cP) to Kinematic (cSt), you divide by the density.
The density of all those oils is close to 1, so corrected for, we still aren't anywhere near the figures you posted
For the sake of being pedantic though, factoring in density:
@100C:
1. Soybean: 9.57 cSt
2. Canola: 9.46 cSt
3. Peanut: 10.20 cSt
4. Olive: 11.14 cSt
5. Corn: 10.36 cSt
Now, Olive Oil is 43.2 cSt @ 100F (37.78C) perhaps that's where the error was? [/quote]
I will have to catch you later. The units on your table are mPa-m.The units for Dynamic viscosity are mPa-s. And yes I was looking at 100 F. However. If they are correct, olive oil is right in the 5w30 range and the bottom end of 5w40 is within 1.5 cSt. Let's get confirmation of the units on the table.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
[
This is a popular myth. If you look at a salad oil such as olive oil it looks pretty thin. Then when you heat is up in a pan it gets even thinner. At 100 C the kinematic viscosity of olive oil is 43 cSt. And yes 0W20 is thinner, at about 6 cSt, but 5w30 is about 9 cSt and 0W40 is about 14 cSt. At the operating temp of 100 c they are all thinner than salad oil. The fact that most people look at the oil at room temperature exaggerates the apparent viscosity differences.
I don't think that's correct. Looking at this doc:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10942912.2017.1360905
The 100C visc for common household oils are as follows (mPa, same as cSt):
Soybean - 8.3
Canola - 8.2
Peanut - 8.8
Olive - 9.6
Corn - 9.0
Sorry Overkill. Your units are incorrect. From the chart, you are describing a Dynamic viscosity. My units are Kinematic viscosity. The Dynamic viscosity units are are mPas, not mPa. To convert to cSt you have to multiply by density in g/cm3.
I think you have that backwards. To convert Dynamic (in mPa-s / cP) to Kinematic (cSt), you divide by the density.
The density of all those oils is close to 1, so corrected for, we still aren't anywhere near the figures you posted
@100C:
1. Soybean: 9.57 cSt
2. Canola: 9.46 cSt
3. Peanut: 10.20 cSt
4. Olive: 11.14 cSt
5. Corn: 10.36 cSt
Now, Olive Oil is 43.2 cSt @ 100F (37.78C) perhaps that's where the error was? [/quote]
I will have to catch you later. The units on your table are mPa-m.The units for Dynamic viscosity are mPa-s. And yes I was looking at 100 F. However. If they are correct, olive oil is right in the 5w30 range and the bottom end of 5w40 is within 1.5 cSt. Let's get confirmation of the units on the table.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked