0W20 for good protection?

Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
If technical enginneering information and controlled testing showed that xW-30 oil caused less wear on engine parts than xW-20 with the same AF/AW additives, would you think it would be a better oil to use to give moving parts added wear protection? Viscosiy is still the main factor above AF/AW additives to control wear.
But to those who think the earth is a flat disk, physics and actual valid wear tests are just empty words.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,136
Location
PNW
It doesn't matter with suitable engines and oil running times! Observe manufacturer release!
Why did you start this thread if you believe in always following the manufacturer's oil "recommendation" (they don't use the word "required"). There should be no doubts or questions if you always believe in their recommendation.
 

HondaR2016

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
346
EP AW additives do "the work" with today's oils, this is mostly proven and is currently being done by Japanese manufacturers with the help of idemitsu. The new yaris gr and the Civic Type r have no clause that a different engine oil is to be used when visiting racetracks. The molybdenum plays a decisive role today, for example, is completely ignored. If no real practical evidence comes here, then we turn in circles and come to nothing. It's easy to say something without being able to prove it. From now on, I'm out of here. I had opened this thread to possibly get new insights that can also be substantiated.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,950
Location
Ontario, Canada
I absolutely agree that for manufacturers who make this recommendation, which makes sense and correct, to increase the viscosity in such an application! However, there are also cases where an engine oil specification is released or prescribed for all operating times of the vehicle. In these cases, this works perfectly in the vast majority of cases. These are practical experiences here in the forum as well as other forums and vehicle users worldwide.
That's the "point" of grades like 0W-40, to be appropriate for everything from daily driving to track use. That does not mean it's optimal though.

But, as I noted, with CAFE, the manufacturer can ONLY spec the grade that was used for the fuel economy testing. This is why we see vague allusions to heavier oils in the Toyota manuals for example, or "track specific" recommendations by GM.

Check out this chart from CAT, you can see that the appropriate viscosity ranges from 0W-20 to 15W-40 depending on the ambient temperature:

Screen Shot 2020-10-12 at 3.52.26 PM.jpg
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,950
Location
Ontario, Canada
EP AW additives do "the work" with today's oils, this is mostly proven and is currently being done by Japanese manufacturers with the help of idemitsu. The new yaris gr and the Civic Type r have no clause that a different engine oil is to be used when visiting racetracks. The molybdenum plays a decisive role today, for example, is completely ignored. If no real practical evidence comes here, then we turn in circles and come to nothing. It's easy to say something without being able to prove it. From now on, I'm out of here. I had opened this thread to possibly get new insights that can also be substantiated.
moly isn't an EP additive, it's a friction modifier and AW additive. EP additives are usually avoided in engine oils because there aren't EP conditions and the additives are often corrosive (sulphur for example). This is why the 4-ball EP wear test has versions for gear oils and greases but not engine oils (even if a modified non-EP version is used as a screening tool in lube development).
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,136
Location
PNW
EP AW additives do "the work" with today's oils, this is mostly proven and is currently being done by Japanese manufacturers with the help of idemitsu.
Yes they do work, and as oils become thinner the AF/AW additives try to take the place of viscosity. But those thinner oils still cause more wear than a thicker oil with those same additive levels. Those AW/AF additives are called the oil's "film strength". The oil film thickness (MOFT) is still the main defenses against wear by keeping parts better separated.

The new yaris gr and the Civic Type r have no clause that a different engine oil is to be used when visiting racetracks.
That's because if you used it on a race track and the engine was damaged they wouldn't give you any warranty. They don't approve of using it for track use.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
moly isn't an EP additive, it's a friction modifier and AW additive. EP additives are usually avoided in engine oils because there aren't EP conditions and the additives are often corrosive (sulphur for example). This is why the 4-ball EP wear test has versions for gear oils and greases but not engine oils (even if a modified non-EP version is used as a screening tool in lube development).
Yes on all of this.
 

HondaR2016

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
346
Where is the factual proof of real engines for the statement that thicker oils always and with every engine better protect? With honda and Toyota, the warranty for racetrack use expires, at least not in Germany, so it is not true either. Toyota Gazoo racing also drives the oils on the racetrack. Honda also drives 0W20 in the f3 Series in America. That's what I'm saying, only theory about theory is written here, no practical results. Therefore, worth nothing for me, sorry.
 

HondaR2016

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
346
Then we drive all 20w60 and have the least wear and tear. Sorry, such statements are ridiculous.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,950
Location
Ontario, Canada
Where is the factual proof of real engines for the statement that thicker oils always and with every engine better protect? With honda and Toyota, the warranty for racetrack use expires, at least not in Germany, so it is not true either. Toyota Gazoo racing also drives the oils on the racetrack. Honda also drives 0W20 in the f3 Series in America. That's what I'm saying, only theory about theory is written here, no practical results. Therefore, worth nothing for me, sorry.
Again, that's NOT what's being argued, the "best" viscosity is going to vary depending on operating profile and conditions. 0W-20 may be absolutely ideal for an engine run at -20C for example, does that mean it's going to be ideal at 45C going up the Gauntlet? No. This is why manuals used to have charts listing the most appropriate grades for a range of conditions.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
Then we drive all 20w60 and have the least wear and tear. Sorry, such statements are ridiculous.
The winter rating has nothing to do with it, this again shows you do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific evidence has been posted here many times showing the correlation between wear and HT/HS (that is the indicator, not grade). Since you’re new here maybe you missed those threads. Look around for them and maybe you’ll move beyond “failed” engines and flat earthers.

But yes, a higher grade always produces less wear. Besides the decrease in fuel economy there would be no problem whatsoever in running a 60-grade oil as long as the expected starting temperature was appropriate. It won’t harm the engine, make it fail nor flatten the earth.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,136
Location
PNW
Then we drive all 20w60 and have the least wear and tear. Sorry, such statements are ridiculous.
Using that statement as an argument is ridiculous. Of course there are some instances when too thick an oil will be detrimental, mainly a W rating that is too high for the starting conditions. You're either all the way one way or the other, but nothing in between. We are actually discussing the in between, the fact that as oils become thinner engine protection decreases and the wear does increase as parts start rubbing together more and more as the MOFT goes to zero. If you don't understand that, then you'll never understand the discussion. It's not about if an engine blows up or not, it's a discussion about how engines wear based on the oil used in them. Do you just want an engine to not blow up, or do you want an engine that wears at the least rate?
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,950
Location
Ontario, Canada
This was linked by @Shannow a few years back:

To further contribute to higher fuel economy, a reduction in the oil’s high-temperature, high-shear (HTHS) viscosity limits has also been defined in SAE 16. Set at a minimum of 2.3 mPa⋅s at 150°C, this marks the first time ever that SAE has defined this limit below 2.6. Although it will help improve fuel efficiency throughout the entire oil drain interval, it opens the door for increased wear and tear on critical engine parts. This makes the development of new additives suitable for ultra-thin oils in high power density engines that much more critical.

GF-6B, on the other hand, forgoes the requirement to be backwards compatible with GF-5 applications and opens the door for the development of ultra-low viscosity lubricants (i.e., SAE 16) that will push the industry into areas of formulation that have never before been encountered. These lubricants will produce significant fuel economy benefits for many engine applications, but because of their low viscosity grade, there is the potential for wear or other durability related issues.

When asked about the implications that SAE XW-16 will have on passenger car motor oil (PCMO) performance requirements, Lubrizol’s PCMO Product Manager, Jon Vilardo, said:

“While it is generally accepted that lower viscosity brings an improvement in fuel economy performance, it can have a negative impact on durability; the protective oil film is less robust, or under the most extreme loading conditions, non-existent. In terms of performance requirements, this translates to a set of standards that will ensure fuel economy is improved via lower viscosity, but durability will not be compromised. The future proposed ultra-low viscosity GF-6B specification requires the same durability performance as the proposed GF-6A. This may require enhanced fortification of specific additive components or a different formulation shape to deliver the required durability in SAE XW-16 fluids.”


And some more quality content from @Shannow:

Shannow said:
Things on the numerator side that make oil film bigger are, in order that you come across them in the formula: * radius - more shaft diameter, more film thickness; * viscosity - more viscosity, more film thickness * Speed - more RPM, more film thickness. On the denominator side (make these smaller to make Sommerfeld number bigger) * radial clearance (smaller radial clearances, more film thickness) * Applied pressure (smaller loads, more film thickness). So a thin lubricant, e.g. for formula 1 use (tight clearances, very high RPM) is of zero suitability for a diesel with high BMEP, and low RPM potential. Stribeck curve uses the last portion of Sommerfeld to demonstrate hydrodynamic, mixed, and boundary regimes.

1666553430254.jpg

Note...more viscosity, more likely to be hydrodynamic. More speed, more likely to be hydrodynamic. Less load, more likely to be hydrodynamic. Note that designers are increasingly allowing MOFT to fall into the contact zone, and are using friction modifiers to prevent failure, and lower friction. These additives are NOT increasing the film thickness.

Shannow said:
No, I don't...it's all about economy...as CAFE and the NHTSA state, the average consumer undervalues economy by a significant margin, and needs regulatory pressures to provide society's true value on economy on new car purchases...they also state that thinner oils are the simplest and cheapest way to achieve this. As is stated here time and time again, engines last longer than the chassis etc. So there's ample room to move in providing better economy, and if lesser overall protection is provided, and the engine still outlasts the car...no real negative outcomes to the owner... Honda describe it as providing adequate or acceptable wear with lower viscosity oils. Clearly there is no CAFE objective to make the engines last LONGER.

And another Shannow quote, with a link to a few papers:
Shannow said:
^ What Solarent said... There's an extension to the Stribeck curve showing the results of FM additives http://www.threebond.co.jp/en/technical/technicalnews/pdf/tech09.pdf Provided by JAG in http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1164745 The shows with friction modifiers there is lower overall friction in the mixed area than with oil alone... Sequence VI economy testing http://www.infineum.com/sitecollectiondocuments/notebooks/gf5/ResearchReport.pdf They purposely chose the test engine to be a modern one in which it spent more time in mixed/boundary than the older design engine, and established the test regime to represent that operation. The load/speed profile isn't that off "normal" operation, and certainly not where you'd intuitively think an engine was running it. (Has some interesting conclusions, however the benefits of FM are clear...and it indicates no FM carryover from change to change). There's one or another of the 0W-16 papers on the site somewhere that demonstrates that the newer engines are spending more time in mixed lube regimes....just can't place finger on it.

Also a good point by Solarant that Shannow was responding to.

Lots of stuff on this in the bowels of this forum, though unfortunately most of Shannow's pictures are no longer with us, I was hoping to find the snapshot of the Honda paper that talked about "acceptable wear" that kicked off many of these discussions in the past.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,136
Location
PNW
What do you think these bearings would have looked like if a xW-30 or xW-40 oil was used? Keep in mind this test was focusing on the actual design of the bearings, but you can see what some of the bearings looked like after high loads with 5W-20.

 
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,714
Location
Upper Midwest
This was linked by @Shannow a few years back:

To further contribute to higher fuel economy, a reduction in the oil’s high-temperature, high-shear (HTHS) viscosity limits has also been defined in SAE 16. Set at a minimum of 2.3 mPa⋅s at 150°C, this marks the first time ever that SAE has defined this limit below 2.6. Although it will help improve fuel efficiency throughout the entire oil drain interval, it opens the door for increased wear and tear on critical engine parts. This makes the development of new additives suitable for ultra-thin oils in high power density engines that much more critical.

GF-6B, on the other hand, forgoes the requirement to be backwards compatible with GF-5 applications and opens the door for the development of ultra-low viscosity lubricants (i.e., SAE 16) that will push the industry into areas of formulation that have never before been encountered. These lubricants will produce significant fuel economy benefits for many engine applications, but because of their low viscosity grade, there is the potential for wear or other durability related issues.

When asked about the implications that SAE XW-16 will have on passenger car motor oil (PCMO) performance requirements, Lubrizol’s PCMO Product Manager, Jon Vilardo, said:

“While it is generally accepted that lower viscosity brings an improvement in fuel economy performance, it can have a negative impact on durability; the protective oil film is less robust, or under the most extreme loading conditions, non-existent. In terms of performance requirements, this translates to a set of standards that will ensure fuel economy is improved via lower viscosity, but durability will not be compromised. The future proposed ultra-low viscosity GF-6B specification requires the same durability performance as the proposed GF-6A. This may require enhanced fortification of specific additive components or a different formulation shape to deliver the required durability in SAE XW-16 fluids.”


And some more quality content from @Shannow:





And another Shannow quote, with a link to a few papers:


Also a good point by Solarant that Shannow was responding to.

Lots of stuff on this in the bowels of this forum, though unfortunately most of Shannow's pictures are no longer with us, I was hoping to find the snapshot of the Honda paper that talked about "acceptable wear" that kicked off many of these discussions in the past.
Thank you for taking the time and for your patience in digging all that up. This is some of the best of Bitog in terms of actual and verifiable information.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
24,853
Location
...
What do you think these bearings would have looked like if a xW-30 or xW-40 oil was used? Keep in mind this test was focusing on the actual design of the bearings, but you can see what some of the bearings looked like after high loads with 5W-20.



Is that pMaxKote material similar to DLC?
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
16,633
Location
Virginia Beach
I absolutely agree that for manufacturers who make this recommendation, which makes sense and correct, to increase the viscosity in such an application! However, there are also cases where an engine oil specification is released or prescribed for all operating times of the vehicle. In these cases, this works perfectly in the vast majority of cases. These are practical experiences here in the forum as well as other forums and vehicle users worldwide.
I think you're confusing viscosity with specification. They are not the same.

MB 229.5 is a specification. It includes a certain minimum HTHS value, as well as proven long drain performance.

Several viscosities meet that specification.
 
Top