But to those who think the earth is a flat disk, physics and actual valid wear tests are just empty words.
0W20 for good protection?
- Thread starter CarfriendXX
- Start date
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.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
- Messages
- 355
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
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:
Promise? You’ve not learned a thing so why stay.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
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 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.
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:
Yes on all of this.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
- Messages
- 355
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.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
- Messages
- 355
Then we drive all 20w60 and have the least wear and tear. Sorry, such statements are ridiculous.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
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.
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.
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
This was linked by @Shannow a few years back:
web.archive.org
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.
Low Viscosity SAE 16 Oils Will Require Cutting-edge Additive Technology to Address Wear Challenges - Lubrizol Additives 360 - Passenger
In April of 2013, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) introduced a new, low viscosity grade specification in revisions made to the J300 Engine Oil Classification. Formally labeled as SAE 16, the new oil specification will help OEMs meet increasingly strict corporate average fuel economy...
web.archive.org
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:
0W20 vs 5W30 in 1999 E46 323i
Originally Posted By: Shannow * in fact I don't run 50s, full stop (unless you want to pick on the 40 blend in my sig as having 50 in it) Your sig is gone as of this writing; time to 'fess up to the SAE 50 in the sump.
bobistheoilguy.com
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.
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:
And another Shannow quote, with a link to a few papers:
What is this talk about mixed boundary running...
...conditions being the norm for future engines? In a recent thread about high VI oils and VIIs few members mentioned that in the near future we will see more and more engines running in a mix of hydrodynamic and boundary conditions. I understand that even today's engine do run in boundary...
bobistheoilguy.com
Shannow said:
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.
In a compact disc world, a phonograph is voodoo.
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.
www.enginelabs.com
The Secret Life of Bearings: A Test Of Bearing And Oil Wear Rates
King Bearings teamed up with Driven Racing Oil to put their new pMax Black and pMaxKote bearing technology to a scientific torture test.
www.enginelabs.com
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.This was linked by @Shannow a few years back:
Low Viscosity SAE 16 Oils Will Require Cutting-edge Additive Technology to Address Wear Challenges - Lubrizol Additives 360 - Passenger
In April of 2013, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) introduced a new, low viscosity grade specification in revisions made to the J300 Engine Oil Classification. Formally labeled as SAE 16, the new oil specification will help OEMs meet increasingly strict corporate average fuel economy...
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:
0W20 vs 5W30 in 1999 E46 323i
Originally Posted By: Shannow * in fact I don't run 50s, full stop (unless you want to pick on the 40 blend in my sig as having 50 in it) Your sig is gone as of this writing; time to 'fess up to the SAE 50 in the sump.bobistheoilguy.com
And another Shannow quote, with a link to a few papers:
What is this talk about mixed boundary running...
...conditions being the norm for future engines? In a recent thread about high VI oils and VIIs few members mentioned that in the near future we will see more and more engines running in a mix of hydrodynamic and boundary conditions. I understand that even today's engine do run in boundary...bobistheoilguy.com
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.
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.
The Secret Life of Bearings: A Test Of Bearing And Oil Wear Rates
King Bearings teamed up with Driven Racing Oil to put their new pMax Black and pMaxKote bearing technology to a scientific torture test.
Is that pMaxKote material similar to DLC?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You are quite welcome!
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.