5w20 Problems
- Thread starter modularv8
- Start date
- Status
Going from a 5-20 to a 5-30 in Texas won't be dramatic, at all.
“Because of the higher specific loads, and all the strain on the oil system if you will, we may be looking forward to a 0W-30 as more effective than a 5W-20,”
New Powertrains Bring Lube Challenges
This is in reference to Ford's ecoboost and hybrid engines. But I have read elsewhere that Ford intends to use 0w30 for its entire line. I just don't remember where I read it. I no longer have a subsciption to the University of Texas' research journal system.
0w30 by the way provides better fuel economy than 5w30 throughout the operating temperature range of an engine, including at 100C. It probably matches 5w20 in terms of fuel economy. It is about 1.5% more fuel efficient than 5w30 which is about the same difference between 5w30 and 5w20.
New Powertrains Bring Lube Challenges
This is in reference to Ford's ecoboost and hybrid engines. But I have read elsewhere that Ford intends to use 0w30 for its entire line. I just don't remember where I read it. I no longer have a subsciption to the University of Texas' research journal system.
0w30 by the way provides better fuel economy than 5w30 throughout the operating temperature range of an engine, including at 100C. It probably matches 5w20 in terms of fuel economy. It is about 1.5% more fuel efficient than 5w30 which is about the same difference between 5w30 and 5w20.
modularv8, as I mentioned the HTHS vis spec' is much more than a measure of viscosity at 150C. Since it is taken under stress (pressure) it also correlates very closely with the actual operating viscosity in an engine, more so than the kinematic viscosity 100C spec'.
What this means is that oils with the same HTHS vis will tend to have the same operating viscosity even at temps well below 100C regardless of their 100C k'vis spec.
The argument that bulk sump oil temps are not enough to rely upon since certain engine components will see very high localized temp's is an old one that quite frankly is an obfuscation of the issue.
At maximum flow rates the oil circulates through an engine very quickly. Even with a typical oil pump, one gallon takes only 12 to 16 seconds to cycle through and vehicles with higher capacity pumps as low as 3 to 5 second. Consiquently on a single pass very little heat is actually picked up by the oil. With a typical sump capacity of 4 to 6 liters the sump oil temps will not be more than a few degrees cooler than the oil in the hottest part of the engine where it matters most, the bearings. Having said that, on a track or during racing conditions oil temps can reach and exceed 150C.
An oil with a 2.6 cP HTHS rating is quite a thick oil at typical operating temps which don't normally exceed 100C.
In fact you would have to run a much lighter oil, such as a 5wt 1.5 cP HTHS oil before you'd see any risk of bearing wiping at these low temps. It is the bearings that have the highest viscosity demands in an engine with the valve train the lowest.
In racing 5wt qualifing oil is often used where they know the bulk oil temps won't exceed 180F.
What this means is that oils with the same HTHS vis will tend to have the same operating viscosity even at temps well below 100C regardless of their 100C k'vis spec.
The argument that bulk sump oil temps are not enough to rely upon since certain engine components will see very high localized temp's is an old one that quite frankly is an obfuscation of the issue.
At maximum flow rates the oil circulates through an engine very quickly. Even with a typical oil pump, one gallon takes only 12 to 16 seconds to cycle through and vehicles with higher capacity pumps as low as 3 to 5 second. Consiquently on a single pass very little heat is actually picked up by the oil. With a typical sump capacity of 4 to 6 liters the sump oil temps will not be more than a few degrees cooler than the oil in the hottest part of the engine where it matters most, the bearings. Having said that, on a track or during racing conditions oil temps can reach and exceed 150C.
An oil with a 2.6 cP HTHS rating is quite a thick oil at typical operating temps which don't normally exceed 100C.
In fact you would have to run a much lighter oil, such as a 5wt 1.5 cP HTHS oil before you'd see any risk of bearing wiping at these low temps. It is the bearings that have the highest viscosity demands in an engine with the valve train the lowest.
In racing 5wt qualifing oil is often used where they know the bulk oil temps won't exceed 180F.
Interesting read.
I don't know where you got the fuel economy percentages from but they do seem high.
Talking in general terms about oil grades can be very misleading since there are so many variables involved between brands.
For example, M1's AFE 0W-30, the lightest 30wt I'm aware of with a HTHS vis os 2.99 cP is of course their most fuel efficient 30wt and about IIRC 0.7% more efficient than their 5W-30 (HTHS vis of 3.09 cP).
Their AFE 0W-20 (HTHS vis 2.6 cP)is of course the most efficient.
I don't know where you got the fuel economy percentages from but they do seem high.
Talking in general terms about oil grades can be very misleading since there are so many variables involved between brands.
For example, M1's AFE 0W-30, the lightest 30wt I'm aware of with a HTHS vis os 2.99 cP is of course their most fuel efficient 30wt and about IIRC 0.7% more efficient than their 5W-30 (HTHS vis of 3.09 cP).
Their AFE 0W-20 (HTHS vis 2.6 cP)is of course the most efficient.
Originally Posted By: Rob_Roy
And there are all those that have read articles that any oil other than Xw-20 will not work with those engines yet Ford says no problemo???? The internet experts foiled as usual.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: Rob_Roy
And there are all those that have read articles that any oil other than Xw-20 will not work with those engines yet Ford says no problemo???? The internet experts foiled as usual.
Not sure how the use of a factory band-aid for a particular mechanical problem can be used as the cornerstone for an argument against lighter oils, the use of which has a lot of weight behind it. Not too many of us think nothing but a 5W20 will "work." We are mainly debating efficacy... what's best in a broad range of circumstances. I doubt 10W40 fits that category.
That's a good article, modularv8. Remember seeing it but somehow missed reading it.
Caterham: Your analysis on sump temp/100C disc vs spot temp/HTHS visc seems sound.
Originally Posted By: Rob_Roy
Not sure how the use of a factory band-aid for a particular mechanical problem can be used as the cornerstone for an argument against lighter oils, the use of which has a lot of weight behind it. Not too many of us think nothing but a 5W20 will "work." We are mainly debating efficacy... what's best in a broad range of circumstances. I doubt 10W40 fits that category.
That's a good article, modularv8. Remember seeing it but somehow missed reading it.
Caterham: Your analysis on sump temp/100C disc vs spot temp/HTHS visc seems sound.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Sump temperature is just an "average" temperature or a heat balance after all inputs (combustion/friction heat) and outputs (cooling).
Which goes without saying. Bulk oil temps will tend to be stable as long as the cooling system is not stressed. That is, if you're able to maintain your coolant set point, your oil temps will have a hard time going out of control (there will naturally be variations - so take any and all as "mostly true more often than not").
Quote:
There are components within an engine that operate at or near HTHS @ 150C. Around the piston, particularly the rings
Sump temperature is just an "average" temperature or a heat balance after all inputs (combustion/friction heat) and outputs (cooling).
Which goes without saying. Bulk oil temps will tend to be stable as long as the cooling system is not stressed. That is, if you're able to maintain your coolant set point, your oil temps will have a hard time going out of control (there will naturally be variations - so take any and all as "mostly true more often than not").
Quote:
There are components within an engine that operate at or near HTHS @ 150C. Around the piston, particularly the rings
Hi Jim,
Running a 7 cSt @ 100C oil is not an issue in and of itself.
There are a number of 20wt oils in that range or lower (Wolfshead comes to mind with a 100C vis of 6.5 cSt).
What's important is the virgin spec for the oil and how much viscosity it has lost in operation. If it was 8.5 cSt then that 7 cSt represents a lot of shear (18%) which means it's HTHS vis has also dropped a lot. As you now know, operational viscosity correlates closely with the HTHS vis; not so much with the 100C kinematic viscosity.
In the OP's case, since the oil's viscosity is not a problem until the 3,000 mile mark, simply choosing a 2.6 cP 20wt that is less shear prone seems like one solution.
Running a 7 cSt @ 100C oil is not an issue in and of itself.
There are a number of 20wt oils in that range or lower (Wolfshead comes to mind with a 100C vis of 6.5 cSt).
What's important is the virgin spec for the oil and how much viscosity it has lost in operation. If it was 8.5 cSt then that 7 cSt represents a lot of shear (18%) which means it's HTHS vis has also dropped a lot. As you now know, operational viscosity correlates closely with the HTHS vis; not so much with the 100C kinematic viscosity.
In the OP's case, since the oil's viscosity is not a problem until the 3,000 mile mark, simply choosing a 2.6 cP 20wt that is less shear prone seems like one solution.
I agree with everything except the following,
Quote:
The argument that bulk sump oil temps are not enough to rely upon since certain engine components will see very high localized temp's is an old one that quite frankly is an obfuscation of the issue.
I don't have all the citations from my SWRI/industry papers.
Don't need a lesson in motor oil. I am just posting about my experience and known information about 5w20.
Quote:
I don't know where you got the fuel economy percentages from but they do seem high.
It was taken from research regarding two lubricants with the same exact HTHS 2.6 cSt. One was 0w20 the other was 5w20. At every temperature from 20C to 100C, 0w20 outperformed 5w20 by ~ 1.5% in fuel economy. 0w30/5w30 had the same increase in fuel economy in the same study. 0W's have greater flow characteristics throughout different operating temperatures, not just at cold temps. There is a negative correlation between fuel economy and MRV/CCS. The lower the MRV, the greater the fuel economy.
Unless I am talking about my own personal experience, what I post is taken from lubricant research. Sorry I don't have every citation for you. Don't have the time. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.
Quote:
The argument that bulk sump oil temps are not enough to rely upon since certain engine components will see very high localized temp's is an old one that quite frankly is an obfuscation of the issue.
I don't have all the citations from my SWRI/industry papers.
Don't need a lesson in motor oil. I am just posting about my experience and known information about 5w20.
Quote:
I don't know where you got the fuel economy percentages from but they do seem high.
It was taken from research regarding two lubricants with the same exact HTHS 2.6 cSt. One was 0w20 the other was 5w20. At every temperature from 20C to 100C, 0w20 outperformed 5w20 by ~ 1.5% in fuel economy. 0w30/5w30 had the same increase in fuel economy in the same study. 0W's have greater flow characteristics throughout different operating temperatures, not just at cold temps. There is a negative correlation between fuel economy and MRV/CCS. The lower the MRV, the greater the fuel economy.
Unless I am talking about my own personal experience, what I post is taken from lubricant research. Sorry I don't have every citation for you. Don't have the time. Anyway, I'm done with this thread.
Proselytizing 5W20 religion was a quick CAFE band-aid by Ford. A hack, a shortcut for gullible ones. All of a sudden they reveal that 10W40 is fine. All they needed was a problem. As you can see any emotional declaration can cut both ways 
Is there anyway to concoct 0W25 in a kitchen blender in order to reach a band-aid compromise for the time being?
Is there anyway to concoct 0W25 in a kitchen blender in order to reach a band-aid compromise for the time being?Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Try some M1 0w40. You've got nothing to lose. If it fixes it, then awesome.
+1 nothing to lose, something to gain.
Try some M1 0w40. You've got nothing to lose. If it fixes it, then awesome.
+1 nothing to lose, something to gain.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
0W's have greater flow characteristics throughout different operating temperatures
You must mean friction properties. Without that qualification you'll have people thinking that equal volumes of fluid pumped at the same velocity will have different flow rates.
You're saying that they flowed marginally easier.
I still haven't quite wrapped around CATERMAN's assertion of HTHS being a fundamental instead of a coincidental/subsequent. Not saying that the view is invalid, I just haven't tried it on enough times ..so to speak.
0W's have greater flow characteristics throughout different operating temperatures
You must mean friction properties. Without that qualification you'll have people thinking that equal volumes of fluid pumped at the same velocity will have different flow rates.
You're saying that they flowed marginally easier.
I still haven't quite wrapped around CATERMAN's assertion of HTHS being a fundamental instead of a coincidental/subsequent. Not saying that the view is invalid, I just haven't tried it on enough times ..so to speak.
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Proselytizing 5W20 religion was a quick CAFE band-aid by Ford. A hack, a shortcut for gullible ones. All of a sudden they reveal that 10W40 is fine. All they needed was a problem. As you can see any emotional declaration can cut both ways Is there anyway to concoct 0W25 in a kitchen blender in order to reach a band-aid compromise for the time being?
A whole lot of assumptions and long distance dot-connecting in those statements. Forgive me if I missed any underlying humor ( : < )
"Revealing" 10W40 is "fine" is not an endorsement of any kind from Ford. It's a band-aid fix, that's all.
I disagree that 5W20 was a band-aid. They (and many other mfrs) have spent years/decades validating 5W20. It continues to this day. Likely it took weeks figuring out that 10W40 would mask one engineering problem without creating another. You can't directly compare them.
Proselytizing 5W20 religion was a quick CAFE band-aid by Ford. A hack, a shortcut for gullible ones. All of a sudden they reveal that 10W40 is fine. All they needed was a problem. As you can see any emotional declaration can cut both ways
Is there anyway to concoct 0W25 in a kitchen blender in order to reach a band-aid compromise for the time being?A whole lot of assumptions and long distance dot-connecting in those statements. Forgive me if I missed any underlying humor ( : < )
"Revealing" 10W40 is "fine" is not an endorsement of any kind from Ford. It's a band-aid fix, that's all.
I disagree that 5W20 was a band-aid. They (and many other mfrs) have spent years/decades validating 5W20. It continues to this day. Likely it took weeks figuring out that 10W40 would mask one engineering problem without creating another. You can't directly compare them.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I disagree that 5W20 was a band-aid.
I agree with you. Ford already knew that most engines were running on 20 grades anyway. They had almost 30 years of experience with shear prone 30 grades. They just brought the pre-packaged stuff to market instead of letting the engine manage the final process. So, was it brought to market to take advantage of it for CAFE? Sure.
So?
If the CAFE people want a consolation, I'd say that service length might give them some. Most 5w-20 engines have relatively short OCI's ..or did. At least in comparison to something like Honda. It took Ford a decent amount of time to stretch the 5k to 7k ..or whatever it's up to now.
I disagree that 5W20 was a band-aid.
I agree with you. Ford already knew that most engines were running on 20 grades anyway. They had almost 30 years of experience with shear prone 30 grades. They just brought the pre-packaged stuff to market instead of letting the engine manage the final process. So, was it brought to market to take advantage of it for CAFE? Sure.
So?
If the CAFE people want a consolation, I'd say that service length might give them some. Most 5w-20 engines have relatively short OCI's ..or did. At least in comparison to something like Honda. It took Ford a decent amount of time to stretch the 5k to 7k ..or whatever it's up to now.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
0W's have greater flow characteristics throughout different operating temperatures
You must mean friction properties. Without that qualification you'll have people thinking that equal volumes of fluid pumped at the same velocity will have different flow rates.
You're saying that they flowed marginally easier.
I still haven't quite wrapped around CATERMAN's assertion of HTHS being a fundamental instead of a coincidental/subsequent. Not saying that the view is invalid, I just haven't tried it on enough times ..so to speak.
Gary, I'm surprised you haven't installed an oil temp gauge in some of your vehicles, it's such an inexpensive and easy thing to do. In conjunction with a good oil pressure gauge it makes analizing the condition of the motor oil you're running precise and comparing the operating viscosities of different oils an eye opening experience. It will optimize your all ready excellent analytical skills!
Quote:
0W's have greater flow characteristics throughout different operating temperatures
You must mean friction properties. Without that qualification you'll have people thinking that equal volumes of fluid pumped at the same velocity will have different flow rates.
You're saying that they flowed marginally easier.
I still haven't quite wrapped around CATERMAN's assertion of HTHS being a fundamental instead of a coincidental/subsequent. Not saying that the view is invalid, I just haven't tried it on enough times ..so to speak.
Gary, I'm surprised you haven't installed an oil temp gauge in some of your vehicles, it's such an inexpensive and easy thing to do. In conjunction with a good oil pressure gauge it makes analizing the condition of the motor oil you're running precise and comparing the operating viscosities of different oils an eye opening experience. It will optimize your all ready excellent analytical skills!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Oh, I have had oil temp gauges and pressure gauges ...dual pressure gauges on either side of the remote mounted filter ..you name it ..I had it (well, I was working on more).
I just don't have them NOW. That's what most of my temperature and time to temp rhetoric is based on.
I only salvaged a few images from Sony Image Station before they quit.
I tried digital pressure gauges and I must have got a bad batch of VDO transducers. They would never read right ..were spanned wrong ..whatever.
These worked well
I swapped the block adapter with the filter (reversed them) and put a temp sensor where one of the pressure taps was ..and moved it to the end plug on the runner. I knew the the pressure, the PSID, and the oil temp.
I later swapped out the twin gauges for a true differential pressure gauge. I should have ran them in tandem, but was lazy. Sometime in the middle of my first 0w-10 experiment, my van got stolen.
I just don't have them NOW. That's what most of my temperature and time to temp rhetoric is based on.
I only salvaged a few images from Sony Image Station before they quit.
I tried digital pressure gauges and I must have got a bad batch of VDO transducers. They would never read right ..were spanned wrong ..whatever.
These worked well
I swapped the block adapter with the filter (reversed them) and put a temp sensor where one of the pressure taps was ..and moved it to the end plug on the runner. I knew the the pressure, the PSID, and the oil temp.
I later swapped out the twin gauges for a true differential pressure gauge. I should have ran them in tandem, but was lazy. Sometime in the middle of my first 0w-10 experiment, my van got stolen.
Now that you mention it I remember something about your van being stolen.
But you do have an oil pressure gauge in the Jeep I believe.
I know it's presumptuous for me to say but you should definitely install an inexpensive oil temp gauge?
With the experimenting you're prone to doing, it's a crime not to have one. Besides I need someone to validate or debunk my lubrication ideas!
But you do have an oil pressure gauge in the Jeep I believe.
I know it's presumptuous for me to say but you should definitely install an inexpensive oil temp gauge?
With the experimenting you're prone to doing, it's a crime not to have one. Besides I need someone to validate or debunk my lubrication ideas!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Oh, when I get around to it I'll install a relatively expensive oil temp gauge. I'll put it on my list of stuff for my son to do while I supervise. Remember I'm in a holding pattern with a herniated disc and while gauge installation may not be considered a labor intensive task, you might be surprised on what playing just a little twister can produce in gut wrenching "discomfort" ..with residuals. The gift that keeps on giving.
Trans and Oil temp gauges are next. Oil temp pretty much hangs right around coolant temp. I have an exchanger. You can more or less see the coolant stuck at the thermostat level until the oil gets close enough to allow the rad to bleed off more heat. Then it will start varying a bit.
If I really want to complicate things I have a 95C thermostatic sandwich adapter. I don't know yet if I'm going to plumb it to an auxiliary rad cooler fastened behind the rad, or plumb it to a Dual Guard with two EaBP110 for an 8 quart sump.
One of my original (intended) experiments with Bruce's first formulation was to test the two stage sump. Member Curious Kid proposed a two tier sump that would operate on 2 quarts during start up so that it would warm quicker, then transition to the full 4-5 quart sump as oil temps breached sensible thresholds. I couldn't do that, but I could manage to have an 8-9 quart sump appear initially as a 5 quart sump using thermostats and heat exchangers.
I had a modified Crown Vic Laminova heat exchanger in line on the outlet to the rad, and two Eaton tow motor trans coolers plumbed to a bypass circuit. While cold, the Eatons were dead and the oil flowed to the Laminova on the upper rad hose. That warmed the oil only from waste heat. Once the oil reached 180F+/- the thermostat diverted the oil flow to the Eatons for cooling. An additional thermostat plumbed a older Crown Vic drag/police pack radiator and a Hayden 36x18 rad cooler.
The idea was to use the light weight 0w-10 in a 5 quart virtual sump, but force cool it to at least a 20 weight when it was at the full system capacity.
I later found that it was unnecessary to temperature compensate for the lighter fluid.
Some areas under the hood had an appearance not unlike a scene where Aliens had set up shop. You don't know how hard it is to change hose sizes on a budget.
Trans and Oil temp gauges are next. Oil temp pretty much hangs right around coolant temp. I have an exchanger. You can more or less see the coolant stuck at the thermostat level until the oil gets close enough to allow the rad to bleed off more heat. Then it will start varying a bit.
If I really want to complicate things I have a 95C thermostatic sandwich adapter. I don't know yet if I'm going to plumb it to an auxiliary rad cooler fastened behind the rad, or plumb it to a Dual Guard with two EaBP110 for an 8 quart sump.
One of my original (intended) experiments with Bruce's first formulation was to test the two stage sump. Member Curious Kid proposed a two tier sump that would operate on 2 quarts during start up so that it would warm quicker, then transition to the full 4-5 quart sump as oil temps breached sensible thresholds. I couldn't do that, but I could manage to have an 8-9 quart sump appear initially as a 5 quart sump using thermostats and heat exchangers.
I had a modified Crown Vic Laminova heat exchanger in line on the outlet to the rad, and two Eaton tow motor trans coolers plumbed to a bypass circuit. While cold, the Eatons were dead and the oil flowed to the Laminova on the upper rad hose. That warmed the oil only from waste heat. Once the oil reached 180F+/- the thermostat diverted the oil flow to the Eatons for cooling. An additional thermostat plumbed a older Crown Vic drag/police pack radiator and a Hayden 36x18 rad cooler.
The idea was to use the light weight 0w-10 in a 5 quart virtual sump, but force cool it to at least a 20 weight when it was at the full system capacity.
I later found that it was unnecessary to temperature compensate for the lighter fluid.
Some areas under the hood had an appearance not unlike a scene where Aliens had set up shop. You don't know how hard it is to change hose sizes on a budget.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Besides I need someone to validate or debunk my lubrication ideas!
Besides I need someone to validate or debunk my lubrication ideas!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
