Yes, and from a place where multigrades are exceedingly handy.
5w20 vs 5w30
- Thread starter Avery4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: asker123
Another paper on pumpability...5w30 seems to do fine at above freezing temps
http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/9/9_1_20_raw.pdf
asker123,
not discrediting the paper, it's a good read.
But viscometrics (MRV and CCS) weren't introduced into J300 until 1979, and then they still messed it up.
Up to that point it was pretty much based on pour point and things like that, which we've found through discussion on BITOG aren't very good predictors of cold cranking performance etc. (they are the beaker tests that look so impressive in the vids).
In 1979 they brought in cold crank simulator and borderline pumping, which was better, but they got wrong also, as they later found that engines left in the cold could have the oil gel with crystal formation...didn't get it right until 80s.
So in the paper, the 5W20 and the 5W30 would have "poured" similarly, but didn't behave similarly in the testing.
These days, with CCS and MRV limits, they would be expected to viscometrically behave much more similar.
Another paper on pumpability...5w30 seems to do fine at above freezing temps
http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/9/9_1_20_raw.pdf
asker123,
not discrediting the paper, it's a good read.
But viscometrics (MRV and CCS) weren't introduced into J300 until 1979, and then they still messed it up.
Up to that point it was pretty much based on pour point and things like that, which we've found through discussion on BITOG aren't very good predictors of cold cranking performance etc. (they are the beaker tests that look so impressive in the vids).
In 1979 they brought in cold crank simulator and borderline pumping, which was better, but they got wrong also, as they later found that engines left in the cold could have the oil gel with crystal formation...didn't get it right until 80s.
So in the paper, the 5W20 and the 5W30 would have "poured" similarly, but didn't behave similarly in the testing.
These days, with CCS and MRV limits, they would be expected to viscometrically behave much more similar.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: tig1
The video says nothing about a 20wt oil. It only shows a 0-30 will flow to the head much faster than a 15-40 at very cold temps. Is this hard to grasp? I actually experienced this in the 70's while living in Maine with M1 5-20. I used Valvoline 10-40 in a Chevy V8 and had terrible upper end clatter in -15F and below temps on cold starts. I changed to M1 5-20 and there was no comparison. Engine cranked much faster and no clatter at all.
That's the point. The video says nothing about 20grade oils, yet it was introduced by you into this thread as some sort of "proof" of better cold flow in the 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 debate. The 2 oil grades used in the video are not 5w-20 or 5w-30. Fwiw, 0w-40 would have flowed well in that video. If there was a 0w-50, that also would have flowed well.
Ironically, you didn't even pay attention to your own posted video. At 6:23 of the video they mention the 2nd oil....a 10w-30. Nowhere can I find in the cam cold flow test anything about a 15W-40. At least get the facts straight from your own posted link.
The 10w is clearly not doing well in a -35c start up....taking 35 seconds to reach the first cam. Obviously, the 15w would be even worse. So for that ultra low temp in very cold Canadian or Maine winters, a 10w or higher doesn't work very well. I wouldn't use it either. This video does prove that a 30 grade oil (0w-30 in this case) flow VERY WELL at -35c. A plus for the 30 grade crowd.
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
Originally Posted By: tig1
The video says nothing about a 20wt oil. It only shows a 0-30 will flow to the head much faster than a 15-40 at very cold temps. Is this hard to grasp? I actually experienced this in the 70's while living in Maine with M1 5-20. I used Valvoline 10-40 in a Chevy V8 and had terrible upper end clatter in -15F and below temps on cold starts. I changed to M1 5-20 and there was no comparison. Engine cranked much faster and no clatter at all.
That's the point. The video says nothing about 20grade oils, yet it was introduced by you into this thread as some sort of "proof" of better cold flow in the 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 debate. The 2 oil grades used in the video are not 5w-20 or 5w-30. Fwiw, 0w-40 would have flowed well in that video. If there was a 0w-50, that also would have flowed well.
Ironically, you didn't even pay attention to your own posted video. At 6:23 of the video they mention the 2nd oil....a 10w-30. Nowhere can I find in the cam cold flow test anything about a 15W-40. At least get the facts straight from your own posted link.
The 10w is clearly not doing well in a -35c start up....taking 35 seconds to reach the first cam. Obviously, the 15w would be even worse. So for that ultra low temp in very cold Canadian or Maine winters, a 10w or higher doesn't work very well. I wouldn't use it either. This video does prove that a 30 grade oil (0w-30 in this case) flow VERY WELL at -35c. A plus for the 30 grade crowd.
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
Originally Posted By: asker123
Another paper on pumpability...5w30 seems to do fine at above freezing temps
http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/9/9_1_20_raw.pdf
Interesting findings #1-4 in the end summary. Though with 50 year old oil technology I wonder how those same tests would look today. The 30% drop in 210 degF viscosity after only 16 hours was a shocker. No wonder there were short OCI's back then. One vacation week drive and your 30 grade is a 20 grade.
Another paper on pumpability...5w30 seems to do fine at above freezing temps
http://www.csbe-scgab.ca/docs/journal/9/9_1_20_raw.pdf
Interesting findings #1-4 in the end summary. Though with 50 year old oil technology I wonder how those same tests would look today. The 30% drop in 210 degF viscosity after only 16 hours was a shocker. No wonder there were short OCI's back then. One vacation week drive and your 30 grade is a 20 grade.
Originally Posted By: tig1
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
I don't think you get the point of people trying to explain the video to you or the video itself.
The oil grade (the number that is after "W") has nothing to do with the oil's winter rating (the number in front of "W").
One can safely use a 40 grade oil in very low temperatures, even if the car is specced for grade 20, provided that it has the proper winter rating, like 0w40 or 5w40. They will flow, and the proper term should be, will be pumped the same as 0w20 or 5w20. I'm not sure how many times this has to be explained.
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
I don't think you get the point of people trying to explain the video to you or the video itself.
The oil grade (the number that is after "W") has nothing to do with the oil's winter rating (the number in front of "W").
One can safely use a 40 grade oil in very low temperatures, even if the car is specced for grade 20, provided that it has the proper winter rating, like 0w40 or 5w40. They will flow, and the proper term should be, will be pumped the same as 0w20 or 5w20. I'm not sure how many times this has to be explained.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: tig1
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
I don't think you get the point of people trying to explain the video to you or the video itself.
The oil grade (the number that is after "W") has nothing to do with the oil's winter rating (the number in front of "W").
One can safely use a 40 grade oil in very low temperatures, even if the car is specced for grade 20, provided that it has the proper winter rating, like 0w40 or 5w40. They will flow, and the proper term should be, will be pumped the same as 0w20 or 5w20. I'm not sure how many times this has to be explained.
Yes, I first used 5-30 in 1964,
so I do understand the numbers. Just thought I would post this video that shows the difference between the FLOW(at very cold temps) of 0-30 synthetic and 10-30 dino up to the head. Also it's spec'd not specced, I think.
Originally Posted By: tig1
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
I don't think you get the point of people trying to explain the video to you or the video itself.
The oil grade (the number that is after "W") has nothing to do with the oil's winter rating (the number in front of "W").
One can safely use a 40 grade oil in very low temperatures, even if the car is specced for grade 20, provided that it has the proper winter rating, like 0w40 or 5w40. They will flow, and the proper term should be, will be pumped the same as 0w20 or 5w20. I'm not sure how many times this has to be explained.
Yes, I first used 5-30 in 1964,
so I do understand the numbers. Just thought I would post this video that shows the difference between the FLOW(at very cold temps) of 0-30 synthetic and 10-30 dino up to the head. Also it's spec'd not specced, I think.
Originally Posted By: tig1
.... Also it's spec'd not specced, I think.
I would have thought the same thing. But specced is the proper word while spec'd is acceptable, if not slang. They both "look" wrong. I guess it's easier just to use "specified." Now that does look right.
.... Also it's spec'd not specced, I think.
I would have thought the same thing. But specced is the proper word while spec'd is acceptable, if not slang. They both "look" wrong. I guess it's easier just to use "specified." Now that does look right.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: tig1
.... Also it's spec'd not specced, I think.
I would have thought the same thing. But specced is the proper word while spec'd is acceptable, if not slang. They both "look" wrong. I guess it's easier just to use "specified." Now that does look right.
How about specification.
Originally Posted By: tig1
.... Also it's spec'd not specced, I think.
I would have thought the same thing. But specced is the proper word while spec'd is acceptable, if not slang. They both "look" wrong. I guess it's easier just to use "specified." Now that does look right.
How about specification.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tig1
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
The problem is, though, the video isn't really demonstrating flow. The first part demonstrates pour point, and you can have some pretty impressive pour points on 15w-40 oils, if you look hard enough. Of course, pour point isn't relevant to flow inside an engine. The second part demonstrates what happens at the limit of pumpability. It's not the the oil isn't flowing slowly. It's not pumping properly because you're having cavitation at the pickup, thanks to the number before the w (i.e. 10w-XX or 15w-XX) being unsuitable for the conditions.
What do you think would have happened had they compared in that test a 20w-20 against a 0w-40? The 0w-40, with much higher KV, would have "flowed" very quickly, both in pour point and in the pumping test, while the low KV 20w-20 would have pour like molasses and failed the cold pumpability test miserably. Of course, we know what they both look like at operating temperatures.
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
The problem is, though, the video isn't really demonstrating flow. The first part demonstrates pour point, and you can have some pretty impressive pour points on 15w-40 oils, if you look hard enough. Of course, pour point isn't relevant to flow inside an engine. The second part demonstrates what happens at the limit of pumpability. It's not the the oil isn't flowing slowly. It's not pumping properly because you're having cavitation at the pickup, thanks to the number before the w (i.e. 10w-XX or 15w-XX) being unsuitable for the conditions.
What do you think would have happened had they compared in that test a 20w-20 against a 0w-40? The 0w-40, with much higher KV, would have "flowed" very quickly, both in pour point and in the pumping test, while the low KV 20w-20 would have pour like molasses and failed the cold pumpability test miserably. Of course, we know what they both look like at operating temperatures.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
The problem is, though, the video isn't really demonstrating flow. The first part demonstrates pour point, and you can have some pretty impressive pour points on 15w-40 oils, if you look hard enough. Of course, pour point isn't relevant to flow inside an engine. The second part demonstrates what happens at the limit of pumpability. It's not the the oil isn't flowing slowly. It's not pumping properly because you're having cavitation at the pickup, thanks to the number before the w (i.e. 10w-XX or 15w-XX) being unsuitable for the conditions.
What do you think would have happened had they compared in that test a 20w-20 against a 0w-40? The 0w-40, with much higher KV, would have "flowed" very quickly, both in pour point and in the pumping test, while the low KV 20w-20 would have pour like molasses and failed the cold pumpability test miserably. Of course, we know what they both look like at operating temperatures.
But they didn't.
Originally Posted By: tig1
My bad on the video showing cranking of a 10-30 vs a 0-30 synthetic. My mistake there.Although the 10-30 had avery poor flow as well. A 15-40 would have showed even slower cold flow abilities. The reason I brought this up(you overlooked this point) was some in this thread were using 40wt oils in there engines calling for a 20.
The problem is, though, the video isn't really demonstrating flow. The first part demonstrates pour point, and you can have some pretty impressive pour points on 15w-40 oils, if you look hard enough. Of course, pour point isn't relevant to flow inside an engine. The second part demonstrates what happens at the limit of pumpability. It's not the the oil isn't flowing slowly. It's not pumping properly because you're having cavitation at the pickup, thanks to the number before the w (i.e. 10w-XX or 15w-XX) being unsuitable for the conditions.
What do you think would have happened had they compared in that test a 20w-20 against a 0w-40? The 0w-40, with much higher KV, would have "flowed" very quickly, both in pour point and in the pumping test, while the low KV 20w-20 would have pour like molasses and failed the cold pumpability test miserably. Of course, we know what they both look like at operating temperatures.
But they didn't.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CT8
The most important thing we are missing here [a BITOG reader failure] is how much time does it take for the oil to travel from the sump to the oil pump? Any one ever look at the SAE oil viscosity temp/viscosity charts?
Here's a test engine running oils with different "W" ratings, including SAE30 with no "W" rating at various temperatures. It includes the time to get oil flowing to the rocker arms (RAOT, so same as the Esso video), and time to full oil pressures (FOPT).
clearly, the SAE30 "flows" as well at 20F as the 5W20 "flows" at 12F, and the 10W30 does at 9F...in this test engine.
So the "W" rating and the operating temperature are important.
Take any of the three oils at 30F, and regardless, none of them are going to "beat" the SAE 30 time of 3 and 6 seconds, as that's the mechanical filling rate of this engine.
Above freezing, whether the owner chose 0W, 5W, 10W, 15W, or straight 30, nothing is going to "flow to the top end" any faster
So out here in the SF Bay Area where we hardly ever see temps in the 30's F leave alone 20's - we should just run SAE30 and be done with it. We have no real need to run a multi-anything
And, all kidding aside, that's why my old boss on the ranch ran straight 30's in all the 2-stroke diesels. They tear up oil due to open port configuration. I was always on him about why not newer oils with this and that magic properties. He'd just smile and ask how long I needed the motor to run...
Having been around a bit longer now, I get it. Find the best oil for the job at hand.
Your conditions may be at the edge of what the engineers considered normal for that engine. IF that's the case you need to make allowances. Look at the world spec for that engine (to get CAFE out of the equation) and pick the right oil for the job
Originally Posted By: CT8
The most important thing we are missing here [a BITOG reader failure] is how much time does it take for the oil to travel from the sump to the oil pump? Any one ever look at the SAE oil viscosity temp/viscosity charts?
Here's a test engine running oils with different "W" ratings, including SAE30 with no "W" rating at various temperatures. It includes the time to get oil flowing to the rocker arms (RAOT, so same as the Esso video), and time to full oil pressures (FOPT).
clearly, the SAE30 "flows" as well at 20F as the 5W20 "flows" at 12F, and the 10W30 does at 9F...in this test engine.
So the "W" rating and the operating temperature are important.
Take any of the three oils at 30F, and regardless, none of them are going to "beat" the SAE 30 time of 3 and 6 seconds, as that's the mechanical filling rate of this engine.
Above freezing, whether the owner chose 0W, 5W, 10W, 15W, or straight 30, nothing is going to "flow to the top end" any faster
So out here in the SF Bay Area where we hardly ever see temps in the 30's F leave alone 20's - we should just run SAE30 and be done with it. We have no real need to run a multi-anything
And, all kidding aside, that's why my old boss on the ranch ran straight 30's in all the 2-stroke diesels. They tear up oil due to open port configuration. I was always on him about why not newer oils with this and that magic properties. He'd just smile and ask how long I needed the motor to run...
Having been around a bit longer now, I get it. Find the best oil for the job at hand.
Your conditions may be at the edge of what the engineers considered normal for that engine. IF that's the case you need to make allowances. Look at the world spec for that engine (to get CAFE out of the equation) and pick the right oil for the job
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tig1
But they didn't.
No, they didn't. Nor were they comparing a 5w-20 or a 0w-20 to anything else. They also weren't measuring oil flow in an engine. The were demonstrating what happens when MRV limits are exceeded. Papers demonstrating flow, also conducted by Imperial Oil, have been shown in this thread. These are the same people conducting the tests. They do differentiate between flow and trying to pump an oil that's outside its cold start limits.
BrocLuno: Of course, a multigrade will get you better fuel economy, thanks to a higher VI. And, we know what an ILSAC multigrade tends to do to HTHS.
But they didn't.
No, they didn't. Nor were they comparing a 5w-20 or a 0w-20 to anything else. They also weren't measuring oil flow in an engine. The were demonstrating what happens when MRV limits are exceeded. Papers demonstrating flow, also conducted by Imperial Oil, have been shown in this thread. These are the same people conducting the tests. They do differentiate between flow and trying to pump an oil that's outside its cold start limits.
BrocLuno: Of course, a multigrade will get you better fuel economy, thanks to a higher VI. And, we know what an ILSAC multigrade tends to do to HTHS.
Why, if it's 30 at op temp?
Well, the higher VI will give you better fuel economy during the warm up phase. As for the HTHS, think of a monograde 30 being closer to something like GC 0w-30 with an HTHS of 3.5 or greater. Heck, up here, Mobil doesn't market a monograde 30 that isn't an HDEO. So, you'll have higher HTHS, losing a bit of mileage at operating temperatures, plus the lower VI harming fuel economy during warmup.
It's there. You'll never notice it, much less be able to measure it.
It's there. You'll never notice it, much less be able to measure it.
OK, I buy that. But the first time I hit boost to pass some tourist going 35 mph, I just shot all the fuel economy I might have saved playing Grade games with oil ...
I understand for fleet operators and MFG fleet averages it means something, but in older high mileage vehicles it's not even computable I don't think ...
I understand for fleet operators and MFG fleet averages it means something, but in older high mileage vehicles it's not even computable I don't think ...
Oh, of course. You'll never be able to work it out on your own. An oil company or an OEM can. But they won't do it by on the road testing either. Fleets and other commercial operators may choose a lower viscosity for fuel economy, too, but it won't be a big deal, but businesses save pennies where they can.
Here's a couple of visual representations of what's happening during warmup.
One the KV40 and KV100 and the frictional losses due to RPM.
Other, the indicted Mean Effective Pressure loss of different grades at warm-up temps.
Funnily, the thicker oils will generate more heat, and warm up faster, while using more fuel to do that 'though...I can materially improve my engine temp when I hit the highways by holding down a gear or two and keeping RPM at or above 2,500 RPM driving through town (30 MPH limit these days).
One the KV40 and KV100 and the frictional losses due to RPM.
Other, the indicted Mean Effective Pressure loss of different grades at warm-up temps.
Funnily, the thicker oils will generate more heat, and warm up faster, while using more fuel to do that 'though...I can materially improve my engine temp when I hit the highways by holding down a gear or two and keeping RPM at or above 2,500 RPM driving through town (30 MPH limit these days).
Which you? How does that apply to looking at the differences between 5W-30 and 5W-20?
- Status
Similar threads
