After they all go thin, what will the thin people do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
Challenges for thin oils include:

1. Use in (very, ultra, etc. ) high performance vehicles. You can run whatever you want in any car that you buy, but a lot of makers of high performance vehicles still seem to spec pretty thick oils, Ford included.


Engines can be designed to run a wide variety of viscosities. Manufacturers consider other parameters besides viscosity when designing an engine such as current formulation technologies, cost and availability of current formulations, and user habits and beliefs. Ford only specs thicker oils in extremely low volume production specialty vehicles that are essentially aftermarket built engines that have taken the original design way past it's original design and development parameters. In short, the thick oil is a patch for a few thousand vehicles that won't see the usual validation/verification process.

In contrast, there are quite a few high volume production high performance engines that spec a "thinner oil". These go through the full validation/verification process since the costs can be spread out over hundred of thousands of engines.

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
2. Use of thin oils in higher performance vehicles for extended drain intervals, in areas of the world where such performance can actually be used.

Extended drain intervals require low volatility, resistance to oxidation and deposit formation, etc. (Motivation for Ford WSS-M2C930-A spec). It's easier and less expensive to produce a "thick" oil that meets all the above parameters, especially in the case of non full synthetics. Contrary to BITGOG members, the vast majority of people will buy the least expensive oil recommended for their engine.

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
3. Use of thin oil in older vehicles. It was really shameful for Ford to suggest that any vehicle noted in their TSBs could really use 5w20, like my 93 Taurus with 200k miles on it.

A worn engine is a worn engine, a 5w20 spec oil is not going to rejuvenate it. It's interesting that the use of thicker oils didn't extend it's life any.

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
4. Use of thin oils in diesels.

If there is sufficient motivation to run thinner oils in diesels, they will design diesel engines to run thinner oils.

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
5. Much seems to be made about using thin oils in racing, but it seems that really thin stuff is used for qualifying and 30 wt oils (?) used in shorter 500 mile races. If a 30 wt provides an acceptable level of wear in a 500 mile race it's easy to see why they don't seem to be used in endurance races. (Fuel dilution is commonly mentioned, but changing oil would seem pretty easy to do to offset it.)

Actually they qualify with "0-weight" oil and run nothing thicker than a borderline thin SAE 30 weight during most 500 mile racing events. Even then, the oil isn't what causes the majority of failures. It's usually due to something like a dropped valve or similar component failure unrelated to the oil. Endurance racing brings a whole new set of parameters to contend with and relate even less to a street driven vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
The challenges will be met, some appear to be currently, but it's still doesn't seem to be a 'thin, thin, world'.

Maybe if you believe Ford, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep that now spec "thinner oils" in a lot of their engines, isn't a substantial part of the automotive world.
 
We had 10w30 and 5w30 for many, many years, so I'd say 5w20 will be here for a while. If they eventually make a 10 or 15 weight oil so stout that it can protect the engine and improve fuel economy, we'll give that a try and all the 'old 20 weight' users will gripe about that.
 
offtopic.gif

quote:

We have two Capstone microturbines at our plant and

How did anyone manage to buy two capstone turbines in any cost effective manner? They were originally supposed to be comparable to conventional gen sets. About 5 or so years as being just Capstone, Onan bought them ...attached about $25k of accessories on them and gave them a price that only a publically regulated utility could afford.

I thought that they were the greatest invention that never was
confused.gif
Last I checked ..it was $36k for a 25kw 3phase unit. It was totally self contained and automatically synchronized with the utility.
 
quote:

Originally posted by lewk:
...my guess is a synthetic magnesium thats cost effective to mass produce would be the catalyst...

"Synthetic magnesium"? What a novel idea. While there have been successful large scale transmutations of one element to another over the past 61 years, they tend to carry what some hysterics (the usual rabble - theologians, peace activists, parents...) claim to be undesirable side effects. Prominent on the list are large craters and intense radiation.

[ March 27, 2006, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
 
Challenges for thin oils include:

1. Use in (very, ultra, etc. ) high performance vehicles. You can run whatever you want in any car that you buy, but a lot of makers of high performance vehicles still seem to spec pretty thick oils, Ford included.

2. Use of thin oils in higher performance vehicles for extended drain intervals, in areas of the world where such performance can actually be used.

3. Use of thin oil in older vehicles. It was really shameful for Ford to suggest that any vehicle noted in their TSBs could really use 5w20, like my 93 Taurus with 200k miles on it.

4. Use of thin oils in diesels.

5. Much seems to be made about using thin oils in racing, but it seems that really thin stuff is used for qualifying and 30 wt oils (?) used in shorter 500 mile races. If a 30 wt provides an acceptable level of wear in a 500 mile race it's easy to see why they don't seem to be used in endurance races. (Fuel dilution is commonly mentioned, but changing oil would seem pretty easy to do to offset it.)

The challenges will be met, some appear to be currently, but it's still doesn't seem to be a 'thin, thin, world'.
 
It will be more difficult to substitute air technologies in the areas of piston sealing and for main and connecting rod bearings, at least in a reciprocating piston IC design.

The call to lighter oils runs in cycles. I recall similar discussions in the late '60s (along with 6k OCIs), and the first OTC M1 product was a 5W-20 (with an advertised 25k OCI). Then everybody drifted back to 30, 40 and 50 weights again.

Right now, thin seems to be in vogue again.
 
"If there is sufficient motivation to run thinner oils in diesels, they will design diesel engines to run thinner oils."

No, no, no. Ford didn't design their cars to use 5w20, they just started using it in order to achieve better fleet fuel economy, and recommended it for a lot of older vehicles that were obviously not designed to use it. Ford has also recommended heavier oils outside of the US for vehicles required to use 5w20 in the US, again obviously no 'design changes'.

The real question is 'if 5w20 provides such superior wear protection, coupled with assertions that that there is no relationship between wear and viscosity, why isn't 5w20 being used in existing diesels ?' Now, the rest of the world knows that wear protection is paramount in HDEOs, and that a lot work has been done and is being done on improving the fuel economy of diesels, but so far 15w40 and 5w40 formulations in 'normal' temps seem to be the favored weights to achieve the required level of protection. This is the case even with large changes in formulations that have been required for EGR, soot, etc., compatibility. Thicker oils tend to provide better wear protection, that's the way the world works.
 
"Actually they qualify with "0-weight" oil and run nothing thicker than a borderline thin SAE 30 weight during most 500 mile racing events. Even then, the oil isn't what causes the majority of failures. It's usually due to something like a dropped valve or similar component failure unrelated to the oil. Endurance racing brings a whole new set of parameters to contend with and relate even less to a street driven vehicle."

Why do they qualify with a lighter oil ?

To acheive higher output.

Why don't they use that same oil for the race since higher output is desired, and since you seem to be willing to assert that there is no correlation between wear protection and viscosity ?

The answer could be related to the fact that a lighter oil can be used in a shorter race compared to a heavier oil being required for a longer race, but some intellectual honesty would be needed to acknowledge that.

Now the rest of the world, including the racing world, knows that you can typically get higher output with lighter oils, that's why there seem to be very light 'qualiifying oils', but they also know that wear protection is related to viscosity, which is why they need to use an oil that is 'heavy enough'. They also know that what is 'heavy enough' for an engine to run in a 500 mile race will tend to not be adequate for a 3000 mile race, as they know that wear increases with mileage.
 
1sttruck, why don't you show us your MFT calculations for both 5w20 and 5w50 in those few thousand Ford specialty engines. Include all lubrication dependent areas, and make sure you factor in such things as surface finish Ra values and piston expansion rates. That would be true intellectual honesty as opposed to the garbage you continually peddle.

Article in Lubes n' Greases Magazine (April, 1999)
quote:


Steve Bergin, a research engineer with General Motors, recently gave presentations to several technical groups, including Saturn Corp. field engineers. He addressed two "myths". According to Bergin, "Other than running out of oil, the primary oil-related problem that kills engines is DEPOSITS that cause stuck lifters, stuck piston rings and blocked oil passages. IT IS NOT WEAR". Secondly, "Engine oil viscosity has VIRTUALLY NO EFFECT ON WEAR."

Recent lower viscosity recommendations by the auto industry are based primarily upon the fact that new engines will start at much lower temperatures than previously, he said, and the oil must be pumpable.

Deposits and Wear
Bergin begins with an up-front caution: "Don't add anything to your oil." That's a message found in every owners manual.

Then comes his principal message. "If the oil protects the following components, everything else in the engine will almost certainly be OK."

First, the oil must fill and prevent sticking of the hydraulic valve lifters, Bergin explained. "Every time an engine is stopped, some cam lobe will be holding a valve open -- and over a period of about an hour the lifter plunger will be driven down low into its lifter body by the force of the valve spring. If the lifter plunger sticks in this position after the engine starts, because of rust or varnish, the valve cannot follow the full lobe profile, and slams closed. The entire purpose of the lobe profile is to decelerate the valve as it approaches its seat, so that the valve hits its seat gently.

"But if the valve hits its seat hard enough for a long enough time, the valve will break, and this will destroy the engine."

In addition to its sealing role, the oil must protect piston ring operations. "Pistons are always made of aluminum, get real hot and expand a lot. To avoid seizure when hot, cold pistons must be relatively loose in their bores. Piston rings, when wet with oil, provide the sealing that is necessary for compression and starting and must be free in their grooves and stay in contact with the cylinder wall.

"If rings stick when cold, starting is difficult. If rings stick when hot, oil consumption, oil degradation and blowby increase and deposits causing ring sticking are likely to get worse.

"Stuck rings can act like cutting tool inserts that scuff the cylinder walls -- which ultimately leads to piston seizure in the bore, and engine destruction," Bergin related.

Third, the oil's ZDDP (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate) additive is very important in protecting heavily loaded, boundary-lubricated parts, such as cam lobes, valve lifters, piston rings and cylinder bores. Boundary lubrication results when metal-to-metal contact occurs, "which in turn causes the deposition of the antiwear film from ZDDP."

While the antiwear properties of ZDDP will not completely eliminate wear, "they will reduce wear by orders of magnitude so that it will not likely be a limiting factor on engine life," Bergin said.

Phosphorus is an important component of ZDDP and, as well, a poison to emissions systems above certain levels. The auto industry has definite concerns about the use of phosphorus above a certain level, and considers phosphorus above 0.10 percent mass in a motor oil to be an emissions systems threat.

Bergin says, "New formulation technology can use ZDDP much more effectively. However, the oil viscosity will not have any practical effect on wear."

Indestructible Bearings?
The other major part of the engine that oil must lubricate and protect is journal bearings. Examples of journal bearings include the points where piston connecting rods join the crankshaft and where the crankshaft is supported in the engine block.

Bergin notes that with undamaged journal bearings, "If a journal bearing initially contains a film of oil, it is simply not possible to squeeze all the oil out by any loading of the bearing. If the bearing and journal are not damaged, the surfaces simply cannot be forced into contact. Undamaged journal bearings with debris-free oil flowing are virtually indestructible."

How strong are bearings? Bergin noted, "As part of our quality control operations, we conducted 'torture' tests in our laboratories where engines are run at top speed and load, and are deliberately supplied with inadequate cooling so that both the coolant and oil temperatures continue to rise until the engine fails.

"The failure mechanism at truly extreme temperatures is partial lifter collapse followed by valve breakage and piston destruction. The bearings, however, are not damaged in any way."

So how can indestructible journal bearings ever fail, aside from damage from debris? Bergin states, "Bearings get damaged and fail at a later point, even with the oil flowing, most often by oils that have too high a viscosity, and thus are not pumpable at the extremely low temperatures that today's engines will start."

That last sentence contains two key elements -- "today's engines" and "too high a viscosity."

The Low-Vis Myth
The auto industry is under protracted pressure from governmental units, "green" organizations and the public to reduce the amount of pollutants derived from their engines and to use nonrenewable resources to best advantage. Those pressures have resulted in continuously improved spark ignition engines, including electronic ignition and fuel injection as well as greatly improved starters and batteries. These engines produce much greater fuel economy and lessened air pollution -- and are also able to start at far lower temperatures.

Bergin points to a common belief that "the need to improve fuel economy has led auto manufacturers to recommend lower viscosity oils that cause more wear than higher viscosity oils." But all evidence, he says, indicates that viscosity has virtually no effect on wear.

"Recent lower viscosity recommendations are based primarily upon the fact that new engines start at much lower temperatures than just a few years ago. In fact, unlike earlier engines, starting is now almost independent of cranking speed and duration."

The need to improve fuel economy is another driver that has led auto manufacturers to move to lower viscosity oils, such as SAE 5W-30 and even 0W20 and 0W-30.

These lower viscosity oils that auto manufacturers recommend today (primarily SAE 5W-30 and 10W-30) do not cause increased wear, he reiterates. Using the oils recommended in owner's manuals (GF-2 currently, and GF-3 in possibly mid 2000) will insure that deposits will not form in critical areas. And bearings, too, will not be damaged or fail unless they lose oil supply long enough for the thin film of oil remaining in the bearing to get so hot that it decomposes.

"Journal bearing damage and failure are caused by the thermal overload that occurs when the oil supply is cut off. Mechanical overload does not cause journal bearing failure -- except in the isolated case where extreme mechanical thrust overload can cause attached flanges to fail, regardless of oil viscosity."

The Thickness Threat
Threats to engines come from a number of sources, including such obvious ones as using the wrong quality oil (SA or SB oils, for example, which contain no antiwear additives). Or not changing the oil at the proper intervals.

And Bergin notes that a threat to an engine today, including bearings, can come from another source. "Bearings get damaged most often by oils that have too high a viscosity and thus are not pumpable at the extremely low temperatures that today's engines will start at."

What constitutes "too high a viscosity?" Beyond noting that auto manufacturers have recently begun recommending lower viscosity oils, such as SAE 5W-30, Bergin made only one recommendation to Saturn engineers: "do not use SAE 20W-50 oil or any other viscosity grade that is not recommended," he stressed.

Bergin followed up with a qualification. "Viscosity is not an issue [in cases] where extremes of either temperature or high load service do not exist."

Overall, he feels, "There's lots of misunderstanding about oil viscosity, much of it from oil company messages which are intended to generate a marketing advantage."

There is certainly no conceivable threat regarding low-temperature viscosity in St. Thomas in the Caribbean. But there would be in the high ski areas of Colorado -- as well as above the 40th parallel of latitude, which cuts through Philadelphia on the east and just below Salt Lake City on the west.

Extreme fluctuations of weather seem to have been a fixture for a number of years -- and may not lessen in the future. Add this temperature fluctuation to the fact that current engines can start at extremely low temperatures and, following Bergin's points, it suggests the possibility for an oil-related incident to surface -- with higher viscosity grades being the culprit.

Rusty Wallace on oils used in NASCAR
 
"Ford only specs thicker oils in extremely low volume production specialty vehicles that are essentially aftermarket built engines that have taken the original design way past it's original design and development parameters. In short, the thick oil is a patch for a few thousand vehicles that won't see the usual validation/verification process."

There is truth in above, truth that when acknowledged will set you free. The truth known to most, yes even to Ford, is also within you, and you only have to accept it to walk again among intellectualy honest men, freed from the sins of 5w20 dogma. You see, even you cannot deny the truth, in spite of the demons that hound you, as it comes forth in subtle ways.

The truth that you reached for and used, truth that available for all right thinking men, is contained within your reply that 'thick oil is a patch'. When wear protection is paramount, when nothing is to be left to chance, right thinking men understand that thicker oils tend to provide better wear protection. You did not say 'use thin oil is a patch', as it is a falsehood. This is such a basic, fundamental tenant that we know it instinctively, and it comes forth sometimes without our knowing it, revelaing itself even to the troubled when we speak.

Free yourself from deception, obstruction, from dishonesty in your conversations with your fellow men, and accept the truth that even you unknowingly state.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
No, no, no. Ford didn't design their cars to use 5w20, they just started using it in order to achieve better fleet fuel economy, and recommended it for a lot of older vehicles that were obviously not designed to use it. Ford has also recommended heavier oils outside of the US for vehicles required to use 5w20 in the US, again obviously no 'design changes'.

No matter how many times this is explained to you, you just ignore it, and repeat this same crap over and over. So, one more time for the people in the cheap seats.

The original designs of older Ford engines combined with the improvement in oil formulation technology allows Ford to back spec 5w20 oil to the appropriate engines after a verification/validation process is accomplished.
Notice that all engines weren't back spec'ed initially. See, no Time Machine needed!

Like it or not, traditionally, Detroit manufacturers mainly design and develop around a API rating of a moderate cost dino oil. Sure there are few exceptions, but they are high dollar, low volume specialty cars. Why does Detroit do this? Simply because they want the oil to be commonly available. If you don't think this is a factor, look at all the problems that resulted when foreign engines that were designed and developed with foreign manufacturer specialty oils, were brought here, and the user, and sometimes the dealer, were ignorant or unwilling to believe they needed to use a manufacturer approved oil.

Now since Europe traditionally uses ACEA rated "thicker" oil, and that's what's commonly available over there, that's what Ford recommends over there. In short, a high quality European "thicker" oil won't hurt the engine provided it meets cold pumping requirements, but it doesn't provide any benefit either. It just waste fuel.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
There is truth in above, truth that when acknowledged will set you free. The truth known to most, yes even to Ford, is also within you, and you only have to accept it to walk again among intellectualy honest men, freed from the sins of 5w20 dogma. You see, even you cannot deny the truth, in spite of the demons that hound you, as it comes forth in subtle ways.

The truth that you reached for and used, truth that available for all right thinking men, is contained within your reply that 'thick oil is a patch'. When wear protection is paramount, when nothing is to be left to chance, right thinking men understand that thicker oils tend to provide better wear protection. You did not say 'use thin oil is a patch', as it is a falsehood. This is such a basic, fundamental tenant that we know it instinctively, and it comes forth sometimes without our knowing it, revelaing itself even to the troubled when we speak.

Free yourself from deception, obstruction, from dishonesty in your conversations with your fellow men, and accept the truth that even you unknowingly state.


Dude, you're one sick puppy. You need help.

I would of stopped wasting my time responding to your lunatic rantings a long time ago if I wasn't concerned that'd you bamboozle the neophyte into thinking in the same warp way you do.

And talking about truth and honesty. Even when I left you the opportunity to discover your false conclusions drawn from Taylor's diesel wear model, you failed to either notice it, or you ignored it. However, I don't know why I expected any different behavior from you. That's what you always do...you ignore what you don't understand or believe.
 
Easy, guys. No need to direct posts at each other...attacking the subject will suffice. All the 2nd tier members appreciate efforts and inputs on both sides of this issue and it will sort itself out.
cheers.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
"Actually they qualify with "0-weight" oil and run nothing thicker than a borderline thin SAE 30 weight during most 500 mile racing events. Even then, the oil isn't what causes the majority of failures. It's usually due to something like a dropped valve or similar component failure unrelated to the oil. Endurance racing brings a whole new set of parameters to contend with and relate even less to a street driven vehicle."

Why do they qualify with a lighter oil ?

To acheive higher output.

Why don't they use that same oil for the race since higher output is desired, and since you seem to be willing to assert that there is no correlation between wear protection and viscosity ?

The answer could be related to the fact that a lighter oil can be used in a shorter race compared to a heavier oil being required for a longer race, but some intellectual honesty would be needed to acknowledge that.

Now the rest of the world, including the racing world, knows that you can typically get higher output with lighter oils, that's why there seem to be very light 'qualiifying oils', but they also know that wear protection is related to viscosity, which is why they need to use an oil that is 'heavy enough'. They also know that what is 'heavy enough' for an engine to run in a 500 mile race will tend to not be adequate for a 3000 mile race, as they know that wear increases with mileage.


First of all, how do you know they aren't running "0-weight" oils for 500 mile races? Further, how do you know that if they are using "0-weight" oils for 500 mile races that when they're torn apart and inspected there is no additional wear attributed to the "0-weight" oils?
The truth is, you haven't a clue. It's just another one of you're inferences that turn out to be false since your initial assumption was false. Just like your "closed door meeting" conspiracy turned out to be false.

quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
...but they also know that wear protection is related to viscosity, which is why they need to use an oil that is 'heavy enough'...

Yes, heavy enough! Anything above that is overkill and a waste since the additional energy needed to overcome the additional friction may create more wear.

And who do you want to trust to determine what is heavy enough for your street driven vehicle? A research engineer with General Motors? Maybe the engineers that designed and developed your engine? Or some civil servant lackey who's an INTERNET oil expert?
lol.gif
 
"And who do you want to trust to determine what is heavy enough for your street driven vehicle? A research engineer with General Motors?"

GM doesn't seem to be using thin oils to increase fuel economy like Ford has.
 
"1sttruck, why don't you show us your MFT calculations for both 5w20 and 5w50 in those few thousand Ford specialty engines. Include all lubrication dependent areas, and make sure you factor in such things as surface finish Ra values and piston expansion rates."

None of that matters now. All that matters is that you are unable to acknowledge that you, like the rest of the world, instinctively uses the tenant of 'thicker oil provides better protection', but when called on it you just start up the smokescreen.
 
A-U, G-Man, you two be careful. It can be painful to get in the way when the two horsemen of the BITOG apocalypse* are riding at full gallop. Thankfully for us, it's only a two horse apocalypse, and when they're not at each other, both "horsemen" seem like pretty decent guys.
wink.gif
tongue.gif
cheers.gif


* OK, it's a recycled joke, but it was mine in the first place, so I'm not plagiarizing, I'm just repeating myself. . .
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
"And who do you want to trust to determine what is heavy enough for your street driven vehicle? A research engineer with General Motors?"

GM doesn't seem to be using thin oils to increase fuel economy like Ford has.


5w30 isn't thin? Tell us ole' Internet Oil Master, what is considered thin? Can you give it to us in cSt and HTHS cP? And can you cast your thin oil values into stone tablets for us so we spread your superior lubrication knowledge throughout the lands?

Apparently you weren't oil conscious when GM went through the same thing with 5w30 oils:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cd8411.pdf

And how long it took for everyone to accept them:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000521

[ March 29, 2006, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom