All things equal is a "Resource Conserving" oil better or worse?

[OppositeLocK]

This is the moniker I'm talking about:

https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/C...ications/MOTOR_OIL_GUIDE_120116_FINAL_WEB.pdf

 

[kebabaluba]

Depends what "Resource Conserving" part comes at the expence of, if its less wear protection i would say no.

 

[Gene K]

I didn't actually read the link but if you are talking about FA-4 vs CK-4 then the newer engines were tested and in some cases modified for the lower HTHS Oils. Wider crank journals and bearings for instance. Don't use FA-4 unless the manufacturer specifically approves it. Ford for instance has sent out a service bulletin that use of FA-4 in a 6.7L PowerStroke may lead to engine damage and voiding of engine warranty. I suspect the next generation of PowerStroke will be engineered to use it.

FA-4 is the HDEO equivalent of GF-6B (0W-16). Not backwards compatible.

 

[PimTac]

Why would it be worse? Oil is improving across the board.

 

[ka9mnx]

Than what? With every API/ILSAC/ACEA upgrade, motor oil gets better (whatever that means).

 

[Deleted member 89374]

This is the moniker I'm talking about:

https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/C...ications/MOTOR_OIL_GUIDE_120116_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Do you want to conserve your engine or your fuel?

 

[Gene K]

Do you want to conserve your engine or your fuel?

If the engine has the correct amount of bearing area for the viscosity as well
as other modifications I don't really see where it matters. I could buy 15W-50 HDEO for my trucks but I run 15w40 as there is no advantage. If the 2017+ Engines have the correct design for the FA-4 2.9-3.2 HTHS it will be the same situation. You are not gaining anything by moving back to CK-4.

Manufacturers kept having to upgrade journal and bearing widths as power increased through the years. Now they will have to do the same to match the lower viscosity or run tighter control on oil temps.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

If the engine has the correct amount of bearing area for the viscosity as well
as other modifications I don't really see where it matters. I could buy 15W-50 HDEO for my trucks but I run 15w40 as there is no advantage. If the 2017+ Engines have the correct design for the FA-4 2.9-3.2 HTHS it will be the same situation. You are not gaining anything by moving back to CK-4.

Manufacturers kept having to upgrade journal and bearing widths as power increased through the years. Now they will have to do the same to match the lower viscosity or run tighter control on oil temps.

This reminds me of that BMW V8 motor that needs 10W-60 because the bearings are too small, so BMW tried to address the issue by recommending a stupid heavy viscosity for street use - that is 10W-60. Now those bearings are a maintenance item that you need to replace every 100,000 miles or so, probably more often if you track the car. Not a fix, just a patch. It seems that every time a manufacturer screwed up, their go-to fix has been to recommend a thicker oil.

Where do you get 15W-50 from? I'd like to try it in that 2007 Detroit Diesel for an OCI.

 

[wpod]

Mystic 15W-50 HDEO link to Mystic oil

 

[wdn]

Do you want to conserve your engine or your fuel?

It is not and either/or situation and resource conserving oil is not the same as the old energy conserving classification

“ The former supplemental category, which was called Energy Conserving required only fuel saving properties from the oil. Resource Conserving requires further properties like:
emission system protection
turbocharger protection
compatibility with engines operating on ethanol containing fuels, up to E-85”