Yes, the predictability is like clockwork.True - but lots of drone from the same folks who who have to be right …
I just speed read the fringe stuff or a handful of members - 80% is so predictable …
Yes, the predictability is like clockwork.True - but lots of drone from the same folks who who have to be right …
I just speed read the fringe stuff or a handful of members - 80% is so predictable …
Agreed. Nothing is bad about it. But you don't need to do it is my point repeatedly here. It's similar to the folks that: 1) run 91/93 in a vehicle that can take 87. Nothing wrong with it but a waste of money. 2) Folks that change their oil at v. short OCIs/right after purchase/new. Nothing wrong with it/waste of money. 3) worrying about one air filter vs another based on the minutiae of filtering efficiency and many other maintenance bits that make you feel good/your car/your money but don't need to be done. Run the 30, it's cool man. But I can also run the 20 in my Lexus that calls for 30 and there will zero negatives realized/measured.There's a big difference between running a 20 in a vehicle that specifies it, and running a 5 in a vehicle that specifies a 30.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with running a 30 in a vehicle that specifies a 20 for some added HTHS and MOFT headroom - what's wrong or bad about that if someone wants more wear protection for all possible driving conditions?
The problem is, folks don't understand the concept that the dude with the 5W understands that this isn't ideal or a great idea but chooses to do it to show something (still foggy to me as to what) about thinner oils but in the end, isn't telling anyone that this is a great idea and so it goes...on and on. I think everyone here fully understands running sub-20W in any vehicle not meant for it has some negatives. 5W guy is just trying to show what those might be in "the real-world". More power to him. I wouldn't do it and I've stated that.The problem is some people just don't understand that concept, which is why we have countless threads like this which go on and on and on.
Come on man...the fringe stuff IS the entertainment and fun about BITOG! If it wasn't it would be a single boring engineering paper.True - but lots of drone from the same folks who who have to be right …
I just speed read the fringe stuff or a handful of members - 80% is so predictable …
Yes, and every time a thread like this comes up it will go in an never ending loop until it gets locked. IBTL.The problem is, folks don't understand the concept that the dude with the 5W understands that this isn't ideal or a great idea but chooses to do it to show something (still foggy to me as to what) about thinner oils but in the end, isn't telling anyone that this is a great idea and so it goes...on and on. I think everyone here fully understands running sub-20W in any vehicle not meant for it has some negatives. 5W guy is just trying to show what those might be in "the real-world". More power to him. I wouldn't do it and I've stated that.
This one was cooked on about page 2.Yes, and every time a thread like this comes up it will go in an never ending loop until it gets locked. IBTL.
Absolutely!This one was cooked on about page 2.
IMO the 20 vs 30 is a debate that has enough in archives … 0W5 will require a sewing machine section here …This one was cooked on about page 2.
Yes, and every time a thread like this comes up it will go in an never ending loop until it gets locked. IBTL.
The large end caps can [oval out] under high RPMS or the rod bolts streach.Yeah, that's because rods have some wildly varying loads and forces on them. The rod bearings take more of a beating than the crank bearings.
View attachment 136990
Result of high loads and zero MOFT ...
View attachment 136991
View attachment 136993
Great for Ford to change viscosity for the better on that engine. Car engineering takes into account many things and should not throw a viscosity in an engine that can not handle its target load. But that brings up the point that every engine has an optimum. Ford used to have a share of Mazda. Mazda targets small cars with less load. Been in the 20 weight for a long time.So it appears Ford thought 5W-20 wasn't adequate, and they changed the recommendation to 5W-30 for them.
So that's my point, every car can benefit from that extra protection cushion from a 30 weight oil, so you're covered during extreme service that happens unexpectedly like climbing hills / long inclines at slow speeds due to traffic with engine temperature getting hotter than normal. The higher HTHS and MOFT (film thickness) you have, the more engine wear protection you have as parts of the engine reach 150C like the bearings and oil temporarily becomes thinner in those places due to the high heat and high RPM (even though average coolant temperature might be 100C).
If 20 weight and 30 weight oils cost the same, but 30 weight oils have higher HTHS and more film thickness, I don't see the advantage to using a 20 weight oil instead.
Yes. In my case, Honda speced the Odysseys I drive for 20 weight oil. These engines are very hard on the oil due to high heat on the forward 3 cylinders and possible sludge. After several threads with Trav about 3 years ago (who is a mechanic who rebuilt some of these engines) enlightened me that he recommends running a thick 5W-30 or even a 5W-40 in these engines as that is what these same engines were speced for in Europe/Australia, and the thicker oil is more suited for these engines. It's a shame some bean counter worried about CAFE fines in Honda back in the early 2000's speced all their vehicles for 20 weight oils with some blanket approval.Great for Ford to change viscosity for the better on that engine. Car engineering takes into account many things and should not throw a viscosity in an engine that can not handle its target load.
Again no it does not.Great for Ford to change viscosity for the better on that engine. Car engineering takes into account many things and should not throw a viscosity in an engine that can not handle its target load. But that brings up the point that every engine has an optimum. Ford used to have a share of Mazda. Mazda targets small cars with less load. Been in the 20 weight for a long time.
You're killing me here. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Also, Ford made a mistake specing several of their cars for 5W-20 in the 2000 to 2010 year range, only to re-spec them back to 5W-30 due to excessive timing chain wear with 5W-20.You're killing me here. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
As Zee noted, 29,000 and this oil was only run for around 1,000 miles. In Ali's own words, from that previous thread:When Overkill post it is gonna be a good read.
The visible metal is a problem, but I did not get out of the other thread how many miles are on this Lincoln - is it break in? possible machining swaff (it is not unheard of) or is it wear? If its wear and it is visible metal that is a very bad sign quite obviously.
Do you know the amount of metals that is found in the "normal" run filters? I can say that metals are found in all good filters. I will admit that this is the most I have seen in My engines though.
I agree, choice of experiment vehicle was, well, interesting. It spec's a 5W-30, so an oil with an HTHS of at least 3.0cP right out of the gate, not xW-20 or an xW-16 or below, the latter which might have accommodations for this sort of experiment baked into the design.I'm also not very sure this particular engine is the best choice for the experiment - I believe it is basically a Raptor engine, it is very high specific output, it is specked for a heavier oil and even the "regular" 3.5 EB is known for annihilating oil. But perhaps this is why he chose it for his test. They used to offer it as a crate motor and its probably a $12000.00 engine.
Still it is his and he has been properly warned.
Yes. There is a minimum HT/HS for acceptable wear.Also, Ford made a mistake specing several of their cars for 5W-20 in the 2000 to 2010 year range, only to re-spec them back to 5W-30 due to excessive timing chain wear with 5W-20.