Acceptable and adequate, not words I'd want to hear as a parent on open school night. Not words I want to hear when it comes to the oil I pour into my engine either.
Another "Taxi" Study: Relationship of Engine Bearing Wear and Oil Rheology 872128
- Thread starter AEHaas
- Start date
"What i'm saying is that you cant (well you can, but you should not) look at any one test in a vacuum to the exclusion of all other test, information, experience. Whether that test be a UOA, a Taxi Study, or some associations standardized test."
Well said.
And for those who are using the thicker oils in your specific vehicles: How do you know that those particular oils are in fact giving you better results than a thinner oil might give you. Are you tearing down your engines periodically to show wear levels? Are you comparing the wear to thinner oils within the same engines? I believe you are just making assumptions. Maybe you should try thinner oils and experiment?
Also, again, double the wear is not necessarily significant. If it was 1 nanometer over 1,000 miles in the best case but 2 nM with another oil, so what. Twice nothing is still nothing, though it sounds bad if you do not look at the actual numbers involved. I hate it when people say something is "better" or X-times worse. It means nothing unless you go into the details.
Well said.
And for those who are using the thicker oils in your specific vehicles: How do you know that those particular oils are in fact giving you better results than a thinner oil might give you. Are you tearing down your engines periodically to show wear levels? Are you comparing the wear to thinner oils within the same engines? I believe you are just making assumptions. Maybe you should try thinner oils and experiment?
Also, again, double the wear is not necessarily significant. If it was 1 nanometer over 1,000 miles in the best case but 2 nM with another oil, so what. Twice nothing is still nothing, though it sounds bad if you do not look at the actual numbers involved. I hate it when people say something is "better" or X-times worse. It means nothing unless you go into the details.
Last edited:
My "real world" experience in my Focus purchased new by me at 10 years/125K mi on mostly Motorcraft syn blend 5W20 and now ST syn 5W20 (with no noteable oil consumption) supports that using 20W in a daily-driven vehicle under "normal" conditions that it is recommended by the OEM is "ok to do". That's all the data I have.
But isn't this what any OEM is saying by using their recommended oil type/grade? VW says use 502 00 oils (xW40) in some models. Are folks saying that by running a xW40 in a vehicle where it is the recommended oil that this is "exceeds adequacy" vs. using a 20W 508 in the new GTI that is recommended as just being/barely "acceptable" or "adequate"?Acceptable and adequate, not words I'd want to hear as a parent on open school night. Not words I want to hear when it comes to the oil I pour into my engine either.
Sounds a lot like the discussions surrounding K&N air filters/filtering efficiency...the question of do you really need the additional efficiency a OE-style paper air filter provides?
I'm reminded of an article in Consumer Reports some years ago. They had commissioned an oil study involving NYC taxis. I think the main variable was conventional vs. synthetic oil, with the viscosity (5W-30?) constant.
CR emphasized that the oil was subjected to severe conditions - lots of idling, engines seldom shut off, lots of stop-and-go in heavy traffic, etc.
From my cold-weather perspective, these conditions weren't too extreme - there were no cold starts involved in the study.
CR stated that wear rates were comparable, and that therefore synthetic oils did not offer any advantage to the user. (I don't remember how they determined wear - whether it was by UOA or an actual engine teardown.)
That rang false to me living here and dealing with our cold winters.
So, I take these things with a grain of salt.
CR emphasized that the oil was subjected to severe conditions - lots of idling, engines seldom shut off, lots of stop-and-go in heavy traffic, etc.
From my cold-weather perspective, these conditions weren't too extreme - there were no cold starts involved in the study.
CR stated that wear rates were comparable, and that therefore synthetic oils did not offer any advantage to the user. (I don't remember how they determined wear - whether it was by UOA or an actual engine teardown.)
That rang false to me living here and dealing with our cold winters.
So, I take these things with a grain of salt.
Does VW say it provides "adequate protection?" What is their exact verbiage? I first saw the words ample and adequate used with xw-20 oils. In fact it was discussed here over the years. Prior to that they just suggested viscosity based on temperature and how the vehicle was used, not a CAFE one size fits all mentality.
Edit- What I'm saying is there are better choices for words than ample and adequate if a product or in this case an oil viscosity is truly better. Superior would be a much better choice of a word. That's all.
Last edited:
"...they just suggested viscosity based on temperature and how the vehicle was used..."
And we should all be doing this. Even Ali would likely use a 40 grade oil in the Navigator if towing 10,000 lbs up long hills in an Arizona hot summer. And uses thinner oils in other vehicles under lesser loads and non taxing temperatures. Always said: oils for the application, not to be afraid of thinner oils when appropriate. More HP, better fuel economy, better for the environment.
Ali
And we should all be doing this. Even Ali would likely use a 40 grade oil in the Navigator if towing 10,000 lbs up long hills in an Arizona hot summer. And uses thinner oils in other vehicles under lesser loads and non taxing temperatures. Always said: oils for the application, not to be afraid of thinner oils when appropriate. More HP, better fuel economy, better for the environment.
Ali
Are you kidding? If you don’t know or believe the science then we have no discussion here. It’s like talking to a brick wall.
And how would I experiment and why should I do so? It is still a truth that the only real benefit to thinner oils is slightly improved fuel economy. I do not care about fuel economy as my sole and preeminent concern. You may but I do not.
Yes they do. They stated this when they explicitly prohibited the use of 508 00 oils in vehicles for which it is not approved. People get the backwards notion that this prohibition is to ensure its use in those vehicles for which it’s approved when in reality it is exactly the opposite. The prohibition exists to protect the vehicles for which it is not approved. This is what VW said.
Thanks, I don't own a VW, which is why I asked.
Yes, VW is clear on this. It’s why they put a dye and tracer element in the oil.
Thanks. Would you run a 0W5 in it in a cold climate under easy driving while under warranty? Or would common sense prevail and you not risk potentially damaging your engine.
Would you?Thanks. Would you run a 0W5 in it in a cold climate under easy driving while under warranty? Or would common sense prevail and you not risk potentially damaging your engine.
Nope. I'm on the same page as you. Even if I had the time, desire, and the money to replace an engine I wouldn't do it.
No but I wouldn't be afraid to run the oil the OEM calls for in my vehicle either if that were to be a thinner oil like 20W and below like many BITOGers if my use case was "just driving around".Thanks. Would you run a 0W5 in it in a cold climate under easy driving while under warranty? Or would common sense prevail and you not risk potentially damaging your engine.
And you have VW dealers using it in everything based on some experiences I've read about with dealer oil changes. There are likely quite a few VWs on the road meant for 502/504 that have 508 at this minute.
OK, but 0W5 or 0W8 in your engine imo would be flirting with disaster.
" It is still a truth that the only real benefit to thinner oils is slightly improved fuel economy."
...And maybe less wear with thinner oils in an appropriate application:
Older post:
Compared Enzo Ferrari UOA from years ago: This is my neighbor’s 2003 Ferrari Enzo with a total of 8,800 miles (?fully broken-in) on the left column and my 2003 Enzo with a total of 4,400 miles on the right column (middle 2 columns, earlier UOA of my car). Both cars had about 1,400 miles on the oil. His obviously had more break-in time. He had the oil changed by the Ferrari dealer using the required 10W60 Shell Helix Ultra Racing oil. I ran 0W30 Castrol GC in the second column, the original formula of 0W30 Renewable Lubricants Inc. in the 3rd column and the “new and improved “ RLI “Dr. Haas” Enzo formula in the last column.
Tested my Enzo oils by Terry Dyson. His testing counts larger particles as well as all the smaller ones so other labs may give false lower values. At no time has the oil temperature in this engine gotten above 180 F. What is particularly interesting is that the original RLI formulation dropped to a 20 grade, the newer formulation did not.
OILS: ….Shell……. GC…... RLI….... RLI - “Dr. Haas Enzo Formula”
Iron___________ 32...11...7...3 (Fe in RLI VOA =2)
Chromium ____
Nickel __________2...1....0...0
Aluminum _____11...3....2...0
lead ___________ 16...0....3...1
Copper ________25...8....4...3
Tin ___________
Silver ________
Titanium _____
Silicon _________ 7...3....4...2
Boron _________ 1...3...16..17
Sodium _______ 8...3....10...8
Potassium ____
Molybdenum _
Phosphorus ___1026...935…1032…698
Zinc __________ 1135...1228…1055...988
Calcium ______ 1454…167...2108…1898
Barium ______
Magnesium __1219...526…53...19
Antimony ____
Vanadium ____
Fuel %Vol ____
Flash_______not done..335..320..300
Abs Oxid _____ 34...10..127...95
Abs Nitr ______ 11....8....8....7
Wtr %vol ____
Vis CS 100C __ 15.8....11.8….8.6….9.8
Vic CS 40C___not done…66….44….48
SAE Grade _____40....30....20....30
Gly test ______NEG…..0.37 “not antifreeze”…...0…..0
TBN _________not done...7.9....5.9...6.4
TAN _________not done...1.7....1.4...1.3
Visc Index___not done…154...177...192
Soot_________not done...0....0.01....0
Note the resistance to viscosity drop in the newer 0W30 formulation despite more fuel dilution.
Ali
...And maybe less wear with thinner oils in an appropriate application:
Older post:
Compared Enzo Ferrari UOA from years ago: This is my neighbor’s 2003 Ferrari Enzo with a total of 8,800 miles (?fully broken-in) on the left column and my 2003 Enzo with a total of 4,400 miles on the right column (middle 2 columns, earlier UOA of my car). Both cars had about 1,400 miles on the oil. His obviously had more break-in time. He had the oil changed by the Ferrari dealer using the required 10W60 Shell Helix Ultra Racing oil. I ran 0W30 Castrol GC in the second column, the original formula of 0W30 Renewable Lubricants Inc. in the 3rd column and the “new and improved “ RLI “Dr. Haas” Enzo formula in the last column.
Tested my Enzo oils by Terry Dyson. His testing counts larger particles as well as all the smaller ones so other labs may give false lower values. At no time has the oil temperature in this engine gotten above 180 F. What is particularly interesting is that the original RLI formulation dropped to a 20 grade, the newer formulation did not.
OILS: ….Shell……. GC…... RLI….... RLI - “Dr. Haas Enzo Formula”
Iron___________ 32...11...7...3 (Fe in RLI VOA =2)
Chromium ____
Nickel __________2...1....0...0
Aluminum _____11...3....2...0
lead ___________ 16...0....3...1
Copper ________25...8....4...3
Tin ___________
Silver ________
Titanium _____
Silicon _________ 7...3....4...2
Boron _________ 1...3...16..17
Sodium _______ 8...3....10...8
Potassium ____
Molybdenum _
Phosphorus ___1026...935…1032…698
Zinc __________ 1135...1228…1055...988
Calcium ______ 1454…167...2108…1898
Barium ______
Magnesium __1219...526…53...19
Antimony ____
Vanadium ____
Fuel %Vol ____
Flash_______not done..335..320..300
Abs Oxid _____ 34...10..127...95
Abs Nitr ______ 11....8....8....7
Wtr %vol ____
Vis CS 100C __ 15.8....11.8….8.6….9.8
Vic CS 40C___not done…66….44….48
SAE Grade _____40....30....20....30
Gly test ______NEG…..0.37 “not antifreeze”…...0…..0
TBN _________not done...7.9....5.9...6.4
TAN _________not done...1.7....1.4...1.3
Visc Index___not done…154...177...192
Soot_________not done...0....0.01....0
Note the resistance to viscosity drop in the newer 0W30 formulation despite more fuel dilution.
Ali
True, especially if they're doing oil changes from bulk oil that they got a good deal on. I saw that enough times when I worked in car sales. There were plenty of guys in the shop that would claim, "oil is oil" as they filled the sump from the bulk oil tank.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
