Sometimes arguing over oil is just not worth it. When I dropped off my new car for its scheduled service, I told the service advisor to give me the synthetic oil change they had available. He remarked that he will not use synthetic in his car in the summer because synthetic is too thin. I just kept my mouth zipped and walked away from it.
Arguing with people over oil is fun!
- Thread starter 02s4audi
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: krismoriah72
Oil can be fun. but dont forget Ford Vs. Chevy...Budweiser vs. Miller, Jack Daniels vs Jim Beam, Coke Vs. Pepsi...and now Batman Vs. Superman!!
There is plenty of fun to be had.
Castrol, Ford, Miller, Jim Beam, Pepsi, Batman.
Settled.
Mobil 1, Mopar, Miller, Old Jack, Superman.
Settled again.
Originally Posted By: krismoriah72
Oil can be fun. but dont forget Ford Vs. Chevy...Budweiser vs. Miller, Jack Daniels vs Jim Beam, Coke Vs. Pepsi...and now Batman Vs. Superman!!
There is plenty of fun to be had.
Castrol, Ford, Miller, Jim Beam, Pepsi, Batman.
Settled.
Mobil 1, Mopar, Miller, Old Jack, Superman.
Settled again.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 02s4audi
.... I also stated that the most engine wears occurs n start up and he said it didn't. I told him to come to this forum and get his facts straight.
I think a large percentage of this forum might disagree. Wording is critical. Many could successfully argue that "warmup" (the period where oil temp is below normal operating temp) is where the most wear occurs. Does more wear occur during the 3-10 seconds of cold startup or in the following 5-20 min of oil warmup?
A question of semantics......One is not possible, without the other.
If using a particular oil results in less wear for one, it will result in less wear for both.
This ignores whether an engine should be "Warmed up" without doing any work......Which is usually more wasteful than the choice of oil, anyway.
Originally Posted By: 02s4audi
.... I also stated that the most engine wears occurs n start up and he said it didn't. I told him to come to this forum and get his facts straight.
I think a large percentage of this forum might disagree. Wording is critical. Many could successfully argue that "warmup" (the period where oil temp is below normal operating temp) is where the most wear occurs. Does more wear occur during the 3-10 seconds of cold startup or in the following 5-20 min of oil warmup?
A question of semantics......One is not possible, without the other.
If using a particular oil results in less wear for one, it will result in less wear for both.
This ignores whether an engine should be "Warmed up" without doing any work......Which is usually more wasteful than the choice of oil, anyway.
Arguing is going the negative path. Take the positive instead and instruct. Boss told me making people angry isn't in my pay grade. So I try to build bridges instead of burning them..
Andy, your boss may have given you the ultimate piece of advice. "Making people angry isn't in my pay grade", I like that.
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 02s4audi
.... I also stated that the most engine wears occurs n start up and he said it didn't. I told him to come to this forum and get his facts straight.
I think a large percentage of this forum might disagree. Wording is critical. Many could successfully argue that "warmup" (the period where oil temp is below normal operating temp) is where the most wear occurs. Does more wear occur during the 3-10 seconds of cold startup or in the following 5-20 min of oil warmup?
A question of semantics......One is not possible, without the other.
If using a particular oil results in less wear for one, it will result in less wear for both.
This ignores whether an engine should be "Warmed up" without doing any work......Which is usually more wasteful than the choice of oil, anyway.
Startup and warmup as I look at them are entirely different situations with nothing in common.
X amount of engine lifetime wear occurs during the 0-10 seconds of engine starting/oil flow and pressure coming up (some cars may take longer than 10 seconds in extreme cold). And Y amount of engine wear occurs from after oil pressure/flow are established until the engine oil is warm (ie 11 seconds to 20 minutes). The 0-10 second situation is entirely different. I suspect these 2 situations are wildly different (ie warmup wear 5X-10X greater than initial start wear). Put your focus wherever you like. I'll keep an eye on "Y" since I have more control of that and that's the most critical period. Then situation Z is the amount of lifetime engine wear occurring once the car is fully warmed up. No doubt, we could put a lot more engine wear on a vehicle in situation Z if we pounded it for an hour every day. I'm assuming a careful and logical driver responding to all 3 situations.
X+Y+Z = 100% of engine lifetime wear.
From what I've read here and elsewhere over the years, I'd not be surprised if those numbers were in the range of 10% + 85% + 5%...for X,Y,and Z. The choice of oil is only one factor. The other inputs include driving habits, the vehicle/engine combo itself, weather/ambient temperatures/engine block-oil heaters, etc. While you can choose a good oil, you also have the choice on whether to scream out of your driveway in 0 deg F weather at 3500 rpm, or let it idle for 5-20 min first, or move away slowly at 1500-2000 rpm seconds after oil flow is established. Numerous factors affecting X, Y, and Z, many of which we can control.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 02s4audi
.... I also stated that the most engine wears occurs n start up and he said it didn't. I told him to come to this forum and get his facts straight.
I think a large percentage of this forum might disagree. Wording is critical. Many could successfully argue that "warmup" (the period where oil temp is below normal operating temp) is where the most wear occurs. Does more wear occur during the 3-10 seconds of cold startup or in the following 5-20 min of oil warmup?
A question of semantics......One is not possible, without the other.
If using a particular oil results in less wear for one, it will result in less wear for both.
This ignores whether an engine should be "Warmed up" without doing any work......Which is usually more wasteful than the choice of oil, anyway.
Startup and warmup as I look at them are entirely different situations with nothing in common.
X amount of engine lifetime wear occurs during the 0-10 seconds of engine starting/oil flow and pressure coming up (some cars may take longer than 10 seconds in extreme cold). And Y amount of engine wear occurs from after oil pressure/flow are established until the engine oil is warm (ie 11 seconds to 20 minutes). The 0-10 second situation is entirely different. I suspect these 2 situations are wildly different (ie warmup wear 5X-10X greater than initial start wear). Put your focus wherever you like. I'll keep an eye on "Y" since I have more control of that and that's the most critical period. Then situation Z is the amount of lifetime engine wear occurring once the car is fully warmed up. No doubt, we could put a lot more engine wear on a vehicle in situation Z if we pounded it for an hour every day. I'm assuming a careful and logical driver responding to all 3 situations.
X+Y+Z = 100% of engine lifetime wear.
From what I've read here and elsewhere over the years, I'd not be surprised if those numbers were in the range of 10% + 85% + 5%...for X,Y,and Z. The choice of oil is only one factor. The other inputs include driving habits, the vehicle/engine combo itself, weather/ambient temperatures/engine block-oil heaters, etc. While you can choose a good oil, you also have the choice on whether to scream out of your driveway in 0 deg F weather at 3500 rpm, or let it idle for 5-20 min first, or move away slowly at 1500-2000 rpm seconds after oil flow is established. Numerous factors affecting X, Y, and Z, many of which we can control.
Originally Posted By: TheOnlySarge
People act one way on a message board and in real life they would never act or say the things they do on the internet.
Unfortunately, some are already acting like this in real life, and many more are starting to.
People act one way on a message board and in real life they would never act or say the things they do on the internet.
Unfortunately, some are already acting like this in real life, and many more are starting to.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
In my experience, most people on other forums think that BITOG is full of weirdos and laugh when you refer them to it.
I've heard MUCH WORSE than that about us on other (un-censored) auto forums.
In my experience, most people on other forums think that BITOG is full of weirdos and laugh when you refer them to it.
I've heard MUCH WORSE than that about us on other (un-censored) auto forums.
Originally Posted By: walterjay
When I dropped off my new car for its scheduled service, I told the service advisor to give me the synthetic oil change they had available. He remarked that he will not use synthetic in his car in the summer because synthetic is too thin.
TYPICAL
When I dropped off my new car for its scheduled service, I told the service advisor to give me the synthetic oil change they had available. He remarked that he will not use synthetic in his car in the summer because synthetic is too thin.
TYPICAL
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 02s4audi
.... I also stated that the most engine wears occurs n start up and he said it didn't. I told him to come to this forum and get his facts straight.
I think a large percentage of this forum might disagree. Wording is critical. Many could successfully argue that "warmup" (the period where oil temp is below normal operating temp) is where the most wear occurs. Does more wear occur during the 3-10 seconds of cold startup or in the following 5-20 min of oil warmup?
A question of semantics......One is not possible, without the other.
If using a particular oil results in less wear for one, it will result in less wear for both.
This ignores whether an engine should be "Warmed up" without doing any work......Which is usually more wasteful than the choice of oil, anyway.
Ah yes, but when 0W20 is wheeled out as the solution, for the reason of "cold flow"...there's a problem...and that was hinted at by the OP.
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: 02s4audi
.... I also stated that the most engine wears occurs n start up and he said it didn't. I told him to come to this forum and get his facts straight.
I think a large percentage of this forum might disagree. Wording is critical. Many could successfully argue that "warmup" (the period where oil temp is below normal operating temp) is where the most wear occurs. Does more wear occur during the 3-10 seconds of cold startup or in the following 5-20 min of oil warmup?
A question of semantics......One is not possible, without the other.
If using a particular oil results in less wear for one, it will result in less wear for both.
This ignores whether an engine should be "Warmed up" without doing any work......Which is usually more wasteful than the choice of oil, anyway.
Ah yes, but when 0W20 is wheeled out as the solution, for the reason of "cold flow"...there's a problem...and that was hinted at by the OP.
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
A few months ago I used the "NAPA online reservation" service to get a good deal on Castrol black Edge 0w40. When I picked it up, the guys knew I was going to use it in a turbocharged engine, and asked which one. I pointed to my 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
How about at lower temperatures? Can you give an approximate % difference at:
10°F?
0°F?
-10°F?
-20°F?
This past winter we didn't get below 0°F, but the past two we got to -17°F and -19°F. I had issues with tapping noises using the OEM specified 5W-20 in starts in ambient temperature below 10°F the prior 2 winters I didn't have with 0W-20 this past winter.
Viscosity is resistance to flow. If the resistance is decreased with all other things kept equal flow increases. The oil pump spillback is an important part here in this case though - if less resistance to flow means less head pressure is required for a positive displacement flow rate, and this reduces or eliminates oil pump spillback (relief) flow, then more of the positive displacement flow is directed to the engine parts that need to be wetted and less right back to the sump.
Since in general flow is proportional to the square of the pressure differential there is quite a sensitivity to this in the lower temperature regimes here. I'm not positive how applicable the doubling (or halving) of viscosity per 5°C change is but for Pennzoil Platinum with PurePlus Technology, the CCS estimated at -30°C by halving the spec sheet CCS @ -35C of 5,250 cP (half would be 2,625 cP) for 0W-20 is about 65% of the spec sheet CCS @ -30°C of 4,000 cP for 5W-20.
This has to change the head pressure required at the PD oil pump discharge at a given RPM (startup enrichment) near -20°F considerably, and I'd wager similar but smaller percentage reductions all the way to the 10°F regime.
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
How about at lower temperatures? Can you give an approximate % difference at:
10°F?
0°F?
-10°F?
-20°F?
This past winter we didn't get below 0°F, but the past two we got to -17°F and -19°F. I had issues with tapping noises using the OEM specified 5W-20 in starts in ambient temperature below 10°F the prior 2 winters I didn't have with 0W-20 this past winter.
Viscosity is resistance to flow. If the resistance is decreased with all other things kept equal flow increases. The oil pump spillback is an important part here in this case though - if less resistance to flow means less head pressure is required for a positive displacement flow rate, and this reduces or eliminates oil pump spillback (relief) flow, then more of the positive displacement flow is directed to the engine parts that need to be wetted and less right back to the sump.
Since in general flow is proportional to the square of the pressure differential there is quite a sensitivity to this in the lower temperature regimes here. I'm not positive how applicable the doubling (or halving) of viscosity per 5°C change is but for Pennzoil Platinum with PurePlus Technology, the CCS estimated at -30°C by halving the spec sheet CCS @ -35C of 5,250 cP (half would be 2,625 cP) for 0W-20 is about 65% of the spec sheet CCS @ -30°C of 4,000 cP for 5W-20.
This has to change the head pressure required at the PD oil pump discharge at a given RPM (startup enrichment) near -20°F considerably, and I'd wager similar but smaller percentage reductions all the way to the 10°F regime.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
In my experience, most people on other forums think that BITOG is full of weirdos and laugh when you refer them to it.
Not S2ki.com.
The owners/drivers of S2000 respect BITOG very much. They almost always refer to BITOG when there was an argument about oil for their cars.
In my experience, most people on other forums think that BITOG is full of weirdos and laugh when you refer them to it.
Not S2ki.com.
The owners/drivers of S2000 respect BITOG very much. They almost always refer to BITOG when there was an argument about oil for their cars.
That's why I use Royal Purple. ArgumentS just happen naturally when one uses Royal Purple products!
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
How about at lower temperatures? Can you give an approximate % difference at:
10°F?
0°F?
-10°F?
-20°F?
This past winter we didn't get below 0°F, but the past two we got to -17°F and -19°F. I had issues with tapping noises using the OEM specified 5W-20 in starts in ambient temperature below 10°F the prior 2 winters I didn't have with 0W-20 this past winter.
Viscosity is resistance to flow. If the resistance is decreased with all other things kept equal flow increases. The oil pump spillback is an important part here in this case though - if less resistance to flow means less head pressure is required for a positive displacement flow rate, and this reduces or eliminates oil pump spillback (relief) flow, then more of the positive displacement flow is directed to the engine parts that need to be wetted and less right back to the sump.
Since in general flow is proportional to the square of the pressure differential there is quite a sensitivity to this in the lower temperature regimes here. I'm not positive how applicable the doubling (or halving) of viscosity per 5°C change is but for Pennzoil Platinum with PurePlus Technology, the CCS estimated at -30°C by halving the spec sheet CCS @ -35C of 5,250 cP (half would be 2,625 cP) for 0W-20 is about 65% of the spec sheet CCS @ -30°C of 4,000 cP for 5W-20.
This has to change the head pressure required at the PD oil pump discharge at a given RPM (startup enrichment) near -20°F considerably, and I'd wager similar but smaller percentage reductions all the way to the 10°F regime.
Excellent question.
Though I have to think there is a problem with shannow's comment...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Perhaps should be:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is not flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
After all, the marketing geniuses drill into us that some non-trivial percentage of wear occurs at startup.
I like the question of differences at temperature. I think if we were to dissociate wear into some set of events:
X meters of sliding contact due to improperly lubricated surfaces
Y number of contact events at n psi due to uncushioned interfacing
Z number of improper actuations due to insufficient pressure
Then we might be able to link a viscosity requirement and assumed exponential decay for each type.
So then the question becomes, how long until hydrodynamic lubrication is achieved for each of these at each temperature, and what's the effect of the time prior? Beyond some temperature and with each viscosity range, the returns will become so diminished, along some curve/surface, that it's irrelevant.
But even then, I suspect that pumping losses come into play. My understanding is that GM started the move from 10W- oils to 5W- not because of startup wear benefits at normal and common/reasonable temperatures, but rather because a bit of fuel economy could be squeezed out...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
How about at lower temperatures? Can you give an approximate % difference at:
10°F?
0°F?
-10°F?
-20°F?
This past winter we didn't get below 0°F, but the past two we got to -17°F and -19°F. I had issues with tapping noises using the OEM specified 5W-20 in starts in ambient temperature below 10°F the prior 2 winters I didn't have with 0W-20 this past winter.
Viscosity is resistance to flow. If the resistance is decreased with all other things kept equal flow increases. The oil pump spillback is an important part here in this case though - if less resistance to flow means less head pressure is required for a positive displacement flow rate, and this reduces or eliminates oil pump spillback (relief) flow, then more of the positive displacement flow is directed to the engine parts that need to be wetted and less right back to the sump.
Since in general flow is proportional to the square of the pressure differential there is quite a sensitivity to this in the lower temperature regimes here. I'm not positive how applicable the doubling (or halving) of viscosity per 5°C change is but for Pennzoil Platinum with PurePlus Technology, the CCS estimated at -30°C by halving the spec sheet CCS @ -35C of 5,250 cP (half would be 2,625 cP) for 0W-20 is about 65% of the spec sheet CCS @ -30°C of 4,000 cP for 5W-20.
This has to change the head pressure required at the PD oil pump discharge at a given RPM (startup enrichment) near -20°F considerably, and I'd wager similar but smaller percentage reductions all the way to the 10°F regime.
Excellent question.
Though I have to think there is a problem with shannow's comment...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Perhaps should be:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is not flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
After all, the marketing geniuses drill into us that some non-trivial percentage of wear occurs at startup.
I like the question of differences at temperature. I think if we were to dissociate wear into some set of events:
X meters of sliding contact due to improperly lubricated surfaces
Y number of contact events at n psi due to uncushioned interfacing
Z number of improper actuations due to insufficient pressure
Then we might be able to link a viscosity requirement and assumed exponential decay for each type.
So then the question becomes, how long until hydrodynamic lubrication is achieved for each of these at each temperature, and what's the effect of the time prior? Beyond some temperature and with each viscosity range, the returns will become so diminished, along some curve/surface, that it's irrelevant.
But even then, I suspect that pumping losses come into play. My understanding is that GM started the move from 10W- oils to 5W- not because of startup wear benefits at normal and common/reasonable temperatures, but rather because a bit of fuel economy could be squeezed out...
All the guys that i used to deal with that has civics use 5w30 in their rice burners.. They all belong to a civic club.. Most are very young and beat these things till they smoke and knock.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Though I have to think there is a problem with shannow's comment...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Perhaps should be:
Originally Posted By: Not Posted by Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is not flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
After all, the marketing geniuses drill into us that some non-trivial percentage of wear occurs at startup.
Nah, you shouldn't have misquoted me with something that's incorrect.
For example, the industry standard wear test the sequence IVA is precisely what I described. An engine with full oil flow to all points that it's needed, and forced to operate in "warm" rather than hot conditions.
To quote a member who has actually performed these tests "the perfect storm"...where viscosity is dropping, and additives aren't fully functional.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I like the question of differences at temperature. I think if we were to dissociate wear into some set of events:
X meters of sliding contact due to improperly lubricated surfaces
Y number of contact events at n psi due to uncushioned interfacing
Z number of improper actuations due to insufficient pressure
Then we might be able to link a viscosity requirement and assumed exponential decay for each type.
So then the question becomes, how long until hydrodynamic lubrication is achieved for each of these at each temperature, and what's the effect of the time prior? Beyond some temperature and with each viscosity range, the returns will become so diminished, along some curve/surface, that it's irrelevant.
Lubricants in their easily pumpable range, i.e. above freezing from everything from 0W to SAE30 will do exactly the same job at filling the galleries, and "getting there", and establishing hydrodynamic lubrication (in the places that are lubricated by hydrodynamics)
The MRV of an oil is it's ability to refill the oil pump at lowered temperatures, CCS is the ability for the engine to crank to starting speed (is a high shear rate test).
As you drop temperatures, different "W" grades become unpumpable and fall out of the realm of being appropriate oils...and yes, they will cause excessive wear and damage, obviously.
But again, except in the case of oils that won't pump, the wear is predominantly in the period after the engine has oil pressure and flow everywhere, not the hundred or so revolutions that the engine is spinning on the left over (highly viscous I might add) from the last run, and held in the rings and bearings by capillary action...ever pulled apart a dry engine ?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But even then, I suspect that pumping losses come into play. My understanding is that GM started the move from 10W- oils to 5W- not because of startup wear benefits at normal and common/reasonable temperatures, but rather because a bit of fuel economy could be squeezed out...
Yes, the switch to higher VI oils is to eek out a bit of economy, but the "pumping losses" that people are enamoured with aren't the reason.
Raise the oil cold pressure from 60psi to 80psi, and the difference is 50 watts or so...nearly nothing. The power losses that viscosity causes are in the bearings, piston skirts and rings...they amount to thousands of watts of wasted energy.
Tiny piston skirts clearly point to what they are trying to achieve here. And the Honda papers, and a couple of Toyota papers are quite clear in that's what they are intending to do with their high VI fares.
GM could well have pushed 5W30 for it's higher VI but the "W" grading doesn't promise this...look at M1 0W30, 5W30, and 10W30...about the same viscosity, same VI, just one of them is suitable for -40C.
Some reading that you might undertake on warmup wear.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4049050/Re:_75__of_wear_occurs_at_star
Though I have to think there is a problem with shannow's comment...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Perhaps should be:
Originally Posted By: Not Posted by Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is not flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
After all, the marketing geniuses drill into us that some non-trivial percentage of wear occurs at startup.
Nah, you shouldn't have misquoted me with something that's incorrect.
For example, the industry standard wear test the sequence IVA is precisely what I described. An engine with full oil flow to all points that it's needed, and forced to operate in "warm" rather than hot conditions.
To quote a member who has actually performed these tests "the perfect storm"...where viscosity is dropping, and additives aren't fully functional.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I like the question of differences at temperature. I think if we were to dissociate wear into some set of events:
X meters of sliding contact due to improperly lubricated surfaces
Y number of contact events at n psi due to uncushioned interfacing
Z number of improper actuations due to insufficient pressure
Then we might be able to link a viscosity requirement and assumed exponential decay for each type.
So then the question becomes, how long until hydrodynamic lubrication is achieved for each of these at each temperature, and what's the effect of the time prior? Beyond some temperature and with each viscosity range, the returns will become so diminished, along some curve/surface, that it's irrelevant.
Lubricants in their easily pumpable range, i.e. above freezing from everything from 0W to SAE30 will do exactly the same job at filling the galleries, and "getting there", and establishing hydrodynamic lubrication (in the places that are lubricated by hydrodynamics)
The MRV of an oil is it's ability to refill the oil pump at lowered temperatures, CCS is the ability for the engine to crank to starting speed (is a high shear rate test).
As you drop temperatures, different "W" grades become unpumpable and fall out of the realm of being appropriate oils...and yes, they will cause excessive wear and damage, obviously.
But again, except in the case of oils that won't pump, the wear is predominantly in the period after the engine has oil pressure and flow everywhere, not the hundred or so revolutions that the engine is spinning on the left over (highly viscous I might add) from the last run, and held in the rings and bearings by capillary action...ever pulled apart a dry engine ?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But even then, I suspect that pumping losses come into play. My understanding is that GM started the move from 10W- oils to 5W- not because of startup wear benefits at normal and common/reasonable temperatures, but rather because a bit of fuel economy could be squeezed out...
Yes, the switch to higher VI oils is to eek out a bit of economy, but the "pumping losses" that people are enamoured with aren't the reason.
Raise the oil cold pressure from 60psi to 80psi, and the difference is 50 watts or so...nearly nothing. The power losses that viscosity causes are in the bearings, piston skirts and rings...they amount to thousands of watts of wasted energy.
Tiny piston skirts clearly point to what they are trying to achieve here. And the Honda papers, and a couple of Toyota papers are quite clear in that's what they are intending to do with their high VI fares.
GM could well have pushed 5W30 for it's higher VI but the "W" grading doesn't promise this...look at M1 0W30, 5W30, and 10W30...about the same viscosity, same VI, just one of them is suitable for -40C.
Some reading that you might undertake on warmup wear.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4049050/Re:_75__of_wear_occurs_at_star
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Though I have to think there is a problem with shannow's comment...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Perhaps should be:
Originally Posted By: Not Posted by Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is not flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
After all, the marketing geniuses drill into us that some non-trivial percentage of wear occurs at startup.
Nah, you shouldn't have misquoted me with something that's incorrect.
For example, the industry standard wear test the sequence IVA is precisely what I described. An engine with full oil flow to all points that it's needed, and forced to operate in "warm" rather than hot conditions.
To quote a member who has actually performed these tests "the perfect storm"...where viscosity is dropping, and additives aren't fully functional.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I like the question of differences at temperature. I think if we were to dissociate wear into some set of events:
X meters of sliding contact due to improperly lubricated surfaces
Y number of contact events at n psi due to uncushioned interfacing
Z number of improper actuations due to insufficient pressure
Then we might be able to link a viscosity requirement and assumed exponential decay for each type.
So then the question becomes, how long until hydrodynamic lubrication is achieved for each of these at each temperature, and what's the effect of the time prior? Beyond some temperature and with each viscosity range, the returns will become so diminished, along some curve/surface, that it's irrelevant.
Lubricants in their easily pumpable range, i.e. above freezing from everything from 0W to SAE30 will do exactly the same job at filling the galleries, and "getting there", and establishing hydrodynamic lubrication (in the places that are lubricated by hydrodynamics)
The MRV of an oil is it's ability to refill the oil pump at lowered temperatures, CCS is the ability for the engine to crank to starting speed (is a high shear rate test).
As you drop temperatures, different "W" grades become unpumpable and fall out of the realm of being appropriate oils...and yes, they will cause excessive wear and damage, obviously.
But again, except in the case of oils that won't pump, the wear is predominantly in the period after the engine has oil pressure and flow everywhere, not the hundred or so revolutions that the engine is spinning on the left over (highly viscous I might add) from the last run, and held in the rings and bearings by capillary action...ever pulled apart a dry engine ?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But even then, I suspect that pumping losses come into play. My understanding is that GM started the move from 10W- oils to 5W- not because of startup wear benefits at normal and common/reasonable temperatures, but rather because a bit of fuel economy could be squeezed out...
Yes, the switch to higher VI oils is to eek out a bit of economy, but the "pumping losses" that people are enamoured with aren't the reason.
Raise the oil cold pressure from 60psi to 80psi, and the difference is 50 watts or so...nearly nothing. The power losses that viscosity causes are in the bearings, piston skirts and rings...they amount to thousands of watts of wasted energy.
Tiny piston skirts clearly point to what they are trying to achieve here. And the Honda papers, and a couple of Toyota papers are quite clear in that's what they are intending to do with their high VI fares.
GM could well have pushed 5W30 for it's higher VI but the "W" grading doesn't promise this...look at M1 0W30, 5W30, and 10W30...about the same viscosity, same VI, just one of them is suitable for -40C.
Some reading that you might undertake on warmup wear.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4049050/Re:_75__of_wear_occurs_at_star
First off, you weren't misquoted if taken within the context of my entire post, where I suggested it as an edit.
Second, the question posed which I found interesting was not in the realm of a "mid temperature" IVA sequence where the base oil viscosity has dropped due to temp, so hydrodynamics are worse off but the adds aren't activated. I get the point of that but that wasn't the question asked. I agree with you that at freezing, at typical "ambient temps" (nonwinter), it's irrelevant but the -10F, and -20F type conditions??? To me that's another interesting realm.
I get the basis of your commentary that at the expense of friction (Streibeck to the right where friction starts to increase again), excess viscosity prevents wear in many circumstances.
However the other side of the coin - fluids in marginally pumpable scenarios, is more of the point here. I've seen the comments that a lube is pumpable or it isn't. But I guess folks haven't seen viscous lubes working in sliding and rotating machines where they just don't get from point a to point b fast enough to prevent contact and higher scars in those locations. This happens on simple sliding equipment for that very reason, and similarly can occur on camshafts and bearings. When the pumping viscosities are defined in terms of flow where the time constant is on the order of minutes, the duration has gotten too long. And it's not necessarily instant at temperature T and then no flow at temperature T-1. I don't concur that excess oil left sitting is good enough for much besides corrosion protection. Sure, it's there, but it's not active, moving, or necessarily pumping at the start when really cold.
So, some locations, maybe not all, hopefully not many, may well have a condition where the lack of pressure/flow creates a condition where the nearly dry surface can have contact and thus wear which would not happen if full flow was occurring all over (regardless of the temperature). The time to get to full flow all over is therefore still of interest, regardless of how much remnant viscosity is believed to still be there by a stagnant film.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Though I have to think there is a problem with shannow's comment...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Perhaps should be:
Originally Posted By: Not Posted by Shannow
Most of the wear takes place when the oil is not flowing to all of the places that it needs to go, and 0W at 32F isn't going to make any difference whatsoever.
After all, the marketing geniuses drill into us that some non-trivial percentage of wear occurs at startup.
Nah, you shouldn't have misquoted me with something that's incorrect.
For example, the industry standard wear test the sequence IVA is precisely what I described. An engine with full oil flow to all points that it's needed, and forced to operate in "warm" rather than hot conditions.
To quote a member who has actually performed these tests "the perfect storm"...where viscosity is dropping, and additives aren't fully functional.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I like the question of differences at temperature. I think if we were to dissociate wear into some set of events:
X meters of sliding contact due to improperly lubricated surfaces
Y number of contact events at n psi due to uncushioned interfacing
Z number of improper actuations due to insufficient pressure
Then we might be able to link a viscosity requirement and assumed exponential decay for each type.
So then the question becomes, how long until hydrodynamic lubrication is achieved for each of these at each temperature, and what's the effect of the time prior? Beyond some temperature and with each viscosity range, the returns will become so diminished, along some curve/surface, that it's irrelevant.
Lubricants in their easily pumpable range, i.e. above freezing from everything from 0W to SAE30 will do exactly the same job at filling the galleries, and "getting there", and establishing hydrodynamic lubrication (in the places that are lubricated by hydrodynamics)
The MRV of an oil is it's ability to refill the oil pump at lowered temperatures, CCS is the ability for the engine to crank to starting speed (is a high shear rate test).
As you drop temperatures, different "W" grades become unpumpable and fall out of the realm of being appropriate oils...and yes, they will cause excessive wear and damage, obviously.
But again, except in the case of oils that won't pump, the wear is predominantly in the period after the engine has oil pressure and flow everywhere, not the hundred or so revolutions that the engine is spinning on the left over (highly viscous I might add) from the last run, and held in the rings and bearings by capillary action...ever pulled apart a dry engine ?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But even then, I suspect that pumping losses come into play. My understanding is that GM started the move from 10W- oils to 5W- not because of startup wear benefits at normal and common/reasonable temperatures, but rather because a bit of fuel economy could be squeezed out...
Yes, the switch to higher VI oils is to eek out a bit of economy, but the "pumping losses" that people are enamoured with aren't the reason.
Raise the oil cold pressure from 60psi to 80psi, and the difference is 50 watts or so...nearly nothing. The power losses that viscosity causes are in the bearings, piston skirts and rings...they amount to thousands of watts of wasted energy.
Tiny piston skirts clearly point to what they are trying to achieve here. And the Honda papers, and a couple of Toyota papers are quite clear in that's what they are intending to do with their high VI fares.
GM could well have pushed 5W30 for it's higher VI but the "W" grading doesn't promise this...look at M1 0W30, 5W30, and 10W30...about the same viscosity, same VI, just one of them is suitable for -40C.
Some reading that you might undertake on warmup wear.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4049050/Re:_75__of_wear_occurs_at_star
First off, you weren't misquoted if taken within the context of my entire post, where I suggested it as an edit.
Second, the question posed which I found interesting was not in the realm of a "mid temperature" IVA sequence where the base oil viscosity has dropped due to temp, so hydrodynamics are worse off but the adds aren't activated. I get the point of that but that wasn't the question asked. I agree with you that at freezing, at typical "ambient temps" (nonwinter), it's irrelevant but the -10F, and -20F type conditions??? To me that's another interesting realm.
I get the basis of your commentary that at the expense of friction (Streibeck to the right where friction starts to increase again), excess viscosity prevents wear in many circumstances.
However the other side of the coin - fluids in marginally pumpable scenarios, is more of the point here. I've seen the comments that a lube is pumpable or it isn't. But I guess folks haven't seen viscous lubes working in sliding and rotating machines where they just don't get from point a to point b fast enough to prevent contact and higher scars in those locations. This happens on simple sliding equipment for that very reason, and similarly can occur on camshafts and bearings. When the pumping viscosities are defined in terms of flow where the time constant is on the order of minutes, the duration has gotten too long. And it's not necessarily instant at temperature T and then no flow at temperature T-1. I don't concur that excess oil left sitting is good enough for much besides corrosion protection. Sure, it's there, but it's not active, moving, or necessarily pumping at the start when really cold.
So, some locations, maybe not all, hopefully not many, may well have a condition where the lack of pressure/flow creates a condition where the nearly dry surface can have contact and thus wear which would not happen if full flow was occurring all over (regardless of the temperature). The time to get to full flow all over is therefore still of interest, regardless of how much remnant viscosity is believed to still be there by a stagnant film.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I don't concur that excess oil left sitting is good enough for much besides corrosion protection. Sure, it's there, but it's not active, moving, or necessarily pumping at the start when really cold.
The oil left in the capillary spaces in bearings, and between piston skirts and walls 9and rings), that is left over from last time it's run is there.
Why WOULD it need to be "active", "moving", or "necessarily pumping" at the start when really cold ?
If it's there, then the relative movement of parts provides the movement, and the (very high) viscosity provides the hydrodynamic lubrication...for a brief time before the oil is "flowing" through the pump and galleries.
It has to work, otherwise you'd expect to see massive differences in cam wear along an engine, as they are
a) typically, not always randomly splash lubricated; and
b) that doesn't happen for a few seconds after the engine fires (few can be tens in cold weather.
So if the issue that you present is fact, you could map cam wear in cars operated in texas to see where the wear occurs...
As to being merely a corrosion protection film, have a look at the mid 5 minute mark here.
The cams clearly have a lubricant film, and clearly have relative motion...and clearly it's more than enough to lubricate...for a while.
Yes, when the "time constant is measured in minutes", there's plenty of scope for excess wear...a time constant of minutes means that you have the wrong oil, the wrong "W" rating.
I was countering the BITOG meme that "0W-anything is better than 5W/10W-anything at any temperature", one of the "advantages" attributed to the 0W20 grade, ad implicit in the OP and others.
Pick a "W" rating appropriate to the conditions, and you get other advantages like lower volatility, lower temporary and permanent shear, and less chance of sludge from sheared VIIs.
I agree that the really low temperature stuff is interesting, one of my favourite papers is the US military seeing how far cold they can push the 6.2 diesel on mil-spec 15W40...it's a contradiction in everything sensible, but makes a useful experiment for what they might be called on to do.
As to sequence IV, one area that I have a significant interest in is the statement, and I used to believe it, that the perfect oil would have zero viscosity change from cold to hot...the perfect viscosity index.
Sounds great, except for what makes sequence IV hard...the FMs and AW's take heat to activate, and are required to be active at the temperatures that the viscosity is the lowest...if you start with that viscosity, and inactive FMs, then the heat has to come entirely from surface interaction...stribeck LHS without active FMS is bad.
I don't concur that excess oil left sitting is good enough for much besides corrosion protection. Sure, it's there, but it's not active, moving, or necessarily pumping at the start when really cold.
The oil left in the capillary spaces in bearings, and between piston skirts and walls 9and rings), that is left over from last time it's run is there.
Why WOULD it need to be "active", "moving", or "necessarily pumping" at the start when really cold ?
If it's there, then the relative movement of parts provides the movement, and the (very high) viscosity provides the hydrodynamic lubrication...for a brief time before the oil is "flowing" through the pump and galleries.
It has to work, otherwise you'd expect to see massive differences in cam wear along an engine, as they are
a) typically, not always randomly splash lubricated; and
b) that doesn't happen for a few seconds after the engine fires (few can be tens in cold weather.
So if the issue that you present is fact, you could map cam wear in cars operated in texas to see where the wear occurs...
As to being merely a corrosion protection film, have a look at the mid 5 minute mark here.
The cams clearly have a lubricant film, and clearly have relative motion...and clearly it's more than enough to lubricate...for a while.
Yes, when the "time constant is measured in minutes", there's plenty of scope for excess wear...a time constant of minutes means that you have the wrong oil, the wrong "W" rating.
I was countering the BITOG meme that "0W-anything is better than 5W/10W-anything at any temperature", one of the "advantages" attributed to the 0W20 grade, ad implicit in the OP and others.
Pick a "W" rating appropriate to the conditions, and you get other advantages like lower volatility, lower temporary and permanent shear, and less chance of sludge from sheared VIIs.
I agree that the really low temperature stuff is interesting, one of my favourite papers is the US military seeing how far cold they can push the 6.2 diesel on mil-spec 15W40...it's a contradiction in everything sensible, but makes a useful experiment for what they might be called on to do.
As to sequence IV, one area that I have a significant interest in is the statement, and I used to believe it, that the perfect oil would have zero viscosity change from cold to hot...the perfect viscosity index.
Sounds great, except for what makes sequence IV hard...the FMs and AW's take heat to activate, and are required to be active at the temperatures that the viscosity is the lowest...if you start with that viscosity, and inactive FMs, then the heat has to come entirely from surface interaction...stribeck LHS without active FMS is bad.
- Status
Similar threads
