Better Hydrodynamics with Thicker Oil? (Long)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
41
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
I apologize now for the lengthy posting. I have two cars where I am considering to run thicker oil: 2000 Escort: 67K miles. Second M1 5w30 OCI to go 7000 miles. I will post UOA results in the next month 1997 1MZ-FE Toyota V6 in my 1990 Celica: ~48K. First two OCI's with M1 5w30. 3rd and 4th OCI RL 5w30 OCI to go about 7000 miles. This UOA is shown here: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002110 The Escort is my girlfriend's car which she drives for her daily commute(~12 mi round trip) and makes 4-6 800 mi(round trip) excursions to visit her family in northern California. This explains the high mileage. I switched her over to M1 to extend the OCI's out a bit. I change the filter halfway through. Assuming that I'm with this lovely lady for the long haul, I've got this crazy notion to keep the car around to for the simple purpose of allowing my kids to have a car to learn to drive. No offense to anyone that owns one, but the Escort, to me, is a disposable car and as such it only makes sense to me to keep the car till it dies. In short, I'd like it to last another 20 years. Crazy, I know. Once the car breaks the 100K mark I am considering changing the oil out for something thicker to reduce the wear on the engine. Is this a bad idea? As for the other vehicle, my Celica, these engines are known to sludge, and I don't know if thicker oil will help or hinder that problem. If I did run something thicker, would RL 5w40 make any difference or would 10w40 make more sense? I occasionally "race" my car at open track events but other than that, I have a relatively passive right foot. I have oil pressure and temp gauges installed and here are some of the readings: Around town: High idle pressure: 85psi Normal idle pressure: 25psi-20psi Normal oil temps: 180-200 Track: Hot track temps: ~260 Hot idle: 20psi High RPM hot pressure: ~80psi I am planning to install an oil cooler to bring down the temps at the track. My daily commute at this point is merely 5-10 minute so I usually let the car warm up a couple minutes to at least get the oil temps up a bit. Even then I rarely break 180. I participate in track events twice a year. A conversation on another message board made me think about this a bit more: +++++++++++++++++ My Post that is a response to some comments in a separate thread: +++++++++++++++++ To avoid cluttering the other thread and throwing it off topic, I wanted to address some of my comments here:
quote:
Running 5w20 weight in any engine is f*$&king stupid unless you live in in the tundra. Fuel economy numbers, yay! Lubrication? Boo!
quote:
15w50 Mobil 1 has better relative viscosity retention than 5w20 Mobil 1, or any other 5w20 for that matter. I run 15w50 in my Audi with 101k on the stock turbos with an "abusive" driver that's seen -6*F, and 118*F, 12,000 miles between oil changes, and it doesn't consume a single drop of oil. 15w50 will suck up some horsepower, but it gives you the luxury of running higher oil temps without worrying about breakdown. I spec 15w50 for every build I perform unless there's a special circumstance where the bearing clearances require 5w20. And that's very rare. Wayne's evo has 95 pounds of oil pressure on a cold start, and the accusump takes care of any "startup oiling concerns"
quote:
I never said 15w50 is thicker than 5w20 - what I said is that over it's service lifetime, 15w50 won't lose viscosity like 5w20, especially when high temperatures, high rpm, and extended service intervals are involved. BTW - Mobil 1 15w50 outperforms nearly all "motorcycle specialty oils". When I say M1 15w50 outperforms any 5w20/30, I say that based on experience, not conjecture. 126,000 mile 500 rwhp supercharged 97 cobra engine run on 15w50 vs stock 99 GT run on 5w20 with 55,000 on the clock. Cobra = Eagle rod, GT = Powdered metal rod. You decide whether or not my comments hold water: (images not posted) PS - that blue car in the pics runs 10w60.
quote:
Honestly, it's hard to say. I have driven the S4 in -6*F, which included a cold start - it was kind of hard to start that morning - something I could not attribute to oil because I don't know what condition my battery was in with that kind of temperature extreme. On edit - the clarify, it was a slow crank, and fired up right away. Yes. It's a tradeoff, because engine oil works by forming a hydrodynamic wedge between surfaces to provide lubrication. You gain lubrication benefits, but lose horsepower through oil drag. Oil doesn't do its job at startup because there is no hydrodynamic action on startup. Under these conditions oil is only protecting through film lubrication, because the oil molecules act like magnets and stick to ferrous metals and each other. To further explain how oil "works" in an engine: Viscosity pulls the oil between the two components, such as a piston and a cylinder wall, journal and bearing, etc, and forms a pressurized "gap" of oil. This is totally and 100% completely different than "film lubrication". The pressure increases with viscosity and speed, providing better lubrication by preventing scrubbing contact (assuming your machinework is perfect). Yes and no - for instance, Wayne's EVO motor had about .0035" of oil clearance on the mains and rods. Factory spec is greater up to .0045, and factory spec oil is 10w30. - My Cobra engine (and the one shown in the picture) had .0012 on the mains and .0022 on the rods. Ford spec'd 5w30, and later 5w20 for fuel economy reasons. Both engines had coated piston skirts, the Ford having Hypers, and the EVO having Forged. The clearances were much larger on a bore size to clearance ratio in the EVO, but were suitable enough to run 30w when hot - either way, here's what it boils down to - both pistons have coatings on the skirts to reduce startup wear, allowing the manufacturer to reduce the viscosity requirements because the piston skirts can now physically touch the cylinderwalls and not scrub the precious crosshatch off (in very extreme oil starved circumstances - please note that piston coatings are another type of film lubrication, not nearly as effective as hydrodynamic lubrication) Indeed. The engine burned oil, was run low, air was pumped through the oiling system, and it started knocking. Why did it burn oil? Because the lower viscosity oil does not provide the same hydrodynamic lubrication because of the lower viscosity, and subsequently the oil control was not present because the engine essentially wore out it's oil control mechanisms before it's expected life cycle was over. The guy only drove the car 2 miles each way to and from work with short trips. People give me **** all of the time because I play in the upper RPM band all of the time - what they fail to understand is that the lubrication is BETTER at higher RPM, and you'll see less wear over a longer period of time. Audi also uses a high idle strategy when cold to make sure there's sufficient pressure right away to start hydrodynamic action. Furthermore, to prove how important and how much more efficient hydrodynamic lubrication is, let's analyze how most engines fail when they run out of oil, listing the failure mode progression in an overhead cam engine that loses oil pressure for an extended period of time: A) rod bearings go out and you develop a knock B) cam journals suffer and starve C) main bearings go out Why? First, the engine needs oil pressure to force oil out to the rod bearings through the gundrilling in the crank. They essentially starve first. Next, the oil drains back through the block, still trickling oil on the mains. The oil is drawn into the bearing, where the crank motion continues to hydrodynamically lubricate the bearing. The cam journals are starved in this drainback process, and well, **** goes downhill from there. To answer your question regarding the variable cam timing - a lot of variable cam timing systems rely on oil drag to retard the cams for higher RPM action. Some systems require electronically switched hydraulic pressure to actuate the mechanism. In both cases, the higher viscosity oil will cause faster engagement, and slower disengagement. The disengagement lag is probably negligable, a few hundred more milliseconds, if that. Hope that answers all of your questions.
quote:
Usually higher viscosity oils require larger oil coolers because the shearing effect increases the oil temp and bearing temp. Usually not an issue, but on a car without an oil cooler, it's potentially disastrous. In the summer I wouldn't hesitate to run 15w50 - in the winter I'd probably stick with 0w40... I wouldn't worry about the K03 inlet. I'd worry about the outlet...
With that, I have some comments/questions regarding engine wear and vehicle use: 1) As I understand it, the most engine wear occurs at initial start up. If that is the case, wouldn’t thinner oil propagate more quickly reducing wear? Wouldn’t thinner oil heat more quickly (though as stated, thicker oil would have a higher peak temp) which would be ideal for a vehicle driven short durations? I would imagine those factors also contribute to the use of thinner oils besides the obvious fuel economy increase due to reduced drag. 2) What’s the possibility of a thicker oil blowing seals due to oil pressure that is too high? With 5W30 my engine also hits about 95 psi and maxes the 100psi gauge if the engine revs past 3000rpm when the oil is cooler than 140degF. Once hot, idle pressure is about 20psi. Do leaks mean wear or can oil leaks be mutually exclusive to engine wear. In other words, if the thinner oil lubricates better on average, but the thicker oil reduces consumption, which is better? 3) For extended OCI’s (oil change intervals) thicker oil probably does last longer if one compares organics to organics, etc. However, one of the benefits of synthetics oils is the ability to maintain viscosity for extended OCIs, not to mention the ability to maintain its level of active additives. 4) Judging by the comments from the folks over at http://theoildrop.server101.com the SAE viscosity rating is not as critical as the HTHS(High-Temperature, High-Sheer ) rating. For example, RL's 0W20 has an HTHS of 3.5 while M1R 0W30 has an HTHS of 2.9. I would think these numbers would be more critical for those of us that drive hard. 5) Viscosity stability has a lot to do with the difference between the cold and hot ranges of the fluid and not just the actual viscosity. A straight weight oil would maintain it’s viscosity best. A 10W30 would have better viscosity stability compared to a 5W40 of equal make. At least, that’s what I understood from various googling and folks at the aforementioned site. 6)Would a thicker oil reduce fluctuations in oil pressure significantly? Would this matter on a daily driver where oil pressure does not fluctuate? So is thicker oil always better? I’m really not sure. I think it depends on vehicle usage. If one drives their vehicle harder than the average Joe, then thicker oil is probably not a bad idea. What about open track? Maybe a weekend of racing means draining the "street" oil and filling with something thicker to reducing the chance of shearing the fluid or oil pressure fluctuations. Also, I think it depends on the type of oil and how long you intend to extend ones oil changes. For a low mileage (<100k mi) daily driver, I believe standard Costco special, Chevron Supreme, in the recommended OEM rating will probably work just fine as long as the oil changes are done religiously at 3000 miles. Anything that detracts from that, I’d think a good synthetic would offer the lubricity needed at startup, protect against shearing, and allow for extended oil changes, without the need to change viscosities. For example, let’s compare Mobil 1, Redline, and Chevron Supreme all in the 5W30 flavor: Type – Pour Point{C} – 40C Vis -- 100C Vis – Cold Cranking Vis {-30C} -- HTHS{150C} M1 : -- -45 ----- 56 ---------- 10 ------------ N/A ----------------- 3.08 RL : --- -45 ---- 67 --------- 10.9 ------------ 60 --------------------3.3 Chev -- -36 ----- 64.8 -------- 10.8 ----------- 57 ------------------ N/A Looking at 15W50 M1: -------- -45 -------125 --------- 17.4 --------N/A ------------------ 5.11 Compare that to Chevron Supreme 20W50 and 10W40 20W50---- -29 -------- 176 ----------19.0 -------80{@-15}------------- N/A 10W40---- -34 --------104 ----------14.8 -------64{@-25} ------------ N/A Judging from these numbers, a synthetic would flow almost as good as organic 10W40 and offer high temp viscosity similar to a 20W50. For a car that is driven hard with minimal starts and stops it would probably work quite well. However, my concern would be how well the oil flows when it is cold compared to lets say 10W30 which would have a cold viscosity of about 74 in Chevron’s case. For folks that drive only a couple miles a day to work, would the high temp viscosity advantage be of any use? An example would be my girlfriend's Ford Escort. She is averaging about 17k miles/year {800 mile trips home 4-6 times a year} and that means a lot of oil changes. As she doesn't race the car, a hot viscosity of +15 would not be needed. I'm sure the oil barely reaches operating temperature on her 15 minute daily commute. However, I switched her car over to M1 5W30 since it offers better flow at low temps, and lasts longer than standard oil. She is at about the end of a 7000 mile OCI and I am going to send out a sample of the used oil to be analyzed. An interesting test would be to run the standard recommended oil for an interval and then run a thicker oil and compare the analysis reports on both to see how the wear numbers changed, if at all. If there is significant wear on the Escort I may experiment with thicker oil like 10W30 or maybe 5W40. Jury is still out. Just interested in some feedback. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ His response: ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well, in theory you're right, but Mobil 1 15w50 has better cold pour properties than conventional 5w30, so you're still getting really good startup protection at butt-cold temperatures. Not as good as 0w20 Mobil 1 per say, but that might be crossing the line when you look at how startup wear occurs. But it's harder to conceptualize all of the wear in an engine on start:
  • Bearing wear (an oil wedge suspends moving parts)
  • Ring and cylinder wear (oil film lubricates until everything is up to temp and a wedge is formed)
  • Camshaft and valvetrain wear (cams don't spin fast enough to create an oil wedge, so they rely on film lubrication)
The fact is, in theory, 15w50 will be faster to form an oil wedge than 0w20, even though the cold pour of 0w20 may be much better. This is because the higher viscosity promotes faster creation of oil wedge support. Now, to play the devil's advocate - if your car was designed for use with 0w20, chances are the manufacturer has a high level of control on their machinework, and as such, they are able to consistantly hold much tighter tolerances which are designed to work with 0w20 oils. The tighter clearances will form oil wedges just as fast as looser engines with higher viscosity oil. In this case, the pumping losses are probably nearly identical between the two oil grades, so it's obvious that there is better protection with the heavier weight oil and slightly looser build. Obviously there's power to be gained with running a lower weight oil on a loose engine, probably somewhere around 2%. That equates to what, 10hp on a 500 horsepower engine? Usually when turbochargers are in the mix, the turbo's pumping loss is about the same as the oil drag, or about 5% of the turbine power consumed. Comparing the pour points of M1: 0w20: Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -57 0w30: Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -54 0w40: Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -54 5w30: Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -45 10w30: Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -45 15w50: Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -45 There you have it - 15w50 pours like 5w30... interesting, no? Aboslutely no chance that thicker oil is going to blow any seals, unless there's something wrong with the design of a seal on your oil cooler housing, or something of the like, but I would guess that there's a decent safety factor involved so that double the stock oil pressure still wouldn't even cause a problem. The weak spot is the filter housing. The thicker oil is going to make more pressure, so be advised that it could cause an issue. For instance, I've seen Wayne's car hit 140psi before, running 15w50, with moderate load, while still reasonably cool. I'd also argue that with higher viscosity oil, your rings are going to seal a tad bit better, and your crankcase pressure will be lower. Typically the higher viscosity oil reduces oil consumption partly because of it's higher flash point (less likely to burn from the cylinder walls), and the better ring seal. Also with better ring seal comes reduced amounts of **** that the oil has to "suspend". Your oil filter sucks, it basically strips out particles that are too large for the oil to suspend. The rest of the particles pass through the filter, and the oil encapsulates the particles. When the oil cannot suspend any more particles, sludge forms, ala the infamous OCI thread a while back. Also, reducing the total volume of oil and the available detergents will have a huge effect (IE, running a quart low) The main benefit of synthetic oil in my eyes is not the OCI claims, it's the ability for the oil to remain stable at high temperatures. Because the oil is able to function at much higher temperatures, I feel comfortable with the added viscosity generating more heat - I can't get my oil temps to go over 275*F, much less approach it - I can barely hit 250 in 116* heat in the summer. No matter how much I beat on my car. In other situations, I wouldn't worry about Mobil 1 until about 300*F anyways. On the subject of OCI - sure, additives to play some role in the way the oil encapsulates foreign matter - Additionally, the uniform chains of synthetic oil help - but I certainly don't think the use of synthetic oil alone extends the OCI - the resistance to viscosity loss over time and temperature stability are the two big ones... You are indeed correct - check the HTHS of M1 15w50 vs 0w20. [Smile] 5.11 (HTHS Viscosity, mPa-s @ 150ºC ASTM D 4683) vs 2.99 Again, correct. It's easy to turn a 5w30 into a 10w40 though... Faster to return to the pickup? Probably not. Lower volume of oil being pumped, certainly so... More oil in the pan? Maybe. Install an accusump if you are worried [Smile] No, it's not always better, but it is under most circumstances. I think the point I was trying to make, which got lost in translation between my scatterbrain and keyboard, was that it's pefectly safe, and better in my mind to run a higher viscosity oil than what the manufacturer originally intended when you increase the duty cycle of your vehicle. Stepping up 1 grade step isn't going to cause engine failure. You'll lose a bit of horsepower, see higher oil temps, but will benefit from added protection. Stepping down one grade step might possibly cause failure if your oil pump cannot deliver the volume requirements of the lower viscosity oil in order to maintain a wedge. I agree, but I would feel extremely comfortable with extending the OCI to over 5000. To know for sure - get your oil analyzed and post the results for discussion. Remember - oil changes occur because the oil loses it's ability to suspend foreign matter, not because it "wears out" [Smile] Absolutely not. No advantage whatsoever. Hope that answers everything, criticism welcome.... +++++++++++++++++++++++ Ultimately, I am just wanting second opinions on the statements made by the other guy and if my comments have any validity.
 
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
7,799
Location
Oklahoma
Dude....you definently get the long post of the year award. Good questions though. But, let me warn you, I am of the thicker is better crowd. BITOG seems to be almost equally divided among this topic. On the Escort, yeah, I'm with you. Stick with M1 5W-30. Has done me well in my Accord. But, I wouldn't be so worried about changing out the filter halfway through the 7K OCI's. I leave it all alone until the 7K time. I would do some initial UOA's to get a feel on the wear metals. I also would not assume that at the magical 100K mark, you'll need to go to a thicker oil. If your anal about oil changes as the rest of us are here, there is no reason to believe that you can't go well past that mark until you start observing some oil being burnt off. I, instead, would rely on the UOA's. If they start shooting up at higer mileage, then that's when I would go with a thicker oil. The UOA's will also give you an idea what the short drives are doing to the oil. Depending on your short trip/long trip ratio's, you may want to change out before 7K. But, let the UOA's explain that to you.
 
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
71
Location
Delaware USA
Sorry for the short post (got to go) but according to my Machinery's handbook version 23, a viscosity selection of the lower value in general is best,however is does also say that hydrodynamic lubrication is the first line of defense and that additives are the second line of defense which would lead one to believe that thicker is better. There's truth in both camps, better to reach a happy medium. As for me I 'm going to use M1 5w-30 in my 04 4 cyl Accord. But I'm sure you guys know all that. Lukey
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,591
Just fix what needs fixing (rings, valve stem seals, etc) when oil consumption becomes an issue. Thicker oil isn't a cure, it'll just lessen the symtoms. Any good quality XW-30/40 should do fine in your Escort, regardless of mileage.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
38
Location
Washington State, US
I'll agree with what's already been posted regarding 100K not being magic. Years ago a car that would go 100K miles without at least a valve grind and still run at all well was a big deal. As was a car that would run 100 MPH. Now, almost any car with any pretense to quality will go 100K miles with little evident wear. UOA is the only way to get any data. If you like the UOA numbers you collect up to 100K miles, why change then? If, down the road, you accumulate enough miles that the car starts to use enough of the thinner oil to bother you, then go up one grade in viscosity and see what that does for you. BTW a long post but a good post IMHO.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,675
Location
'Stralia
Having learned vehicle maintenance in Australia, I "learned" that 20W-50 was the right viscosity for everything. I also "learned" that Shell were loony, as their two oils commonly sold were SuperSF 20W-40, and XMO 15W-30...the former was "marginal", while the second destroyed any engine that it came within 20 feet of. Commonly used Valvoline XLD 20W-50 with a tin of STP, BP Corse 25W-50, and Penrite 25W-60/35W-70. No car complained about it, and my parents R16 made it to 380,000km before they sold it. Now I don't use 20W-50, having settled on xW-40 as my preferred viscosity, and xW-30 (minimum GrIII) for friends who's manuals call for it.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2003
Messages
4,630
Location
Decatur AL USA
I would not pay much attention to the pour points. They dont really matter. The oil pump will cease to pump oil long before that point. The two numbers you want to pay attention to are the Cold Pump and Cold Crank Numbers. 5W-30 M1 will continue to pump far below the point at which 15W-50 ceases to. Most engines have a prefered operating viscosity this will vary with engine design. Once this is established oil temperature will be the major factor in deciding the SAE rating to use. 20 Weight @ 100°C is thicker than 70 Weight @ 150°C Gene
 
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
2,480
Wow, I have a headache after reading this post! A few errors though...the author states that the M-1 15-50 pours like a conv. 5-30. Maybe so, but pour points are almost useless as there is no way that any 5-30 will be thicker than the 15-50 at temps. below say -25C...otherwise it would be labelled as a 10w-50 or 5W-50.... Otherwise, I agree...if you're a real oil guru, you'll need to get out of the "economy" oils mindset. Stepping up in grade is ambient temperature dependent only...not the manuf. clearances/engine type/size/continent bs. As an aside, can someone verify the RL 0-20 3.5 HT/HS claim? I checked a bottle of their 5-30 yesterday and I couldn't even find an A3 rating on there, let alone on a 20 weight????? Is this even true?????
 

CelicaGT6

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
41
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. T: Wow, I have a headache after reading this post! A few errors though...the author states that the M-1 15-50 pours like a conv. 5-30. Maybe so, but pour points are almost useless as there is no way that any 5-30 will be thicker than the 15-50 at temps. below say -25C...otherwise it would be labelled as a 10w-50 or 5W-50.... Otherwise, I agree...if you're a real oil guru, you'll need to get out of the "economy" oils mindset. Stepping up in grade is ambient temperature dependent only...not the manuf. clearances/engine type/size/continent bs. As an aside, can someone verify the RL 0-20 3.5 HT/HS claim? I checked a bottle of their 5-30 yesterday and I couldn't even find an A3 rating on there, let alone on a 20 weight????? Is this even true?????
http://redlineoil.com/pdf/4.pdf Actually it's 3.3 according to their site. My error.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Canada
Personally, I wouldn't obsess over engine wear, moreso, I'd be very concerned about wear on other parts of the car. Any dino 5W-30, 10W30, or synthetic will do just fine in that car with 7000 mile OCI's, and will easily last 200-300k miles if maintenance is reasonably diligently performed and correctly performed. Thicker oil, more correctly, more viscous oil, will not necessarily reduce wear. A 5% loss in fuel efficiency from using the improper oil can make a huge dent on one's pocketbook and really make the whole scheme very uneconomical. Consider this example: You drive 20,000 miles/year, and the Escort gets 30mpg with 15W50 and 32mpg with 10W30 or 5W30. 2mpg difference amounts to 667-625 = 42 gallons of fuel @ $2.00/gallon = $84/year. Over 20 years, with an interest rate of 10%, and a rate of inflation of 3%, in present (2004) dollars, that is $3600, easily enough for a brand new engine and/or a used 10-year old Escort in decent shape 20 years from now. The extra $$$ you spend on pricey Mobil1 synthetic oil and excessive filter changes just make the whole idea of using 15W50 in a misguided attempt to extend engine life an even worse financial disaster. And I haven't even mentioned any of the risk factors in terms of taking advantage of your 'investment' in excessive expensive synthetic oil changes.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
7,409
Location
Austin, TX
IMHO, given the Santa Barbara, CA location, and Pitzels Personal Finance Seminar, here's what I'd use: Escort: Motorcraft GF-4 5w30 Celica: 50/50 Mix of M1 10w30 and M1 15w50 Summer/Racing M1 10w30 rest of the year
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,591
quote:
As an aside, can someone verify the RL 0-20 3.5 HT/HS claim? I checked a bottle of their 5-30 yesterday and I couldn't even find an A3 rating on there, let alone on a 20 weight????? Is this even true?????
And wasn't there a rumor that Red Line used a different method than, let's say VW, to determine HTHS? How do the HTHS values compare?
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2003
Messages
7,409
Location
Austin, TX
According to the API J300 chart, these three methods are used for the HTHS numbers: ASTM D4683, ASTM D4741 (CEC L-36-A-90) or D5481 D4683-04 Standard Test Method for Measuring Viscosity at High Shear Rate and High Temperature by Tapered Bearing Simulator D4741-00 Standard Test Method for Measuring Viscosity at High Temperature and High Shear Rate by Tapered-Plug Viscometer D5481-04 Standard Test Method for Measuring Apparent Viscosity at High-Temperature and High-Shear Rate by Multicell Capillary Viscometer I'm not sure how the results would differ if one were to use a different method on the same sample. (Redline's literature states they use the D4741 method)
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
283
Location
uk
Some interesting questions and I look forward to some interesting answers. The standard 20W50 was used many years ago for classic cars but IMO oil has improved and a xX40 or lower has taken its place. In high rev and high temperature situations rather than change vis. I would consider an ester based oil which can naturally provide this protection.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,591
427Z06, thank you. I believe a closer look at the different HTHS test sequences is in order and deserves its own thread. I believe VW uses ASTM D4683 and it would be of interest to me to compare the HTHS values of that test method to those of the other test methods.
 
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
2,480
pitzel, what's very often forgotten is that the sludge and varnish that's created by thinner lubricants due their more pronounced breakdown diminishes any short-term fuel economy gains from these lubes.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2003
Messages
555
Location
south texas border
I've run a few 5w20's through my honda, Most to 6k oci's or better. Engine is squeaky clean at 55k miles. Not sure where that sludge from breakdown comes in. I'm not exactly easy on the vehicle either. it sees quit of bit of the top part of the tach. I do have one question for pitzel though. What are you investing in that gets you a 10% return on that small dollar amount? [I dont know]
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
2,768
Location
Tn
quote:
Originally posted by dustyjoe1: I've run a few 5w20's through my honda, Most to 6k oci's or better. Engine is squeaky clean at 55k miles. Not sure where that sludge from breakdown comes in. I'm not exactly easy on the vehicle either. it sees quit of bit of the top part of the tach. I do have one question for pitzel though. What are you investing in that gets you a 10% return on that small dollar amount? [I dont know]
Perhaps Dr.T is a Euro-car driver and had a bad experience. Japanese and American vehicles do fine with these high quality thinner oils. Pitzel is probably including the oil in the overall big picture and 10% is doable. He's probably a good investor overall.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,591
quote:
Perhaps Dr.T is a Euro-car driver and had a bad experience. Japanese and American vehicles do fine with these high quality thinner oils. Pitzel is probably including the oil in the overall big picture and 10% is doable. He's probably a good investor overall.
haley 10 should probably work as a profiler. [Wink] Happy New Year!
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Canada
quote:
Originally posted by dustyjoe1: I've run a few 5w20's through my honda, Most to 6k oci's or better. Engine is squeaky clean at 55k miles. Not sure where that sludge from breakdown comes in. I'm not exactly easy on the vehicle either. it sees quit of bit of the top part of the tach. I do have one question for pitzel though. What are you investing in that gets you a 10% return on that small dollar amount? [I dont know]
My analysis is of course based on a marginal view of one's finances, and makes the assumption that the money saved on fuel would be extra money available for contribution and actually contributed to an index fund or ETF based on the S&P 500 index or a similar index that has produced long-term returns of 10% per annum. 3% inflation also does not exist today either, but 3% is a relatively historical rate of inflation. With the savings rate at an all-time low in the United States (some 0.5% of income), it is only inevitable that individuals who are able to 'save' more than average will start to be rewarded with at least historical, if not above historical returns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top