CAFE has Little to do with Motor Oil Viscosity Use

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
1,625
Location
Sarasota, Florida
The contribution of thinner oil to CAFE requirements is Nil. I do not understand why people are wasting time arguing this relationship. This is not what increased fleet MPG. The mandate resulted in a wide range of Significant changes to all areas of automotive development. To mention a few things that added Many MPG to each car and truck includes but is not limited to (and in no order):

Streamlining vehicles top to bottom aiding in highway mileage in particular.
Fuel injection and full electronic management. This increases fuel economy while decreasing wear and tear on the engine and the oil.
Tuning both intake and exhaust systems - huge gains.
Driveline changes especially tuning transmissions with more gearing - huge gains.
Decreasing the gross vehicle weight.

Thinner oils contribution is at start up and short trips and actually aids in engine longevity. Because starting is easier, even at 90F here in Florida, there is less wear on the battery, the alternator and all internal engine parts. In fact, the engine is lighter because of the use of smaller starter motors as one example.

Even with some vehicles still weighing in at 6 or 7,000 lbs as my Ford trucks the average mileage went from 6 MPG in 1970 to 18 MPG today. This was not a function of using a 20 instead of a 30 grade oil I am certain.

In the mid-1970’s I performed an extra credit high school chemistry study of oil viscosity. I used the family cars and those of my neighbors. I think we all used 10W-30 grade. The initial thinning at around 1,000 miles would shock you. The oils were not able to hold viscosity even without fuel dilution. But with the vast amount of fuel dumped into the oil from the carburator and accelerator pumping was another league in itself. I can assure you that the 20 grade oils of today do not thin nearly as much as all the cars were running 40 years ago even though those engines were “lose”. The 40 or 50 grade oils back in the 1970's thinned just as much. This is what opened my eyes to using better, but thinner oils, that held grade.

I had the help of an oil engineer who worked for Shell at the time. We never ran the oil long enough for the real reason you had to change the oil - oxidative thickening.

I believe that those hanging onto the need to run thicker oils are scraping for statistics that simply do not exist. And a savings of one tenth of one percent gas mileage by using 20 grade oil is not going to save the plant either.

I have always strived to use the thinnest oil that did the job for me but was selective to those brands that had better technical characteristics. These numbers were available even back when I was in high school.

aehaas
 
Aehaas I thank you for your logical and well pointed reasoning. But using XW-20 oils in the correct application makes some people feel less Manly.
 
Little is not nothing. Ford did it for CAFE. What has occurred since then you are correct, but Fords original reason was CAFE.

Concerning thinning again you are correct, but I believe CAFE does not involve "thinned" out oil. The government went to great lengths to make sure that 5W-20 oils were readily available and at a reasonable price.
 
"The government went to great lengths to make sure that 5W-20 oils were readily available and at a reasonable price."

This is true. I wonder why they had to be there to make certain that 20 grade oils were readily available. This widens the discussion.

aehaas
 
The faster oil circulation to top end OHC pieces is worth the thinner viscosity all by itself.1-2 minutes to get 10/40 to the top end? Thats gonna cause wear.Tighter tolerances also dont require 10w40,20w50 oils.This is why Harleys need 50,70 weight oils....huge tolerances cold due to the slop in the air cooled components that will eventually grow in size due to operating temps.
 
Those are all good points, but people need to remember that there is no one size fits all best viscosity. Viscosity is just one characteristic of an oil. Using the lightest oil available that still provides no loss of wear protection is most ideal.

Many engines are currently running on oils with a HT/HS of 2.3 w/o durability issues. There is a limit though and durability is always a concern.

aehaas, are you aware of Toyota's 0w20? Has a VI of 216 and is the lightest PCMO on the market.
 
not to diminish, or dispute your claims, but then explain to me the decision dodge made to switch the recommended grade on my neon (a 2005 - last year of the model)to 5w-20, when every year up until then had been 5W-30?
if not for tighter cafe standards, then why?

I'm not being sarcastic, or trying to be an [censored] please enlighten me...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CAFE or not an auto manufacturer would not put is life on the line over a 20 grade oil without it being able to do the job. Honda,touted for it's longevity and dependability specs a 20. Toyota the same specs a 20. Ford specs a 20. Would all these companies be willing to shatter their reputation to cut out dependability for CAFE? No. It is factored in as the basis for engine engineering and is the way to go if recommended. Old school bias and wives tales are just that and of no benefit anymore.
 
I don`t understand the easier starting thing. My car starts the exact same whether I`m using 20W50 or 5W30.

"Startup wear" etc is all liberal government CAFE propaganda. It simply doesn`t exist.

Take two identical cars,track the living [censored] out of them for hours WOT,one with a fuel economy 5W/0W20 and the other with a dedicated racing 50 weight and see which one spins a bearing or has bottom end failure first.
 
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
This article says that CAFE is one of the reasons for the switch to 5W-20. Machinery Lubrication


The article almost 10 years old, and contains a number assumptions that aren't actually true (and have been proven wrong). The inverse relationship between protection and viscosity which the article purports (and is constantly parroted by many on here) simply doesn't exist.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm


"Startup wear" etc is all liberal government CAFE propaganda. It simply doesn`t exist.



You continue to spout this nonsense. Um....OK... ALL of the published research on the subject is a grand conspiracy by the gub'ment... The gub'ment also changed the basic laws of thermodynamics, just to make us use thin oils and destroy our engines. It's all the fault of the liberals...
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm


"Startup wear" etc is all liberal government CAFE propaganda. It simply doesn`t exist.



You continue to spout this nonsense. Um....OK... ALL of the published research on the subject is a grand conspiracy by the gub'ment... The gub'ment also changed the basic laws of thermodynamics, just to make us use thin oils and destroy our engines. It's all the fault of the liberals...


So do you run a 0W2 oil in your car? If thinner is better,than thinnest must be best,right? DON`T START YOUR CAR!!!!!!! YOU`LL DESTROY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I don`t understand the easier starting thing. My car starts the exact same whether I`m using 20W50 or 5W30.

"Startup wear" etc is all liberal government CAFE propaganda. It simply doesn`t exist.

Take two identical cars,track the living [censored] out of them for hours WOT,one with a fuel economy 5W/0W20 and the other with a dedicated racing 50 weight and see which one spins a bearing or has bottom end failure first.


Yeah the government is out to get YOU! Driving for HOURS at WOT until the motor gives out. What does this prove? More importantly who has to ability to do that? I am not talking about money. I am talking who in the world would or could drive on the roads at WOT for hours. Towing a car loaded full of camping gear and with the family up Mount San Antonio I was not at WOT the entire or even the majority of the time. I can not think of anytime towing or off roading or driving where I could be a WOT for hours.
 
You are kidding right? Take your car down to below freezing and make this statement. No way no how your car starts the the same on these two oils. As for the little track demo the results would likely be around 50/50
 
Last edited:
You're a smart man, Dr. Haas, but on this you're completely wrong. I've been told so directly by powertrain engineers within major auto makers. I obviously won't jeopardize my relationship with them to prove it to you in an open forum, so I will simply do a bit of math for you.

For every 0.1 MPG an auto maker misses their CAFE target, they owe the government $5 for every car they sell in a year. So an auto maker who sells two million cars and who's fleet is 0.2 MPG under the requirement owes the government $20 Million. This financial cost happens after the fact. Auto makers can also sell and trade their CAFE credits if they come in above their required average, meaning beating the CAFE target often translates directly to the bottom line.

It takes years to develop a new model and consumer preferences for one model or another are not predictable. Say Ford does a bang up job designing the new Taurus and takes lots of market share from GM and Toyota in this model cycle. Now also say they mess up on the Focus, and loose share to the Civic, Corolla and Cruze in the same cycle. They get nailed with a giant CAFE fine due to their product mix being different than they predicted, primarily due to factors outside of their control and decisions they made 3-5 years ago. Not exactly a corporate bean counter's dream come true.

20wt oil will save ~2% on fuel economy. For an auto maker selling two million cars which has a required CAFE average of 24 MPG, using 20wt oil could potentially be worth $50 Millon per year. Given the financial health of many auto makers and the extent to which they wring every nickel of production cost out of their designs, do you really think they're going to leave $50M on the table?

In normal usage 20wt oils work well, their downside is not wear, it's a smaller thermal safety margin against failure of the hydrodynamic film in the bearings. You need only look at the oil requirements of street cars which are expected to see high oil temperatures on a racetrack to know that. These models are generally very low volume, and therefore have little impact on CAFE. But then you already know all this.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I don`t understand the easier starting thing. My car starts the exact same whether I`m using 20W50 or 5W30.

"Startup wear" etc is all liberal government CAFE propaganda. It simply doesn`t exist.

Take two identical cars,track the living [censored] out of them for hours WOT,one with a fuel economy 5W/0W20 and the other with a dedicated racing 50 weight and see which one spins a bearing or has bottom end failure first.


Yeah the government is out to get YOU! Driving for HOURS at WOT until the motor gives out. What does this prove? More importantly who has to ability to do that? I am not talking about money. I am talking who in the world would or could drive on the roads at WOT for hours. Towing a car loaded full of camping gear and with the family up Mount San Antonio I was not at WOT the entire or even the majority of the time. I can not think of anytime towing or off roading or driving where I could be a WOT for hours.


I`m not talking about driving the soccermom-mobile up the steep little road,I`m talking about roadcourse and/or track racing,which *is* wot most of the time for hours.
 
Last edited:
OK. How does this apply to the CAFE out to get you? Also if I have to drive on a racetrack for my lighter viscosity lubes to not provide sufficient anti-wear protection and I rarely go to the racetrack then your argument does not apply to me or the majority of car owners. Also why are you using that light gear lube you know that is for fuel economy also? Anything less than 75W140 is not thick enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top