CAFE has Little to do with Motor Oil Viscosity Use
- Thread starter AEHaas
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Capa
What's interesting is that engines last longer now, in the era of thin oils, than many decades back, in the era of thick oil.
Engines do last longer now than they did thirty years ago.
Thinner oils not withstanding, oils are better than they were a few decades back.
FI, better ignition systems, better machining and cleaner assembly have all played a role, though.
I certainly wouldn't claim that thinner oils in and of themselves have brought longer engine life.
I would claim that thinner oils haven't compromised the life of vehicles, of which the engine is only one vital part, though.
What's interesting is that engines last longer now, in the era of thin oils, than many decades back, in the era of thick oil.
Engines do last longer now than they did thirty years ago.
Thinner oils not withstanding, oils are better than they were a few decades back.
FI, better ignition systems, better machining and cleaner assembly have all played a role, though.
I certainly wouldn't claim that thinner oils in and of themselves have brought longer engine life.
I would claim that thinner oils haven't compromised the life of vehicles, of which the engine is only one vital part, though.
GM hasn't gone to 20 weight oils since they're trying to simplify the job the lube tech needs to do at their dealers, among other things. Say a Sonic rolls in with a 1.8, a Equinox with the 3.0 DI V6 follows, a Silverado comes in with a 5.3, then a Cruze comes in with a turbo 1.4. Having 1 oil that will cover those disparate engines and their lubrication requirements lessens the chance of a $9/hour lube tech making a mistake, and an irate customer coming back.
GM needs a 30 weight to cover their turbo engines and their DI engines, both of which are hard on the oil. Getting 0.025 mpg better by going to a 20 weight when they might have to replace 1000 turbos is definitely not in their interests, or in the customer's interests.
Ehh, there are far more ways to skin a cat for CAFE than oil viscosity.
GM needs a 30 weight to cover their turbo engines and their DI engines, both of which are hard on the oil. Getting 0.025 mpg better by going to a 20 weight when they might have to replace 1000 turbos is definitely not in their interests, or in the customer's interests.
Ehh, there are far more ways to skin a cat for CAFE than oil viscosity.
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
The contribution of thinner oil to CAFE requirements is Nil.
That statement is incorrect. The rest that followed was full of opinions but short on facts.
Thinner oils do contribute to lower MPG, so there is clearly a relationship to CAFE.
Newer thinner oils protect engine as well as older thicker all right, but it was the pressure from CAFE that steered Ford and others to look into the thinner oils. The rest is history.
As for that heated 5W30 vd 5W20 discussion, it's silly as most of the "energy conserving" 5W30 oils turn into 5W20 quickly.
The contribution of thinner oil to CAFE requirements is Nil.
That statement is incorrect. The rest that followed was full of opinions but short on facts.
Thinner oils do contribute to lower MPG, so there is clearly a relationship to CAFE.
Newer thinner oils protect engine as well as older thicker all right, but it was the pressure from CAFE that steered Ford and others to look into the thinner oils. The rest is history.
As for that heated 5W30 vd 5W20 discussion, it's silly as most of the "energy conserving" 5W30 oils turn into 5W20 quickly.
Originally Posted By: Capa
What's interesting is that engines last longer now, in the era of thin oils, than many decades back, in the era of thick oil.
Bingo! How could oil have anything at all to do with it? Oil along with better designs, and a few other things certainly are helping.
What's interesting is that engines last longer now, in the era of thin oils, than many decades back, in the era of thick oil.
Bingo! How could oil have anything at all to do with it? Oil along with better designs, and a few other things certainly are helping.
Last edited:
And these engines that last longer, in the era of thin oils, also get better gas mileage and a little boost in horsepower---a win-win situation. Naturally, as the liquid life blood of cars has advanced from decade to decade also the mechanism itself has advanced. It would be stupid to assume, as some insinuate or explicitly state, that thinner oil is a step backwards.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Again,I never said anything about *most people*. I was comparing thick/vs thin oil against protection. Please don`t ad-lib words into my posts that I didn`t write.
You have a funny definition of "ad-lib"? He quoted your nonsensical quotes verbatim. This is the Passenger Car Motor Oil section. If you want to talk about the requirements for race engines, there's a forum for that...
And I bet you`re one of those who feel the government should tell you "no no" if you want a 32 ounce soda. And once again I`ll tell you what I said before,I`m talking about thin vs thick,economy vs protection. Go run a sump full of WD40 in your car and see how well it holds up. It`s a lubricant,it`s thin,and seems to be right up your alley. And I`m not talking about race engines,I`m talking about sportscars/muscle cars. Open up an fsm and it`ll state right before your very eyes in black and white,"use a thicker oil if car is to be raced or driven for extended high speeds (usually a 40 or 50 weight).
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Again,I never said anything about *most people*. I was comparing thick/vs thin oil against protection. Please don`t ad-lib words into my posts that I didn`t write.
You have a funny definition of "ad-lib"? He quoted your nonsensical quotes verbatim. This is the Passenger Car Motor Oil section. If you want to talk about the requirements for race engines, there's a forum for that...
And I bet you`re one of those who feel the government should tell you "no no" if you want a 32 ounce soda. And once again I`ll tell you what I said before,I`m talking about thin vs thick,economy vs protection. Go run a sump full of WD40 in your car and see how well it holds up. It`s a lubricant,it`s thin,and seems to be right up your alley. And I`m not talking about race engines,I`m talking about sportscars/muscle cars. Open up an fsm and it`ll state right before your very eyes in black and white,"use a thicker oil if car is to be raced or driven for extended high speeds (usually a 40 or 50 weight).
Last edited:
Well then, I guess no one would be interested in the two previous cars I owned cuz I ran them on the evil heavier oil.
1985 Z28 5.0 5 spd- sold it with 279k miles on it in 2007, never had the engine apart, oil pressure was the same as the day I had bought it. Sold it to a 18 YO kid, who lit the tires on it when he drove away. Lightest oil it ever saw was 10W30 Red Line. Normally it ran 15W50 M1.
1990 Astro AWD - just got rid of it due to a cracked front subframe. It actually drove up onto the flatbead that took it to the scrap yard. 4.3 V6, 256k miles all on 10W40.
And can AEHass answer me this - why does BMW USA spec a 10W60 for the M5?
1985 Z28 5.0 5 spd- sold it with 279k miles on it in 2007, never had the engine apart, oil pressure was the same as the day I had bought it. Sold it to a 18 YO kid, who lit the tires on it when he drove away. Lightest oil it ever saw was 10W30 Red Line. Normally it ran 15W50 M1.
1990 Astro AWD - just got rid of it due to a cracked front subframe. It actually drove up onto the flatbead that took it to the scrap yard. 4.3 V6, 256k miles all on 10W40.
And can AEHass answer me this - why does BMW USA spec a 10W60 for the M5?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gpshumway
20wt oil will save ~2% on fuel economy.
Can you quote a source for this, or did you make it up?
20wt oil will save ~2% on fuel economy.
Can you quote a source for this, or did you make it up?
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
The contribution of thinner oil to CAFE requirements is Nil.
Hands up every country that has a CAFE ?
Hands up every country where xW-20s are common ?
Yeah, yeah, not definitive proof, but...
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
I do not understand why people are wasting time arguing this relationship. This is not what increased fleet MPG.
It is PART of it...per the API.
Quote:
Oils labeled as "Energy Conserving" have passed the test that measures an oil's ability to conserve energy. Widespread use of engine oils with this designation should result in an overall saving of fuel in the vehicle fleet as a whole,
The definition "Energy Conserving" was based on measurable (6%???) savings over the reference oil in the test.
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
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.
Strawman, not an argument...I doubt that you wear flares any more too.
6% of the gains can be attributed to not running 40 weight, as per your post, there are many factors, but EC IS one of them.
The contribution of thinner oil to CAFE requirements is Nil.
Hands up every country that has a CAFE ?
Hands up every country where xW-20s are common ?
Yeah, yeah, not definitive proof, but...
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
I do not understand why people are wasting time arguing this relationship. This is not what increased fleet MPG.
It is PART of it...per the API.
Quote:
Oils labeled as "Energy Conserving" have passed the test that measures an oil's ability to conserve energy. Widespread use of engine oils with this designation should result in an overall saving of fuel in the vehicle fleet as a whole,
The definition "Energy Conserving" was based on measurable (6%???) savings over the reference oil in the test.
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
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.
Strawman, not an argument...I doubt that you wear flares any more too.
6% of the gains can be attributed to not running 40 weight, as per your post, there are many factors, but EC IS one of them.
Originally Posted By: buster
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.
Given some of the articles posted recently, I think this IS the limit.
One recent one stated that they were increasing the bearing area, and lowering the vertical clearance moving into the future.
This is direct contravention of saving energy, and by design is a response to bearing durability with thinner oils (you get your operating clearances back by lowering the bearing pressure (bearing area), and increasing the rate of shear (closing the gaps)).
This response says that the OEMs are at least a little nervous, and that "she'll be right on 20" isn't quite right.
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.
Given some of the articles posted recently, I think this IS the limit.
One recent one stated that they were increasing the bearing area, and lowering the vertical clearance moving into the future.
This is direct contravention of saving energy, and by design is a response to bearing durability with thinner oils (you get your operating clearances back by lowering the bearing pressure (bearing area), and increasing the rate of shear (closing the gaps)).
This response says that the OEMs are at least a little nervous, and that "she'll be right on 20" isn't quite right.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Again,I never said anything about *most people*. I was comparing thick/vs thin oil against protection. Please don`t ad-lib words into my posts that I didn`t write.
You have a funny definition of "ad-lib"? He quoted your nonsensical quotes verbatim. This is the Passenger Car Motor Oil section. If you want to talk about the requirements for race engines, there's a forum for that...
And I bet you`re one of those who feel the government should tell you "no no" if you want a 32 ounce soda. And once again I`ll tell you what I said before,I`m talking about thin vs thick,economy vs protection. Go run a sump full of WD40 in your car and see how well it holds up. It`s a lubricant,it`s thin,and seems to be right up your alley. And I`m not talking about race engines,I`m talking about sportscars/muscle cars. Open up an fsm and it`ll state right before your very eyes in black and white,"use a thicker oil if car is to be raced or driven for extended high speeds (usually a 40 or 50 weight).
But you are the one that stated start up wear is a myth that CAFE invented. I have a family member that has a Olds 442 and has used 10W-30 since the early 90's when he bought the car and babying any type of machinery is not his cup of tea but he does not bring it to the race track so 10W-30 works for him and his daily driving. So explain to me how "thick" would provide superior protection when you are not driving for extended high speeds or not racing. I would hope that such a prolific poster on here would understand that for the type of driving the majority of American motorist drive a 40 or 50 viscosity oil is some overkill. In your application it may be fine. I pointed out your choice in gear lubes because if I want to make a impact on my fuel economy that is where I am going to start not choosing a lighter oil.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Again,I never said anything about *most people*. I was comparing thick/vs thin oil against protection. Please don`t ad-lib words into my posts that I didn`t write.
You have a funny definition of "ad-lib"? He quoted your nonsensical quotes verbatim. This is the Passenger Car Motor Oil section. If you want to talk about the requirements for race engines, there's a forum for that...
And I bet you`re one of those who feel the government should tell you "no no" if you want a 32 ounce soda. And once again I`ll tell you what I said before,I`m talking about thin vs thick,economy vs protection. Go run a sump full of WD40 in your car and see how well it holds up. It`s a lubricant,it`s thin,and seems to be right up your alley. And I`m not talking about race engines,I`m talking about sportscars/muscle cars. Open up an fsm and it`ll state right before your very eyes in black and white,"use a thicker oil if car is to be raced or driven for extended high speeds (usually a 40 or 50 weight).
But you are the one that stated start up wear is a myth that CAFE invented. I have a family member that has a Olds 442 and has used 10W-30 since the early 90's when he bought the car and babying any type of machinery is not his cup of tea but he does not bring it to the race track so 10W-30 works for him and his daily driving. So explain to me how "thick" would provide superior protection when you are not driving for extended high speeds or not racing. I would hope that such a prolific poster on here would understand that for the type of driving the majority of American motorist drive a 40 or 50 viscosity oil is some overkill. In your application it may be fine. I pointed out your choice in gear lubes because if I want to make a impact on my fuel economy that is where I am going to start not choosing a lighter oil.
Originally Posted By: DragRace
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I ran my escape (20w spec'd) on 5w-30 and 0w30 till 155k, no problems, and no loss of fuel mileage. I have to believe its cafe. I am curious though why gm is still sticking with 30wts.
The difference between these two oil weights(5w20 and a 30-weight) is so minimal,but on this forum,you might think it was like comparing a 20w50 to a 0w30,the way people over-react.
That's where the whole thread got off to a poor start...the Energy Conserving gains were predominantly gained, in getting to 30s, and the step from skinny 30s to robust 20s is infinitesimal.
But it was the drive for economy that spawned the 30s, and thence the 20s, while the OP is trying to avoid the whole EC part by only focusing on that small gap now.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I ran my escape (20w spec'd) on 5w-30 and 0w30 till 155k, no problems, and no loss of fuel mileage. I have to believe its cafe. I am curious though why gm is still sticking with 30wts.
The difference between these two oil weights(5w20 and a 30-weight) is so minimal,but on this forum,you might think it was like comparing a 20w50 to a 0w30,the way people over-react.
That's where the whole thread got off to a poor start...the Energy Conserving gains were predominantly gained, in getting to 30s, and the step from skinny 30s to robust 20s is infinitesimal.
But it was the drive for economy that spawned the 30s, and thence the 20s, while the OP is trying to avoid the whole EC part by only focusing on that small gap now.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes fuel economy is the major push for this development but not at the expense of increased engine wear. It's simply part of the on going drive to make the IC engine more and more efficient.
The mistake that the thick oil set make is the knee-jerk suggestion that there is an inevitable downside to the move by manufacturers to lighter oil grades; namely, increased engine wear.
That really is more telling of their lack of understanding of engine lubrication.
.
.
.
So when a OEM spec's a certain oil viscosity, automatically that includes a very large safety margin to cover all possible scenerios that require a certain minimal operational viscosity.
However, some of the OEMs ARE changing their engine designs to suit.
As per previous posts, and a couple of threads, they are increasing their bearing surface areas, and reducing the radial clearances.
Both these changes increase drag, but increase operating clearances.
The change to thinner oils is driving change in engine design, rather than vice versa.
Yes fuel economy is the major push for this development but not at the expense of increased engine wear. It's simply part of the on going drive to make the IC engine more and more efficient.
The mistake that the thick oil set make is the knee-jerk suggestion that there is an inevitable downside to the move by manufacturers to lighter oil grades; namely, increased engine wear.
That really is more telling of their lack of understanding of engine lubrication.
.
.
.
So when a OEM spec's a certain oil viscosity, automatically that includes a very large safety margin to cover all possible scenerios that require a certain minimal operational viscosity.
However, some of the OEMs ARE changing their engine designs to suit.
As per previous posts, and a couple of threads, they are increasing their bearing surface areas, and reducing the radial clearances.
Both these changes increase drag, but increase operating clearances.
The change to thinner oils is driving change in engine design, rather than vice versa.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Capa
What's interesting is that engines last longer now, in the era of thin oils, than many decades back, in the era of thick oil.
+1
As per the OP's extra credit chemistry experiment, modern oils are far more likely to remain in grade, due to the better base-stock and additives these days....not so likely to shear, so performance is more predictable.
Electronic engine management doesn't see engines washed in raw fuel for a significant part of their operation.
Originally Posted By: Capa
What's interesting is that engines last longer now, in the era of thin oils, than many decades back, in the era of thick oil.
+1
As per the OP's extra credit chemistry experiment, modern oils are far more likely to remain in grade, due to the better base-stock and additives these days....not so likely to shear, so performance is more predictable.
Electronic engine management doesn't see engines washed in raw fuel for a significant part of their operation.
From API.org, energy conserving oils is for the greater benefit seen on fleet vehicles, not for Your particular car:
Energy Conserving Designations
The bottom of the donut tells whether the oil has energy conserving properties when compared with a reference oil in an engine test.
Oils labeled as "Energy Conserving" have passed the test that measures an oil's ability to conserve energy. Widespread use of engine oils with this designation should result in an overall saving of fuel in the vehicle fleet as a whole, but a particular vehicle operator may not experience a fuel savings as a result of using these oils.
aehaas
Energy Conserving Designations
The bottom of the donut tells whether the oil has energy conserving properties when compared with a reference oil in an engine test.
Oils labeled as "Energy Conserving" have passed the test that measures an oil's ability to conserve energy. Widespread use of engine oils with this designation should result in an overall saving of fuel in the vehicle fleet as a whole, but a particular vehicle operator may not experience a fuel savings as a result of using these oils.
aehaas
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Again,I never said anything about *most people*. I was comparing thick/vs thin oil against protection. Please don`t ad-lib words into my posts that I didn`t write.
You have a funny definition of "ad-lib"? He quoted your nonsensical quotes verbatim. This is the Passenger Car Motor Oil section. If you want to talk about the requirements for race engines, there's a forum for that...
And I bet you`re one of those who feel the government should tell you "no no" if you want a 32 ounce soda. And once again I`ll tell you what I said before,I`m talking about thin vs thick,economy vs protection. Go run a sump full of WD40 in your car and see how well it holds up. It`s a lubricant,it`s thin,and seems to be right up your alley. And I`m not talking about race engines,I`m talking about sportscars/muscle cars. Open up an fsm and it`ll state right before your very eyes in black and white,"use a thicker oil if car is to be raced or driven for extended high speeds (usually a 40 or 50 weight).
But you are the one that stated start up wear is a myth that CAFE invented. I have a family member that has a Olds 442 and has used 10W-30 since the early 90's when he bought the car and babying any type of machinery is not his cup of tea but he does not bring it to the race track so 10W-30 works for him and his daily driving. So explain to me how "thick" would provide superior protection when you are not driving for extended high speeds or not racing. I would hope that such a prolific poster on here would understand that for the type of driving the majority of American motorist drive a 40 or 50 viscosity oil is some overkill. In your application it may be fine. I pointed out your choice in gear lubes because if I want to make a impact on my fuel economy that is where I am going to start not choosing a lighter oil.
10W30 is just fine for spirited driving. Hard core tracking/racing,I`d go for a 50 weight and nothing less. Experience in this comes from engine builders/tuners/racers that I personally know and engines I`ve helped mod and rebuild myself. Some people beat the snot out of their performance cars,and a fuel economy oil isn`t designed for said abuse. Thicker,racing-type oils fit the bill for this. My friend blew two VG30DETT motors racing on starburst 30 weight oil. After me,SpecialtyZ,and a few others told him to bump up to a 40 weight,he hasn`t damaged his current build which he races HARD every weekend. Car sees constant redline and still runs smooth as silk. Thin oils have their place,and fuel ecomomy is where it`s at. BuickGN can attest to this,as he builds his own motors and sees first hand what thicker oils are made for.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Again,I never said anything about *most people*. I was comparing thick/vs thin oil against protection. Please don`t ad-lib words into my posts that I didn`t write.
You have a funny definition of "ad-lib"? He quoted your nonsensical quotes verbatim. This is the Passenger Car Motor Oil section. If you want to talk about the requirements for race engines, there's a forum for that...
And I bet you`re one of those who feel the government should tell you "no no" if you want a 32 ounce soda. And once again I`ll tell you what I said before,I`m talking about thin vs thick,economy vs protection. Go run a sump full of WD40 in your car and see how well it holds up. It`s a lubricant,it`s thin,and seems to be right up your alley. And I`m not talking about race engines,I`m talking about sportscars/muscle cars. Open up an fsm and it`ll state right before your very eyes in black and white,"use a thicker oil if car is to be raced or driven for extended high speeds (usually a 40 or 50 weight).
But you are the one that stated start up wear is a myth that CAFE invented. I have a family member that has a Olds 442 and has used 10W-30 since the early 90's when he bought the car and babying any type of machinery is not his cup of tea but he does not bring it to the race track so 10W-30 works for him and his daily driving. So explain to me how "thick" would provide superior protection when you are not driving for extended high speeds or not racing. I would hope that such a prolific poster on here would understand that for the type of driving the majority of American motorist drive a 40 or 50 viscosity oil is some overkill. In your application it may be fine. I pointed out your choice in gear lubes because if I want to make a impact on my fuel economy that is where I am going to start not choosing a lighter oil.
10W30 is just fine for spirited driving. Hard core tracking/racing,I`d go for a 50 weight and nothing less. Experience in this comes from engine builders/tuners/racers that I personally know and engines I`ve helped mod and rebuild myself. Some people beat the snot out of their performance cars,and a fuel economy oil isn`t designed for said abuse. Thicker,racing-type oils fit the bill for this. My friend blew two VG30DETT motors racing on starburst 30 weight oil. After me,SpecialtyZ,and a few others told him to bump up to a 40 weight,he hasn`t damaged his current build which he races HARD every weekend. Car sees constant redline and still runs smooth as silk. Thin oils have their place,and fuel ecomomy is where it`s at. BuickGN can attest to this,as he builds his own motors and sees first hand what thicker oils are made for.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Hands up every country that has a CAFE ?
Hands up every country where xW-20s are common ?
Don't forget Canada.
We don't have CAFE, but our oil recommendations are almost always the same for the same vehicle sold in the U.S.
Hands up every country that has a CAFE ?
Hands up every country where xW-20s are common ?
Don't forget Canada.
We don't have CAFE, but our oil recommendations are almost always the same for the same vehicle sold in the U.S.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
