Originally Posted by Shannow
No, the pile of failed engines and the junkyards IS pure strawman argument.
Nobody (at least here) has claimed that 20s destroy engines...that's YOUR argument in defence of your position that they don't result in increased wear, where the OEMs, oil and additive companies are ALL saying that it pushes that way, and they need to additise accordingly.
{pasted here out of original order} ===>Without meaning to take this personal...you claimed earlier in the thread that "flow" was important, and thinner oils provided more of it, and then later tah if the flow was the same that protection would be the same...it's not lawyering, and conjecture....engineering is a solid science.
Not taken personally, nor am I offended, though with a night's sleep, I lament that this discussion has gotten so "hot"... When I read this, I now see what your're saying, but also see that the "empty yards" still isn't a strawman... Bear with me, please. First, I have carefully reviewed my posts in this thread, and a couple others. I didn't say that 20wt oils don't result in increased wear. My focus was on the end result, thus my use of the "empty junkyards" argument. I didn't say something foolish like, "you'll see, there will be no wear..."
In contrast, you're focusing on "more wear," a narrower, more precise idea than "end results." Z06's mention of Honda's term "acceptable wear" is what brought it into focus for me. The vague imprecision of debating "more wear" vs "end results" quickly allows discussion to devolve into endless, "tastes great -- less filling" (old American beer commercial, if you're not familiar...) matches. So, in broad strokes and vague terms (wish I could do better...) the "acceptable wear" idea sufficiently ties together the idea that 20wts allow some greater wear, but not enough that we're seeing bad "end results" -- large numbers of engines failing before they should ("empty junkyards"...).
Second, respectfully, I didn't say that anyone here was claiming that "20s destroy engines." I have mentioned that fellow I call Honing Oil Guy I encountered in back around 2000. His positions really were extreme and plainly revealed nothing to support them but dark fear. Ignoring his "extremity," from today's perspective, ironically he was partially right, but for the wrong reasons.
In contrast, your positions (and the others saying the same) regarding 20wt are totally different, in that they ARE founded upon actual facts that are supportable and make sense (though I still do have a fair number of questions -- I'll get to that). And I acknowledge that you're NOT saying that 20wt will destroy engines.
So, IF I were saying that people here were claiming 20wt was destroying engines, that, tied to the "empty junkyards" WOULD be a "strawman". But that was NOT my intended use of the "empty junkyards" point. Rather, I offer that observation, SOLELY to point out that, whatever IS going on inside engines using 20wt oils, it is not causing "fatal" damage before the owners remove the vehicles from service for other reasons, at least not frequently enough that its getting any particular attention. "Empty junkyards" is simply a colorful way to highlight the lack of evidence of frequent early failures of 20wt engines, nothing more.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Lower MOFT leads to more asperity contact, and the requirement for FMs to be included in the additive package.
The manufacturers STATE that they have pushed the stribeck curve to the left, and require additives to CONTROL the wear in these regimes, as well as engine tests in the API to increasingly operate in boundary lubrication regimes. Subaru and Ford actually pull power from their engines, when they are used inside the full factory performance envelope...to prevent damage occurring...
Even the API base oil interchange guidelines tell you that this directionality exists....you can qualify an oil family on the thinner grade, and then all the engine wear tests on the thicker versions of the family. You cannot do the reverse, if you lower the viscosity over the test oil, you need to do the engine tests.
How is the engineering so hard to accept ?
Easy friend!!! It's NOT hard to accept -- it's one of the main reasons I'm here -- to pick up such information. So a question, if I may. In rough terms, what sort of margin do you believe exists between Honda's idea of "acceptable wear" and the point at which engines really are going to start showing actual, repair-required wear damage from using 20wt oils instead of the heavier ones?
Originally Posted by Shannow
In an engineering and project management sense, I have seen a couple of court cases..
There's a reason I walked away from the legal profession.... It's not all the lawyers fault though -- corporate "thinking" feeds the problem too. I once got a $60k attorney fee from a large ins co we all know because they insisted on fighting a pointless two-year battle over a clearly reasonable $1500 medical bill. My all-time favorite: Doctor's deposition answer: "OK, no, I didn't check for vitals -- his head was in a five gallon bucket at the end of the table." You can guess the lawyer's stupid question. I'm happy to be back in the world of the living -- and sane...
