Can 0w20 handle high RPMs

Pennzoil motor oil
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by y_p_w
...
In many ways this forum is a lousy place to discuss these practical aspects because many are looking at oil analysis results with a fine tooth comb looking for the tiniest thing that shows that they chose right or wrong when it comes to oil selection.


Some great points here, especially that one. One tendency I have noticed is that the discussions often lean to what seem to be, in reality, pretty unrealistic extremes. Nobody, it seems, wants to say, "hey, I drive wimpy -- let's talk about it."
wink.gif
Back in reality, I drive a Prius. I don't drive especially "wimpy", but again, it's a Prius. The new one is substantially more responsive than the old 04 was, especially in "Power" mode. Yes, it actually has that! Kinda oxymoronic -- but its there... It doesn't morph the car into a Corvette, but it does give you a 100% of torque shot from 0 rpm and up, which is pretty impressive.

Still, this car will rarely see anything but me, a suitcase and maybe a couple boxes of books as its load. I drive around Florida, which gets hot in the summer, and cruise 80-ish, but on the other hand, I have few cold, cold starts. And most of all, maybe, the computer limits the engine to "only" 5500 rpm (skeptics: I put a ScanGauge-II on my dash, tapping data from the OBD port, including rpm, since yes, the cars don't have tachs from the factory). Despite the OP's old-fashioned idea about "high rpms" by today's standards, 5500 is pretty relaxed. And by "seat of pants," this car does not ever feel stressed -- it's butter smooth at full-throttle and max 5500 rpm -- impressive for a 1.8L

But the point is this: I just don't see myself making a straight-faced case that my use of the car is "high stress" neither in terms of speed nor "extreme" loading. All this said, I did ask Shannow, if he's got the time, to assess what a good higher vis option would be for this car, were it needed. I wonder whether an engine like this, with such a low, computer-enforced 5500 rev limit has much shearing potential? If not, what to look at next. Hmmm, looks like my oil compulsive disorder is back.
48.gif
 
Originally Posted by ekpolk
No, I disagree. First, that's not what I've been alleging. Second, as one of my flight instructors puts it, the best weather observation and forecast information system available is -- a window! I look at lots of weather data before I fly, but often, in seconds, my eyes tell me what I need to know. Similarly, I can plainly see that there aren't yet legions of cars dying early because they were fed 20wt oil. Do they also have some more wear than they would have had with a 30wt? Looks like that may be so for lots of them. But if so, does it really matter? I guess each of us would then have to define "really matters" for ourselves...

There might be ways to quantify that, whether it's a compression test or checking the rate of oil loss. There are engines that are driven to the ground where they're starting to burn oil, have lousy fuel economy, etc. but otherwise still run to the point where it's cheaper than buying a new or even a used car. Maybe it won't pass state inspection/smog. But for the most part cars are replaced for some other reason than the engine is toast.

That being said, most people don't replace their vehicles because an engine failed. And even failures aren't beyond repair if one really wants to rebuild an engine, replace a worn camshaft, etc.
 
Originally Posted by ekpolk
And I am NOT an engineer.

For my part, I have a law degree and twenty-five years practicing the dark art of argumentation -- it's how you write effective appellate briefs and structure courtroom cases.


This explains a lot about your responses - and you seem to twist things up to support strawman viewpoints that can't be backed up with data, so they are really not that effective and need some work (ie, some actual technical backup info). I bet you don't even read any of the technical links (like the one JAG just posted) to get the real story on what effect viscosity has on lubrication and wear. There have been many of these discussions with lots of supporting links with data, not endless strawman antidotes. Still waiting for the technical paper links showing that thinner oils provide the same level of wear protection under the same conditions besides totally benign driving.

If people don't care if their engines wear a bit more with thinner oil and it still "runs good" when they get rid of them, then that's their prerogative - good for them. They can run sewing machine oil if they want, it's not anyone else's vehicle. That might be kind of cool to see actually - any volunteers?
 
I wouldn't use a thin oil like 0w20 if I expected to be running high rpms. I think they are already pushing the envelope with 20 weight oils as it is under normal circumstances.
I'd probably just throw in an Xw40.
 
Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Get out of here with irradiated engine components and actual data about wear rates. We have anecdotes. That's apparently sufficient.
Originally Posted by JAG
Here is a link to an interesting tribology paper: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847



Do you have the actual paper, not just an abstract and summary of conclusions? It would be interesting to see their discussions and analysis of their data and conclusions.

And on the other hand, we have Toyota now specifying 0w-16 in one of its "bread and butter" cars, the Camry. I get that all the car makers want to get their average fuel economy down as low as they can. All this suggests what seems pretty obvious -- Toyota itself (and I'm sure Honda, Ford and the others) has done voluminous research, most of which outsiders will never see, that supports their decision to go with 0w-16. There's simply too much at stake for them to recklessly go with the 0w-16.

I'll also add that an anecdote is "a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident." That's the dictionary definition straight from Merriam Webster. The "empty junkyards" thing isn't an "anecdote" at all. It's merely a colorful way to illustrate the the lack of evidence showing that thin oil induced wear is causing cars to die before they would have otherwise. Remember the general jury instruction, "you may consider the evidence, ...[or] the lack of evidence in reaching your verdict." There is a huge lack of evidence proving that thin-oil wear is ending cars' lives early, assuming it exists. The study summary you provided shows that there may be some wear, but says nothing regarding the long-term impact of the wear they found. Do you believe that five or ten years from now, we're going to all be talking about the big Toyota 16wt oil disaster? Seriously, do you?
 
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by PimTac
And there it is. Straw against straw. Neither side has definite proof.


The dozens of engineering test papers (with scary plots) posted in these discussions. That is not strawman proof, but the "no piles of smoked engines in the junkyard" certainly is. If there wasn't any wear difference due to viscosity all those technical papers would prove that's the case.

No, it's still not a strawman; repetition doesn't make it so. What the empty junkyards establish -- plainly -- is that whatever wear the studies qualify and quantify, it is insufficient to cause any appreciable number of cars to make an early trip to the junkyard. Nobody here has yet offered a factual rebuttal to the "empty junkyards" fact. Trying to slap a label on it (strawman, baloney, whatever you prefer) is just name-calling. Facts that prove it wrong might work, but so far, none have been offered. Another form of deafening silence.


How do you know exactly what level of wear was on every engine in every junk yard in the country? How do you know why each vehicle was put in the junk yard? How do you know what oils and what maintenance was done on each of those vehicles. These kinds of questions (which there is no answer) is why using the "empty junk yard" strawman argument is totaly rediculous and antidotal.
 
Originally Posted by ekpolk
And on the other hand, we have Toyota now specifying 0w-16 in one of its "bread and butter" cars, the Camry. I get that all the car makers want to get their average fuel economy down as low as they can. All this suggests what seems pretty obvious -- Toyota itself (and I'm sure Honda, Ford and the others) has done voluminous research, most of which outsiders will never see, that supports their decision to go with 0w-16. There's simply too much at stake for them to recklessly go with the 0w-16.


As already mentioned, the engine mechanical design (bearing dimensions) is changing to run 0W-16. Anti-wear formulations are also evolving/improving to help curb wear when metal-to-metal ckntact does occur. They have come to the point where simply "back specing" thinner and thinner oil in older engines isn't going to work with any confidence.

Originally Posted by ekpolk
I'll also add that an anecdote is "a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident." That's the dictionary definition straight from Merriam Webster. The "empty junkyards" thing isn't an "anecdote" at all. It's merely a colorful way to illustrate the the lack of evidence showing that thin oil induced wear is causing cars to die before they would have otherwise.


The "empty junk yards" is purely antidotal because it's a story/tale/yarn used as a strawman argument that has absolutely zero evidence to back up the claim. Would a story or tale hold up in court with no evidence to prove it was true?
wink.gif


Synonyms for anecdote: story, tale, yarn
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

This explains a lot about your responses - and you seem to twist things up to support strawman viewpoints that can't be backed up with data, so they are really not that effective and need some work (ie, some actual technical backup info).
This explains a lot about YOUR posts -- the only facts that matter are the ones you want to look at... I try to look at as many as I can find and evaluate them fairly, whether they support what I'm thinking at the time or not. Which brings me to:

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I bet you don't even read any of the technical links (like the one JAG just posted) to get the real story on what effect viscosity has on lubrication and wear.
Well, I'm sorry, you just lost that bet. It was originally posted by JAG, but here, pasted in by Bryanccfshr. In fact, upon opening it, I noticed immediately that the link wasn't exactly what was promised. Instead, it was just an abstract and a summary of conclusions. I wanted to see the details and read the analysis. Y'all are pretty quick to demand studies, but only provide abstracts yourself...

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
There have been many of these discussions with lots of supporting links with data, not endless strawman antidotes.
Like I haven't been a member of BITOG for fifteen years? Like after a quarter century of duking it out in courtrooms all over Florida, I don't know what constitutes acceptable and logical proof of a position when the chips are down? All you've done, repeatedly, is try to sidestep the obvious with inaccurately name-calling and labeling. You've yet to rebut my position. In court, that would be called conceding the point.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Still waiting for the technical paper links showing that thinner oils provide the same level of wear protection under the same conditions besides totally benign driving.
And now you both twist my words and; having accused me of not going to and reading material at a relevant link, when I did; you obviously don't read what I actually just posted. If you had, you might have noticed that I essentially conceded, at a minimum, that there probably is, frequently, what is called "acceptable wear" by Honda. I did still question whether this would be the case in all engines, particularly those whose pattern operation would naturally favor thin oils.

Beyond that, again, you yourself pointed out that wear, to the extent it exists, is called acceptable wear by Honda. Acceptable in that it doesn't cause cars to be removed from service prematurely. You can call this a straw man (incorrectly), or an anecdote (also incorrectly) or an antidote (even more incorrectly...) -- you can throw whatever other distraction you like into the air, but it won't change anything. As you said, Honda calls the wear "ACCEPTABLE". It's only "acceptable" because it doesn't result in cars dying early deaths, and filling junkyards with -- evidence.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
If people don't care if their engines wear a bit more with thinner oil and it still "runs good" when they get rid of them, then that's their prerogative - good for them. They can run sewing machine oil if they want, it's not anyone else's vehicle. That might be kind of cool to see actually - any volunteers?
Tell you what -- I'll do the sewing machine oil -- if you agree to run on straight Motor Honey (if they still make that stuff) at the same time. It would be interesting to see whose engine blows up first. . .
33.gif
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

The "empty junk yards" is purely antidotal because it's a story/tale/yarn used as a strawman argument that has absolutely zero evidence to back up the claim. Would a story or tale hold up in court with no evidence to prove it was true?
wink.gif


Synonyms for anecdote: story, tale, yarn


The "empty junk yard" is none of those. It is the simple lack of evidence. Gutting this of the fine detail, in court, I would allege that there's been no evidence produced that the use of 20wt oils is causing cars to be removed from service earlier than they would have been otherwise. I move for a "directed verdict." The judge, noticing as we have here, that you have offered no evidence to the contrary, grants a directed verdict, and you lose without the jury even deliberating.

You simply can't cover up a lack of evidence with name-calling. If it's been pointed out before, that doesn't make it an anecdote (or story or tale or yarn). That means you've been on notice for a longer time, and STILL don't have a rebuttal. . .
 
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.

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 ?

Nobody has said that it will lead to a pile of failed engines, other than those who use that particular strawman to try to manufacture an argument that there's zero increased wear.

In an engineering and project management sense, I have seen a couple of court cases...lawyers don't argue engineering facts (Funniest ??? one was a $27M construction project that was really a $35M project, but the Contractor wanted to win the bid, and legal up...lawyers at the first site meeting, arguing that although they were digging on a floodplain, 50 feet frim the river, the hitting of water was a latent condition, as the contract did not mention groundwater...the job ended up $35M after the contractor got booted...legal fees ended up $60M)

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.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ekpolk
The "empty junk yard" is none of those. It is the simple lack of evidence.


Exactly, the "empty junk yards" has zero evidence to back up the claim. That's why it's a total antidotal strawman arguement. It has no hard data or facts to back up the claim. It's a story to fit with a misguided viewpoint. Sorry, that's what it really is.

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Gutting this of the fine detail, in court, I would allege that there's been no evidence produced that the use of 20wt oils is causing cars to be removed from service earlier than they would have been otherwise. I move for a "directed verdict." The judge, noticing as we have here, that you have offered no evidence to the contrary, grants a directed verdict, and you lose without the jury even deliberating.


That allegement and argument would be a total failure in court against tons of technical information presented of controlled engineering test data showing that higher viscosiy results in less engine wear. Let me remind you that has been my focus of the "thin vs thick" arguement since this discussion started, and in every T vs T thread I participate in - nothing else. I've never said using thinner oil is going to "destroy engines" and result in junk yards full of dead cars. Just want to make that clear.

The judge would simply ask you for some real data to back up your claim, and if you couldn't come up with some real evidence other than the "empty junk yard" antidotal story he'd have to believe the tons of engineering data that was presented showing wear is reduced with increased viscosity.
 
In "strawman's theory," yes, thinner oil could result in more wear. However, I yet have to see any evidence of this in real life, as modern gasoline engines are designed to tolerate pretty much any commercially available SAE viscosity grade.

There is a whole thread on this, which keeps evolving:

Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/Mobil 1 0W-40): Final verdict

You are probably better off considering things like base-oil quality (PAO, GTL, etc.), initial TBN, and TBN retention (do you have a mixed Ca/Mg detergent package or a very strong Ca package?) instead of the viscosity.

You may obviously benefit from thicker oil if you are racing or towing though, where you push the performance limits of the engine and oil.
 
Now to explain the correlation between the above...

Back in the day, and certainly using the steam turbines as an example, "lubrication" was full blown hydrodynamic...parts didn't touch, never touched, and were kept separated by the film of oil that was maintained by the bearing dimensions, the shaft loads and surface velocities, forming an "oil wedge" that provided absolute parts separation....60,000+ hours between even opening the bearings for a look.

This is (well was) called the "zero wear" regime.

Gearboxes on the other hand, live in an environment where there is no distribution of load over a large oil film, there is at best line contact (expanded through herzian stresses), and the surface asperities touch...weld, and then gall and seize.

Except in the case of gears, it was identified that certain "oily" was the terminology additives stopped that from happening. Those additives react with the surfaces, form metallic soaps, and allow them to slide without pick-up and seizure...those are "wear controlling" additives. They stop the immediate catastrophic failure (pile of failed engines for example) and allow the compartment to achieve a long life, with managed wear...that's the managed wear regime...not zero wear.

Now the OEMs are offering, by their own statements, that they are managing wear in the interests of fuel economy and CO2 emissions...it's a sound ENGINEERING COMPROMISE.

As to what oil to put in your Toyota ?

Use what's in the manual...it won't leave you stranded
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
In "strawman's theory," yes, thinner oil could result in more wear. However, I yet have to see any evidence of this in real life ...


Has anyone here conducted very controlled engineering tests to verify one way or the other what effect viscosity has on wear? If not, then any antidotal evidence is just that. That's why all these SAE and similar expert engineering studies are valid, and the "empty junk yards" story is just that.
 
The other side of the strawman arguement is the lack of vehicles in the junkyard using 20W-50. I'm using 15W-60 in my Volvo, apparently it should be dead by now, and consuming more fuel than a V8. On the other hand I'm running SAE30 in my motorcycle which should be on 20W-50. Am I worried ? No.
 
Silk, good point...the junkyards in the rest of the world MUST be overflowing at this point...

Funny that in Oz, 1 litre per 5,000km (1 qt per 3,000 miles) was considered to be excessive, and evidence of a worn engine....while US OEM's profess that it's simply "normal"...but a really good reason to reduce Phosphorous levels).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
Silk, good point...the junkyards in the rest of the world MUST be overflowing at this point...

Funny that in Oz, 1 litre per 5,000km (1 qt per 3,000 miles) was considered to be excessive, and evidence of a worn engine....while US OEM's profess that it's simply "normal"...but a really good reason to reduce Phosphorous levels).


Most of the US automakers say that even 1 qt per 1000 miles is "normal".
eek.gif
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
"It's done for one reason, and one reason only...and the result is entirely satisfactory for the anticipated lifetime of the vehicle."

I dunno, Is it "entirely satisfactory" to have to add a quart of oil in the middle of the OCI because the piston rings are worn?




There are many factors and reasons for worn piston rings. Oil is not the only blame.


Yes there are piston ring mites but you can easily put an ounce of Permethrin in the crankcase.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Silk, good point...the junkyards in the rest of the world MUST be overflowing at this point...

Funny that in Oz, 1 litre per 5,000km (1 qt per 3,000 miles) was considered to be excessive, and evidence of a worn engine....while US OEM's profess that it's simply "normal"...but a really good reason to reduce Phosphorous levels).

Hmm, it sounds like the thin-oil phobia (is there a word for that?) in Oz is coming from experiences of high oil consumption. Penrite 40-70 and such there all points to that.

In my experience, yes, thin oil caused high oil consumption but it was due to worn valve-stem oil seals, not the piston rings. It was resolved once I replaced the valve-stem oil seals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Toyota V8 - TGMO 0W20 alternative with PAO?
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
madeej11
K
  • Locked
Cermax 0w20 observations (More like an 0w16?)
Replies
12
Views
6K
Klumas
A
  • Locked
Ano(the)r 0w20 - FA20 Engine Thread
2
Replies
28
Views
19K
kschachn
R
  • Locked
"Doesn't burn a drop of oil" ??
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
43K
harry j
AEHaas
The Frequently Quoted “Taxi Study” SAE 2005-01-3818
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
ragtoplvr
Back
Top Bottom