Can thicker oil cause damage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I tend to take the inverted view on the CAFE reference. It's obvious that engines survive just fine in either environment on either diet of higher vs. lower visc. Physics just doesn't take a vacation at the 200 mile limit. Everyone looks at visc in isolation and anoint it with magical properties.


Quite right. If the engine never warms up to operating temperatures, 5w-20 isn't going to "thin out like mad" or anything catastrophic, and wouldn't do so at temperature, either. People have to look at their application and conditions, really. The charts that were, and occasionally still are, in manuals are there for a reason. Many performance cars, particularly those without a U.S./Canadian origin, specify thicker oils for high temperature, high speed sustained driving.

A run at 85 mph for an hour has a far different effect on oil temperatures (and therefore viscosity) than does a two block trip to the grocery store. For someone who engages in a lot of such short trips, I suspect 5w-20 would be perfect. My trips are rarely that short. Winter is more of an issue here, so the first number is crucial. In my Audi, I use 5w-40 or -30 in the winter, or even a 0w-xx in the winter. Even though it's not speced for it, I suspect a 5w-20 or 0w-20 would be fine in the winter, especially if I did a lot of short trips. There is no way, however, that I'd use it in my Audi on a sustained, high speed run in the summer.

There simply is no magical solution. CAFE has its requirements, and testing to meet CAFE doesn't always translate into a perfect choice in real world applications.
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Well, I ve had no problems anytime I tried a thicker oil, but I have read alot of Hypotheticals on here from your starter wont be able to turn the engine over and your engine will knock for the first 15 minutes of start-up till the oil gets warm enough to move. Mostly propaganda put out by manual followers, too skeered to try the thick stuff.


How come all the cold oil experts live in Florida? (j/k)

As a side point, my old cast iron I6 sounded quite "raw" at 0F, with a myriad of noises not found @ full temp, but this is probably related to cold, not thick oil. (or is that the same)
This "Expert" lived in Florida for 6 years, I spent 35 in the mountains of Pennsylvania, around heavy equipment and coal trucks, running "thick" oil, in many times below 0. The Fuel was more a problem, then the oil ever was. The oil, sometimes 40HD used in the Detroits or 15w40 used in the other newer engines was used in the gasoline engines as well as the trucks with no problems. If straight 40HD didnt freeze and was still able to pump, I think you see my point, it does not get much thicker than that.
 
I disagree. The HTHS data is over a decade old. No new newer studies using the 20 grades oils used in todays cars have been done testing HTHS. The old indexed study showed that non-fully formulated oils needed to have HTHS over 3.3 or so. Since then MANY oils run HTHS in the 2.5 to 3.0 range and are used in big trucks towing 8,000 lbs in Arizona (Ford Expeditions for example). I would bet that the oil used by the general public in most cars of today have HTHS of less than 3.0 if you take into account the thin oils used and fuel dilution for so many short trips.

The test of time has shown that HTHS is not an important number with todays formulations.

aehaas
 
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
"It's only for a short period of time till the oil warms up"

This should be clarified. Your coolant may only take a few minutes to warm up to the normal operating temperature but your oil will take up to 30 minutes to get up to say 200 F. It will be somewhat faster if you start and go immediately into WOT, wide open throttle.

aehaas


I meant in the context that someone mentioned a thin oil like 0W20 is thicker when cold than a 5W40 is at some higher temperature, but since it is transitional I didn't think that meant a thicker oil is going to provide as good splash lubrication during warm up all else being equal. If that makes sense.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
or was it truely sustained hot running and still got oil starvation at the cylinder walls at extreme RPM and load?

As far as I know: yes
The oil was up to temp, sustained high RPM.
 
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
The test of time has shown that HTHS is not an important number with todays formulations.

aehaas

ACEA, lubricant industry, and auto-makers disagree.
 
I think he's saying that <3.0 HTHS oils have not resulted in any mass premature retirement of engines.
 
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
The old indexed study showed that non-fully formulated oils needed to have HTHS over 3.3 or so.

I didn't take the meaning of the papers that way though.
What I mean is not that >3.3 was needed, but that the wear line on the graph was flat by about then.
The paper didn't seem to be critical of lower (than 3.3) HTHS or resultant excessive wear, except for the tests involving HTHS down to ca. 1.6.
 
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
The test of time has shown that HTHS is not an important number with todays formulations.

aehaas

ACEA, lubricant industry, and auto-makers disagree.


I don't agree either.
The HTHS vis spec' is much more than just an oil's viscosity at , it is determined under pressure and therefore correlates with actual operational viscosity in an engine much more closely than viscosity measured kinematically (just gravity) which is unfortunately how the 100C vis' spec' is made. That's one criticism of the SAE grading system which puts more emphasis on the later rather than the former.

In other words, oils with the same HTHS vis' spec's have similar operational viscosities at normal operating temperatures regardless of their k'vis 100C spec's.

It's the reason why, all things being equal (such as add' packs and base oil chemistries), fuel economy tracks closely with the rise and fall of the HTHS vis' and not directly with the k'vis 100C spec'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom