Cold Start Thickness - Dr. Haas

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: VW_TDI_PD
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

This is one item that I have not seen nailed down in any absolute manner.


You could send a pm to wjdell (sp?) on this forum as I think the vw diesel guys track fe ppm pretty close on tdiclub.com. I am almost certain they would have before and after used oil analysis examples of ppm fe for before and after daily use of an engine oil heater. It may shed some light on the subject but is not definitive for sure.


WJdell knows his stuff!

I would state a block heater totally lowers wear IMO.

My best used oil analysis ever was with Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5w40 in the winter... 17ppm of FE in 10,200 miles. Thats about as low as it gets for a PD motor. This was the first used oil analysis with the block heater. FE numbers were in the 20's before. Keep in mind the engine was full operating temp when started, according to the gauge.


I don't doubt a fully warm engine would reduce engine wear. I just wish I could put any faith in a used oil analysis. I don't trust them and I have good reason not to with my experiences. It would be very nice to have a clear cut answer as to how much a warm engine would reduce wear but I have 0 faith in a used oil analysis for wear.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: fsskier


Now, according to the big GM/Mobil/others study that was published in the SAE journal around 1980, the cylinder walls are starved for oil for a long time after startup with thicker oils in cold temperatures. When hot the situation changes from "a drop of oil every once in a while" to a continous shower of oil.
That study was the forerunner of the switch from 10wXXX oils to 5Wxxx oils. Their test results showed that cylinder wall wear was clearly much less with 5wXX oils, then with 10Wxx oils during the first 3 miles of operation


This sounds like strong evidence against running straight 30 weight oil.





My sons 91 Ranger 3.0 has had nothing but Mobil 1 10w30 in it and it's doing just fine. 330,000 miles on the truck with 10,000 mile OCIs. That kind of shoots that theory in the head.

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: fsskier


Now, according to the big GM/Mobil/others study that was published in the SAE journal around 1980, the cylinder walls are starved for oil for a long time after startup with thicker oils in cold temperatures. When hot the situation changes from "a drop of oil every once in a while" to a continous shower of oil.
That study was the forerunner of the switch from 10wXXX oils to 5Wxxx oils. Their test results showed that cylinder wall wear was clearly much less with 5wXX oils, then with 10Wxx oils during the first 3 miles of operation


This sounds like strong evidence against running straight 30 weight oil.





My sons 91 Ranger 3.0 has had nothing but Mobil 1 10w30 in it and it's doing just fine. 330,000 miles on the truck with 10,000 mile OCIs. That kind of shoots that theory in the head.


I haven't directly read the Mobil/GM study, but if it was 1980 it probably was mostly based on conventional oil. Your son has run one of the finest oils in the world for 33 OCI's. How does that disprove that 5w30 is better at start up though?

 

[tig1]

My sons Ranger couldn't have much wear with the age and miles on it. So with that history there's no way that I can see of proving the advantage goes to 5W oils.

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: tig1
My sons Ranger couldn't have much wear with the age and miles on it. So with that history there's no way that I can see of proving the advantage goes to 5W oils.


Well keep in mind that your son's first 25 OCI's were probably with PAO based Mobil 1!

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: saaber1
Originally Posted By: saaber1


You could send a pm to wjdell (sp?) on this forum as I think the vw diesel guys track fe ppm pretty close on tdiclub.com. I am almost certain they would have before and after UOA examples of ppm fe for before and after daily use of an engine oil heater. It may shed some light on the subject but is not definitive for sure.


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yeah, but how are you going to differentiate between shortening the warm up event for the engine vs. warm oil? I mean do we know if there was added wear due to cold oil flow ..warm block ..warm oil cold block. How about warm oil warm block. Where was the introduced heat reducing the wear? In terms of additive activation, fast flow, faster thermal expansion of parts?

It could be a tough test to run. I guess you could run two blueprinted engines side by side. Have them reach "steady state" and then switch one to substantially colder oil (let's say 40C and of the same effective viscosity - maybe) run them both for 100 hours and measure the wear.

Those that suggest that hot oil is the reason, can't resolve the fact that the upper pistons should reach additive activation levels quite early with whatever oil is used to contact the cylinder walls. The cylinders themselves should be warm much earlier in the warmup event than the wear curve indicates.

It confounds reasoning.


Edit and in short: If steady state wear could be achieved by just heating the oil, then everyone with an oil warmer should be able to experience virtually zero wear. I don't think this has been proven to be true.


Take a look at the Fe on the three heated samples here compared to the non-heated ones: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/schaeffer-s9000-in-a-vw-1-9-pd.106854/


Here we see reduced noise. We still don't know if it's the heated oil, or the reduced heating time due to shortening the warming event. Now do a block warmer without heating the oil and see if the same results occur. Do both and see if even more reduction is achieved.

See what I mean? Also, if I were to do the experiment in a lab, the oil would be introduced at 100C so that only surface resistance to any additive activation would be taking place.

While I like the reductions you've shown, no one will accept it on just UOA alone. Radio tracer/ferrography/PQ index ..etc.

 

[tig1]

I owned the truck up until 4 years ago when I gave it to him. It had 185,000 miles on it then. He does a lot of driving, as you can see, to and from work and some of his OCIs have exceeded the 12,000 mark. So at least 150,000 miles on his Ranger has had newer formulation of Mobil 1 used in it. The Mobil 1 oils today seem to be as good as the Mobil 1 oils I started off with 31 years ago. Maybe better.

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: tig1
My sons Ranger couldn't have much wear with the age and miles on it. So with that history there's no way that I can see of proving the advantage goes to 5W oils.


I think the 0W or 5W oil has its real advantage where people make short frequent trips in cold climates. Many of these 300,000 mile cars are driven on nice long runs without frequent cold start stop cycles. When I think back when I lived on Long Island and how winter trips were, stop start, stop start, then sit in traffic. Come to think of it all the trips were like that. When I moved out west I saw how much easier life is for an engine, I bet my cars will last 300,000+ miles and have less than half the wear caused by living in Nassau or Queens.

Front brakes typically lasted 25,000 miles, and I'm easy on a car. I checked brakes recently with 48,000 miles on them and they're still good, I'll have another look in another 10,000 miles. I was shocked.

AD

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Originally Posted By: tig1
My sons Ranger couldn't have much wear with the age and miles on it. So with that history there's no way that I can see of proving the advantage goes to 5W oils.


I think the 0W or 5W oil has its real advantage where people make short frequent trips in cold climates.

AD


That, I actually agree with. Though I think the main advantage is in fuel economy during the warmup cycle. I would have no problem running the correct 0w-20 in the TL if I lived in a cold climate and did mostly short trips. Luckily for me, I live in a warm to hot climate and do many long trips which is where my straight 30wt shines.

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Originally Posted By: tig1
My sons Ranger couldn't have much wear with the age and miles on it. So with that history there's no way that I can see of proving the advantage goes to 5W oils.


I think the 0W or 5W oil has its real advantage where people make short frequent trips in cold climates.

AD


Luckily for me, I live in a warm to hot climate and do many long trips which is where my straight 30wt shines.


Well now that you've mentioned living in the hotter CA climates a 30wt would be a wise oil choice for sure! I came from the East Coast, and spent a lot of time in the Adirondack mountains while in school. That is where our thinking is different, and I now see your POV. We had -30*F weather, and a few times I heard some God Awful noises during the morning start. Switching to a 0w30 oil helped a lot. Those memories last a lifetime, and moving out west and not seeing all the congestion is a big culture shock for me. I see some changes in OCI's and overall maintenance coming for me. I like it!

AD

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN

I would have no problem running the correct 0w-20 in the TL if I lived in a cold climate and did mostly short trips. Luckily for me, I live in a warm to hot climate and do many long trips which is where my straight 30wt shines.


Can I ask what Acura specs for your vehicle in the manual? Has it been performance modified?
Just wondering what the pros are to running a straight 30 weight vs say a GC 0W-30?

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: BuickGN

I would have no problem running the correct 0w-20 in the TL if I lived in a cold climate and did mostly short trips. Luckily for me, I live in a warm to hot climate and do many long trips which is where my straight 30wt shines.


Can I ask what Acura specs for your vehicle in the manual? Has it been performance modified?
Just wondering what the pros are to running a straight 30 weight vs say a GC 0W-30?


5w-20 in the US manual. It was 5w30 in the same engine a few model years back.

No engine mods, I learned the hard way not to do that to a daily driver lol.

When I made the switch I was doing tons of freeway miles. For a while the car would literally drive a mile to the freeway, go for 4 hours straight, get off the freeway, and sit for a few days until the next time. Ambient temps on a summer day were 100-112 degrees. I can't think of a better match for a synthetic straight weight.

I would like to see the cold specs of the ACD straight 30wt vs GC. I would bet the ACD has the lower 40C viscosity, not that that's a cold spec but it is a pretty average morning startup temp for me.

I've heard conflicting stories on the GC. Some say it has no VIIs. Some say it does. If it does have VIIs, that would be an advantage of the straight 30. I like the ACD for the higher ZDDP levels, not that it's needed with the OHC and roller valvetrain design. I believe the HTHS is very close between the two.

Believe it or not, one thing that steered me away from the GC was it's higher operating viscosity. I brought the TL up to a straight weight in small increments, factory fill to SSO 0w30 to 5w30 to ACD. Even though I believe my theories are sound I wasn't going to risk too much too quick when I'm making a $700 payment every month. This is where I have much respect for Dr Haas, running an oil 3 grades lower in a car that costs more than most houses.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
I think the 0W or 5W oil has its real advantage where people make short frequent trips in cold climates.


Well, short or long trips ..they work well in extreme cold at starting temperatures.

Lower viscs work better in short trips since you're never going to reach operating temps to reduce the viscosity in any meaningful way.

At rational human comfort temps ..it still applies. A 20 weight simulates a 40 weight xx miles/minutes sooner.

None of that may alter any wear aspect. It may provide varied levels of fuel economy differences.

 

[ADFD1]

I guess Dr. Haas is away. I read through his work again, and unless I have a problem understanding (which I do at times). Anything 0W-xx is starting off closer to that desired perfect 10 at 100C. Based on that, someone who knows nothing about oils and lubes would think (after reading his article) starting closer to 10 would get you to 10 sooner. Getting to 10 sooner is better. Again, all I am stating here is what I got out of his article. I am not stating if it is right or wrong, just giving what I comprehended from reading it.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yeah but ..........hmmmm

Here's what you need to post so that we can move on

"While I fully understand that 0w has no relationship to true viscosity, it does give the best performance in EXTREME cold. The actual viscosity of the fluid, talking from one 0w fluid to the next ..let's say 0w-20 and 0w-40, is RADICALLY DIFFERENT ..and I also fully understand that these RADICAL DIFFERENCES will be THE MOST PERCEIVABLE/MEASURABLE effects in terms of fuel economy and other things like engine requirements where a given viscosity is recommended".

Can you mesh with that?

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Which is why even at 75*F a 0W-xx or 5W-xx oil will give better start-up protection than a 10W-xx, 15W-xx, or 20W-xx..

AD
How so?


Based on Dr. Haas's research, and phone chats with various reps from Pennzoil, Redline, and RP, and Amsoil.
I can say from personal experience on hunderds of assorted vehicles that where proper temps allow "S.F Bay Area" and 17.5 years at one shop and 4 years at another that you will never tell the difference between straight 30 and multi visc. You want oil thick enough to protect in the harshest conditions you will realistically encounter but not too thick as to cost you Horsepower . Pick the oil that will be best for the operating conditions and you will be doing good for the engine.

 

[Drew2000]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Originally Posted By: tig1
My sons Ranger couldn't have much wear with the age and miles on it. So with that history there's no way that I can see of proving the advantage goes to 5W oils.


I think the 0W or 5W oil has its real advantage where people make short frequent trips in cold climates. Many of these 300,000 mile cars are driven on nice long runs without frequent cold start stop cycles. When I think back when I lived on Long Island and how winter trips were, stop start, stop start, then sit in traffic. Come to think of it all the trips were like that. When I moved out west I saw how much easier life is for an engine, I bet my cars will last 300,000+ miles and have less than half the wear caused by living in Nassau or Queens.

Front brakes typically lasted 25,000 miles, and I'm easy on a car. I checked brakes recently with 48,000 miles on them and they're still good, I'll have another look in another 10,000 miles. I was shocked.

AD


You hit the nail on the head. Since I started to work in NYC this year, my little SUV gets driven about 2.5 miles each way to the LIRR station, maybe a few longer errands on weekends. Running Mobil 1 0w20 now....we'll see.

How do you like WA compared to Nass/Queens? Been out that way a few times both east and west WA, lovely country esp. the Pend Oriele (sp?) area.

 

[Gary Allan]

The elephant is invisible here too

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yeah but ..........hmmmm

Here's what you need to post so that we can move on

"While I fully understand that 0w has no relationship to true viscosity, it does give the best performance in EXTREME cold. The actual viscosity of the fluid, talking from one 0w fluid to the next ..let's say 0w-20 and 0w-40, is RADICALLY DIFFERENT ..and I also fully understand that these RADICAL DIFFERENCES will be THE MOST PERCEIVABLE/MEASURABLE effects in terms of fuel economy and other things like engine requirements where a given viscosity is recommended".

Can you mesh with that?

I guess. LOL Honestly most of this seems to be all theory, and is really hard to prove or disprove.

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
Which is why even at 75*F a 0W-xx or 5W-xx oil will give better start-up protection than a 10W-xx, 15W-xx, or 20W-xx..

AD
How so?


Based on Dr. Haas's research, and phone chats with various reps from Pennzoil, Redline, and RP, and Amsoil.
I can say from personal experience on hunderds of assorted vehicles that where proper temps allow "S.F Bay Area" and 17.5 years at one shop and 4 years at another that you will never tell the difference between straight 30 and multi visc. You want oil thick enough to protect in the harshest conditions you will realistically encounter but not too thick as to cost you Horsepower . Pick the oil that will be best for the operating conditions and you will be doing good for the engine.


Now that's some sound advise and exactly what I'm doing.

AD