Confessions of a Recovering Thickie

[TiGeo]

That's a good example of when wear becomes much higher than the "benign" realm in the graph in post 125, and a UOA only seeing 5u wear particles and below won't give a good indication of a problem until the wear is pretty extreme where there's also a bunch of metal glitter in the oil filter. It was easier to see because you had a lot of UOA history on the engine. If there was no mechanical noises with a wear issue like that going on, and someone just did a random UOA or two, they may not have even been that alarmed that something was really going on because they didn't have enough UOA history on the engine to see it.

100%.

 

[tired]

I am using it myself at the moment. No argument there.

If you've been using quality Euro oils with stringent certifications, why do you need it? Did you purchase a used car with an uncertain history?

 

[Hohn]

First, this chart would indicate that a 5w-30 would be a better choice for start/stop driving (stop/start, and stop/start very cold). I find that odd given that most hybrid engine cars call for thinner lubes due to the cyclic nature of their drive systems. This info seems to be counter intuitive to the commonly seen practice in most OE hybrid applications.

The question arises: thinner oils specified because they need or because they can? I suspect it's a combination of much lower average temps (irregular cycle), oil pressure delay being paramount, and CAFE. I cannot say the degree to which each accounts.

What is the nature of the "stop/start" conditions in the test? Is this portion of the test when the engine is always running, and the test cycle is simply representative of the vehicle in urban traffic (starting and stopping the vehicle motion, but the engine is constantly running)? Or is this "stop/start" representative of the type engine operation when the engine is frequently stopped and restarted at each stop light? Or is it representative of the start/stop/start/stop cycles of a hybrid drivetrain?

These are the right questions. There's a big difference between engine stop start and vehicle stop/start.

Some of those tests are run at oil temps of 115C. That indicates the engine and lube are fully warmed. I would think that a hybrid-drive system with an engine and lube that isn't nearly as warm would perhaps give some very different results. There are a few tests which hint at the fact that cooler conditions may favor the thinner lube.

Indeed, many parts of the engine needs more flow and not so much viscosity.

Second, this "top ring" test is obviously only looking for wear in one specific spot of the engine. There are bearing journals to consider, piston walls, cam surfaces, etc. This graph should be accepted as proof of only one location within the engine, not all of them.

I think I disagree with your last statement. The top ring is arguably the best "canary in the coal mine" because it's one of the very few locations in the engine that experiences a stoppage in sliding contact-- the top ring reversal. The top ring is also one of the hottest parts of the engine that is oil-lubed, further strengthening the logic that an oil that suffices in the ring pack suffices everywhere else.

What limits the life of an engine today? It seems to me that engines die today because of either valvetrain problems (i.e. GM and Hemi lifter failures associated with MDS/DoD) or ring pack problems (oil consumption). The former is peculiar to a couple of engine designs, but the latter is an issue for almost every engine design.

If you had to pick one engine issue to resolve to save the planet the most amount of engine problems in Passcar applications, you could pick ring pack deposits and be pretty sure you made the right choice.

So significant is the ring pack condition to the overall life of the engine that one could argue that VRP is the most consequential oil development of our times because it squarely addresses the very factors that end engine life: deposits, not wear.

So when someone posts a wear study focused narrowly on ring wear, I weigh that very heavily because ring wear and/or cleanliness is the thing most likely to end my engine's life.

 

[Mechanician]

The question arises: thinner oils specified because they need or because they can? I suspect it's a combination of much lower average temps (irregular cycle), oil pressure delay being paramount, and CAFE. I cannot say the degree to which each accounts.


These are the right questions. There's a big difference between engine stop start and vehicle stop/start.

Indeed, many parts of the engine needs more flow and not so much viscosity.


I think I disagree with your last statement. The top ring is arguably the best "canary in the coal mine" because it's one of the very few locations in the engine that experiences a stoppage in sliding contact-- the top ring reversal. The top ring is also one of the hottest parts of the engine that is oil-lubed, further strengthening the logic that an oil that suffices in the ring pack suffices everywhere else.

What limits the life of an engine today? It seems to me that engines die today because of either valvetrain problems (i.e. GM and Hemi lifter failures associated with MDS/DoD) or ring pack problems (oil consumption). The former is peculiar to a couple of engine designs, but the latter is an issue for almost every engine design.

If you had to pick one engine issue to resolve to save the planet the most amount of engine problems in Passcar applications, you could pick ring pack deposits and be pretty sure you made the right choice.

So significant is the ring pack condition to the overall life of the engine that one could argue that VRP is the most consequential oil development of our times because it squarely addresses the very factors that end engine life: deposits, not wear.

So when someone posts a wear study focused narrowly on ring wear, I weigh that very heavily because ring wear and/or cleanliness is the thing most likely to end my engine's life.

IMO ring pack problems are overstated here. There are millions of high mileage engines, currently having no problems, that have never received any special care of any kind.

 

[Hohn]

There are millions of high mileage engines, currently having no problems, that have never received any special care of any kind.

Right. But because they are having no problems, you cannot say what will end that engine's life. The data points are "right censored".

When you look at actual engines that have failed or are failing, ring pack issues (consumption not due to valve seals) are VASTLY overrepresented. There are dozens to hundreds of oil burners for every spun bearing or failed timing chain or camshaft.

It's possible that ring pack issues are the most significant life-limiting factor AND yet many engines are still thriving. These are by no means mutually exclusive assertions.

 

[Patman]

IMO ring pack problems are overstated here. There are millions of high mileage engines, currently having no problems, that have never received any special care of any kind.

I bet a very good percentage of high mileage engines out there that have been running cheap bulk oil and haven’t had any special care are really just limping along right now. Higher than normal consumption, poor gas mileage and down on power. So just because an engine makes it to high mileage without any special care doesn’t mean that’s the way to go. I would rather use a good quality oil and top tier fuels to make sure my engine stays clean enough to have low consumption and keep it’s fuel efficiency at its optimum level.

 

[picklyrickly1073]

Even though I drive my car pretty lightly, the fact that its DI and Turbocharged and in the past has had the reputation to dilute the oil I just find it a bit more comforting using 5w-30, especially since the Euro owner's manual does show it to be acceptable. I also took some other precautions like installing a baffled air/oil separator and use Top Tier fuel and changing oil/filter at 5k mi, hopefully all of this will keep the intake valves more or less clean and the piston rings from sticking over time.

 

[Mechanician]

Right. But because they are having no problems, you cannot say what will end that engine's life. The data points are "right censored".

When you look at actual engines that have failed or are failing, ring pack issues (consumption not due to valve seals) are VASTLY overrepresented. There are dozens to hundreds of oil burners for every spun bearing or failed timing chain or camshaft.

It's possible that ring pack issues are the most significant life-limiting factor AND yet many engines are still thriving. These are by no means mutually exclusive assertions.

I have witnessed in the years since low tension rings have been used - one engine design that had a significant problem with ring packs.
During this time I also witnessed the average miles on the odometer, and age of vehicles both dramatically increase.
This was at two different high volume repair shops. Over tens of thousands of work hours.
To state that almost every engine design has a problem with ring packs is IMO inaccurate. The number of internal engine problems, of any kind, has always been a small percentage of repairs. The real life data points presented here are always anecdotal.

 

[Shel_B]

I'm curious after two results showing M1 EP had thinned out significantly in your vehicle with 70% life remaining on the OLM, and you still run M1 EP?? Have you considered a different oil that will hold up better?

It's been shown that Truck & SUV is somewhat more robust in that regard, to the extent that I changed my recommendation to my sister fromEP to T&SUV for her 0W-20 choice for her Toyota.
Going to a 30 grade is not needed for her use pattern.

 

[Mechanician]

I bet a very good percentage of high mileage engines out there that have been running cheap bulk oil and haven’t had any special care are really just limping along right now. Higher than normal consumption, poor gas mileage and down on power. So just because an engine makes it to high mileage without any special care doesn’t mean that’s the way to go. I would rather use a good quality oil and top tier fuels to make sure my engine stays clean enough to have low consumption and keep it’s fuel efficiency at its optimum level.

I agree - the minimum maintenance folks are riding on luck. But I doubt it's a good percentage.
Stuck ring packs, or engines that died from oil starvation due to that, are not nearly as common as these discussions seem to present. MANY people only change their oil when the OLM says it's needed, and never suffer from consumption problems.
I wouldn't recommend that maintenance level either.

 

[Patman]

I agree - the minimum maintenance folks are riding on luck. But I doubt it's a good percentage.
Stuck ring packs, or engines that died from oil starvation due to that, are not nearly as common as these discussions seem to present. MANY people only change their oil when the OLM says it's needed, and never suffer from consumption problems.
I wouldn't recommend that maintenance level either.

I follow the oil life monitors in both of my vehicles and I’m not concerned at all, as I do no short trips, neither of my engines have fuel dilution issues and I do a lot of steady highway driving. Combine that with using higher quality oils also bodes well for their long term health. I am pretty confident that I will hit 500,000km or more with both of my cars and the engines will still be in great overall conditions.

The people who follow the OLM using cheap bulk oil, do short trips with lots of idling, those are the ones who have the highest risk of running into more trouble

 

[OVERKILL]

What limits the life of an engine today? It seems to me that engines die today because of either valvetrain problems (i.e. GM and Hemi lifter failures associated with MDS/DoD) or ring pack problems (oil consumption). The former is peculiar to a couple of engine designs, but the latter is an issue for almost every engine design.

FWIW, MDS has nothing to do with the lifter failure in the HEMI's, it's often the non-MDS lifters that fail. This is more like Ford's 7.3L Godzilla lifter failures, an engine which doesn't have DoD, it's a materials issue. This differs from GM's AFM/DFM failures, which have the actual DoD lifters fail, as well as issues with the rollers, yielding two separate failure mechanisms.

 

[Hohn]

FWIW, MDS has nothing to do with the lifter failure in the HEMI's, it's often the non-MDS lifters that fail. This is more like Ford's 7.3L Godzilla lifter failures, an engine which doesn't have DoD, it's a materials issue. This differs from GM's AFM/DFM failures, which have the actual DoD lifters fail, as well as issues with the rollers, yielding two separate failure mechanisms.

Good to know. I sold off the last Mopar I'll ever own in 2012, and it had reliable Cummins power. I'm not current on the latest gas V8s from the big three.

 

[Carlostrece]

I prefer slightly thicker than average 5w30 oils (that are still within 5w30 grade) for high mileage cars because thicker oils leak and burn less in high mileage cars. Thicker would also (in theory) stay cleaner, longer due to less blowby.

I theorize thicker might also reduce wear in high mileage engines because it'd be better at filling the increasing wear tolerances in bearings, rings, etc.

For newer engines I don't know. I'd probably want a medium viscosity oil (that's within car manufacturers' oil grade recommendations). I'm not going to buy a new car. So that topic is outside my interest.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Indeed, many parts of the engine needs more flow and not so much viscosity.

What engine parts need more flow and not so much KV100/HTHS viscosity? I'd say pretty much every engine with a well designed oiling system is getting plenty of oil flow to the moving parts, regardless of the KV100 of the oil. If not, it's a mechanical design issue, not an issue with the oil viscosity. Having adequate oil viscosity between moving parts is pretty important. If the viscosity can't keep an adequate MOFT, then increased rubbing and wear will occur.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I prefer slightly thicker than average 5w30 oils (that are still within 5w30 grade) for high mileage cars because thicker oils leak and burn less in high mileage cars. Thicker would also (in theory) stay cleaner, longer due to less blowby.

I theorize thicker might also reduce wear in high mileage engines because it'd be better at filling the increasing wear tolerances in bearings, rings, etc.

For newer engines I don't know.

Pretty much every engine wear study wrt to the viscosity affect shows that wear is reduced with more viscosity. Just like the graph in post 123 shows. There's noting wrong with having increased wear protection from higher viscosity, except a minuscule decrease in fuel mileage. If CAFE didn't exist, the chase to thinner and thinner oil wouldn't exist. You don't see motorcycles being forced to go thinner and thinner with oil viscosity. They spec viscosity to protect the engine from wear with some headroom, and not run on the ragged edge of MOFT. A new engine will react the same way by creating more MOFT with a higher viscosity. Parts clearances on ICE have pretty much been the same for decades, and they can all run a wide range of oil viscosity. If they couldn't, the same engines used in non-CAFE areas wouldn't show a wide recommended viscosity range in the OMs.

 

[thetricky]

I bet a very good percentage of high mileage engines out there that have been running cheap bulk oil and haven’t had any special care are really just limping along right now. Higher than normal consumption, poor gas mileage and down on power. So just because an engine makes it to high mileage without any special care doesn’t mean that’s the way to go. I would rather use a good quality oil and top tier fuels to make sure my engine stays clean enough to have low consumption and keep it’s fuel efficiency at its optimum level.

I see this everyday. Burning oil out of the tailpipe, lots of strange noises, engine struggling to accelerate, it is quite commonplace. Even nicer, newer vehicles all over with that very subtle blue smoke out of the tailpipe, owners probably have no idea! Big part of why I choose to run HPL is the ring pack care.

 

[Accent Abuser]

I just want to anecdotally state I have seen engines destroyed by low viscosity oil. There's a Toyota dealership near me who puts 0w-8 or 0w-16 in everything no matter what it calls for, and a few modern Mazdas have come in to my shop displaying their oil change sticker with wiped out bearings.

 

[tired]

Why is a Toyota dealership changing oil on Mazdas??

 

[ripcord]

I prefer slightly thicker than average 5w30 oils (that are still within 5w30 grade) for high mileage cars because thicker oils leak and burn less in high mileage cars. Thicker would also (in theory) stay cleaner, longer due to less blowby.

I theorize thicker might also reduce wear in high mileage engines because it'd be better at filling the increasing wear tolerances in bearings, rings, etc.

For newer engines I don't know. I'd probably want a medium viscosity oil (that's within car manufacturers' oil grade recommendations). I'm not going to buy a new car. So that topic is outside my interest.

I think you mean clearances, not tolerances. Clearances describe the space between moving parts. Tolerances refers to the amount of variation in dementions allowed between identical parts during manufacturing.

https://defiancemachine.com/the-difference-between-tolerance-and-clearance/