Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I will continue to use 5W/10W30's.
Me, too, unless I want to park a few months out of the year.
I will continue to use 5W/10W30's.
Me, too, unless I want to park a few months out of the year.
Originally Posted By: Marco620
So, Im doing right by running 0w20 in my Honda? Good I got like 100 qts of PUP.
Yeah, but the article suggests 5w-20 would be a lot better. No 0w-XX would be optimum per this study.
What's interesting is that rather than using a 5w-16....the study focuses on a 0w-16. Isn't that counter to their own findings? Why not stay with a 20 grade rather than dropping even lower for MPG savings vs. minimal engine wear?
So, Im doing right by running 0w20 in my Honda? Good I got like 100 qts of PUP.
Yeah, but the article suggests 5w-20 would be a lot better. No 0w-XX would be optimum per this study.
What's interesting is that rather than using a 5w-16....the study focuses on a 0w-16. Isn't that counter to their own findings? Why not stay with a 20 grade rather than dropping even lower for MPG savings vs. minimal engine wear?
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: tig1
With over 425K in my last 3 Ford overhead cam engines using 20wt oils (most was 0-20), no increased chain or valve train noise.
That is because you use M1 !!
No, it's because he keeps replacing his cars before they can accumulate serious mileage. My Mazda went farther than all those put together with no chain problems---on conventional oil.
Originally Posted By: tig1
With over 425K in my last 3 Ford overhead cam engines using 20wt oils (most was 0-20), no increased chain or valve train noise.
That is because you use M1 !!
No, it's because he keeps replacing his cars before they can accumulate serious mileage. My Mazda went farther than all those put together with no chain problems---on conventional oil.
You think that the ceratec or Archoil 9100 / 9300 is helping protect timing chain? I know its really quiet. Used to use QSUD 5w20/5w30 with MoS2 in my GDi and it was smooth.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Yeah, but the article suggests 5w-20 would be a lot better. No 0w-XX would be optimum per this study.
What's interesting is that rather than using a 5w-16....the study focuses on a 0w-16. Isn't that counter to their own findings? Why not stay with a 20 grade rather than dropping even lower for MPG savings vs. minimal engine wear?
Because fuel mileage goals are becoming more weighted than engine wear it seems. Maybe engineers are reducing the engine life requirement/target some as motor oils become thinner and thinner.
Yeah, but the article suggests 5w-20 would be a lot better. No 0w-XX would be optimum per this study.
What's interesting is that rather than using a 5w-16....the study focuses on a 0w-16. Isn't that counter to their own findings? Why not stay with a 20 grade rather than dropping even lower for MPG savings vs. minimal engine wear?
Because fuel mileage goals are becoming more weighted than engine wear it seems. Maybe engineers are reducing the engine life requirement/target some as motor oils become thinner and thinner.
Originally Posted By: tig1
With over 425K in my last 3 Ford overhead cam engines using 20wt oils (most was 0-20), no increased chain or valve train noise.
So is that 1.3M miles you've driven over three cars, or the total of the three cars in 425k miles...they are very different statements taken separately.
Did you measure the chains for wear, or take sound as your guide for no increased wear ?
With over 425K in my last 3 Ford overhead cam engines using 20wt oils (most was 0-20), no increased chain or valve train noise.
So is that 1.3M miles you've driven over three cars, or the total of the three cars in 425k miles...they are very different statements taken separately.
Did you measure the chains for wear, or take sound as your guide for no increased wear ?
People are scared of "antiquated" monogrades but the reality is in most engines in above freezing temperatures, say an SAE 30 will still flow well enough not to cause any issues, ( although most monogrades do have less specifications and older ones if they do, so probably wouldn't use a monograde in a newer vehicle calling for modern specs )
The XxW- part of a multigrade hardly matters in above freezing temps.
The XxW- part of a multigrade hardly matters in above freezing temps.
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Yep, straight 30W Oil often delivers outstanding used oil analysis on this form.
Modern straight-grade oils often exhibit much better cold flow characteristics than their compadres from decades ago.
When you look at the numbers, some straight 30W oils are ACTUALLY 15W-30 or 20W-30 oil,
Even though it is labeled as a straight 30 anyway.
This is good to know. I've always been curious about running a SAE 40 in wet clutch motorcycles but worried about startup wear.
Yep, straight 30W Oil often delivers outstanding used oil analysis on this form.
Modern straight-grade oils often exhibit much better cold flow characteristics than their compadres from decades ago.
When you look at the numbers, some straight 30W oils are ACTUALLY 15W-30 or 20W-30 oil,
Even though it is labeled as a straight 30 anyway.
This is good to know. I've always been curious about running a SAE 40 in wet clutch motorcycles but worried about startup wear.
BTW, Gohkan, you are welcome...for both the link to the Nissan paper, and the Mobil blending guide.
I got slightly different results...as the Spectrasyn products aren't exactly on the "4" 6, and 8 numbers.
The other lines are what happens if you mix an SAE30 or 40 with the oils, in terms of BOV, and the amount of VII in the mix thereafter...was trying to come up with some correlation of effect of polymeric VII to KV100/BOV.
I got slightly different results...as the Spectrasyn products aren't exactly on the "4" 6, and 8 numbers.
The other lines are what happens if you mix an SAE30 or 40 with the oils, in terms of BOV, and the amount of VII in the mix thereafter...was trying to come up with some correlation of effect of polymeric VII to KV100/BOV.
Last edited:
www.chevronlubricants.com see Delo 400 SAE20, looks like a 10W20
www.lubricants.petro-canada.ca
Added 20L of Duron SAE30 & 40 to my stash this week. I generally use mono-grades to target my HTHS to 3.7-3.9 range.
EG; SAE 40 added to 10W30, or SAE30 added to 15W40. Both make 20W40/3 season NGFW (no good for winter) oil.
www.lubricants.petro-canada.ca
Added 20L of Duron SAE30 & 40 to my stash this week. I generally use mono-grades to target my HTHS to 3.7-3.9 range.
EG; SAE 40 added to 10W30, or SAE30 added to 15W40. Both make 20W40/3 season NGFW (no good for winter) oil.
Last edited:
The idea that 'wear' in general is primarily dependent on aggregate base oil viscosity (as opposed to VII 'enhanced' viscocity) has been around for yonks. IIRC, some of the industry standard wear test read-across tables are predicated on this principle.
Having said that, I'm not sure if I buy into the theory. If VIIs were to shear away to nothingness, I might agree, but it never does. Even high SSI VIIs (especially OCPs) are, in real life, remarkably robust. You have to remember that OCP VIIs contain a broad, bell-shaped distribution of polymer chains and only the very heaviest shear down.
Also the idea that VII polymer chains are in some way 'squeezed out' of tight gaps, and so cannot influence wear, seems to me fanciful. An expanded polymer chain, with all those surrounding, occuled base oil molecules would be indistinguishable from base oil itself. What next? Do additive molecules like Ashless & ZDDP get "squeezed out', in which case I completely wasted 13 years of my working career!
Talk to oil formulators and whatever Nissan might say, the prevailing view is that timing chain wear is impacted by chain metallurgy & manufacturing way, way more than oil quality. Yes they still have to run & pass the requisite CW tests and yes, they probably claim great results for 'their' oil but in their hearts, do they truly believe this to be the case? I think not...
Having said that, I'm not sure if I buy into the theory. If VIIs were to shear away to nothingness, I might agree, but it never does. Even high SSI VIIs (especially OCPs) are, in real life, remarkably robust. You have to remember that OCP VIIs contain a broad, bell-shaped distribution of polymer chains and only the very heaviest shear down.
Also the idea that VII polymer chains are in some way 'squeezed out' of tight gaps, and so cannot influence wear, seems to me fanciful. An expanded polymer chain, with all those surrounding, occuled base oil molecules would be indistinguishable from base oil itself. What next? Do additive molecules like Ashless & ZDDP get "squeezed out', in which case I completely wasted 13 years of my working career!
Talk to oil formulators and whatever Nissan might say, the prevailing view is that timing chain wear is impacted by chain metallurgy & manufacturing way, way more than oil quality. Yes they still have to run & pass the requisite CW tests and yes, they probably claim great results for 'their' oil but in their hearts, do they truly believe this to be the case? I think not...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
BTW, Gohkan, you are welcome...for both the link to the Nissan paper, and the Mobil blending guide.
I got slightly different results...as the Spectrasyn products aren't exactly on the "4" 6, and 8 numbers.
Yes, thanks for the Nissan paper, very, very useful!
I've had the ExxonMobil synthetic-oil guide (PDF link for the 2017 version) for a long time. It's interesting that they haven't changed the blend examples since the 2013 version. The 2011 version had different blend examples.
Regarding the cSt numbers, I think you forgot to include the ester Esterex™ NP343. The numbers I used are 4.1 cSt, 5.8 cSt, 8.0 cSt, and 4.3 cSt, respectively.
BTW, Gohkan, you are welcome...for both the link to the Nissan paper, and the Mobil blending guide.
I got slightly different results...as the Spectrasyn products aren't exactly on the "4" 6, and 8 numbers.
Yes, thanks for the Nissan paper, very, very useful!
I've had the ExxonMobil synthetic-oil guide (PDF link for the 2017 version) for a long time. It's interesting that they haven't changed the blend examples since the 2013 version. The 2011 version had different blend examples.
Regarding the cSt numbers, I think you forgot to include the ester Esterex™ NP343. The numbers I used are 4.1 cSt, 5.8 cSt, 8.0 cSt, and 4.3 cSt, respectively.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The idea that 'wear' in general is primarily dependent on aggregate base oil viscosity (as opposed to VII 'enhanced' viscocity) has been around for yonks. IIRC, some of the industry standard wear test read-across tables are predicated on this principle.
Having said that, I'm not sure if I buy into the theory. If VIIs were to shear away to nothingness, I might agree, but it never does. Even high SSI VIIs (especially OCPs) are, in real life, remarkably robust. You have to remember that OCP VIIs contain a broad, bell-shaped distribution of polymer chains and only the very heaviest shear down.
Also the idea that VII polymer chains are in some way 'squeezed out' of tight gaps, and so cannot influence wear, seems to me fanciful. An expanded polymer chain, with all those surrounding, occuled base oil molecules would be indistinguishable from base oil itself. What next? Do additive molecules like Ashless & ZDDP get "squeezed out', in which case I completely wasted 13 years of my working career!
Talk to oil formulators and whatever Nissan might say, the prevailing view is that timing chain wear is impacted by chain metallurgy & manufacturing way, way more than oil quality. Yes they still have to run & pass the requisite CW tests and yes, they probably claim great results for 'their' oil but in their hearts, do they truly believe this to be the case? I think not...
I agree..
the concept of HTHS came about because the 10W40s of the day were utterly hopeless, and didn't live up to their kinematic grade in terms of protection.
When they started messing around, they found the "apparent" viscosity, which later became the HTHS...which even with VII is still greater than the BOV.
The Nissan paper, I think when comparing the same base oil viscosity for the same outcome, I think is confusing the "apparent" high shear viscosity.
Timing chains aren't hydrodynamic, as the motion in them is only over a partial arc, then reversal at every change of direction...they don't get to form a wedge.
Which means that they are probably predominated by squeeze film separation (oil gets between surfaces, and when the load is applied, has to get pushed out the sides, resistance to that holds the surfaces apart until contact is made...a 60 tonne generator shaft 20"dia 19"long bearing takes over half an hour to settle on brightstock to the point that the alignment can be trusted).
Timing chain wear is typically considered three body wear, it's not surface to surface, but surface to particle to surface, the particle acting on both surfaces...keep the squeeze film thick enough, and the particles don't get trapped.
Diesels, harder "soot" particles need more separation forces.
Gassers, smaller and softer soot, can live with lower viscosity.
Friction modifiers FTW in both cases, which is pretty much what Nissan said.
(note that part of their testing was at controlled oil temps of 50C...they did that for a reason.)
The idea that 'wear' in general is primarily dependent on aggregate base oil viscosity (as opposed to VII 'enhanced' viscocity) has been around for yonks. IIRC, some of the industry standard wear test read-across tables are predicated on this principle.
Having said that, I'm not sure if I buy into the theory. If VIIs were to shear away to nothingness, I might agree, but it never does. Even high SSI VIIs (especially OCPs) are, in real life, remarkably robust. You have to remember that OCP VIIs contain a broad, bell-shaped distribution of polymer chains and only the very heaviest shear down.
Also the idea that VII polymer chains are in some way 'squeezed out' of tight gaps, and so cannot influence wear, seems to me fanciful. An expanded polymer chain, with all those surrounding, occuled base oil molecules would be indistinguishable from base oil itself. What next? Do additive molecules like Ashless & ZDDP get "squeezed out', in which case I completely wasted 13 years of my working career!
Talk to oil formulators and whatever Nissan might say, the prevailing view is that timing chain wear is impacted by chain metallurgy & manufacturing way, way more than oil quality. Yes they still have to run & pass the requisite CW tests and yes, they probably claim great results for 'their' oil but in their hearts, do they truly believe this to be the case? I think not...
I agree..
the concept of HTHS came about because the 10W40s of the day were utterly hopeless, and didn't live up to their kinematic grade in terms of protection.
When they started messing around, they found the "apparent" viscosity, which later became the HTHS...which even with VII is still greater than the BOV.
The Nissan paper, I think when comparing the same base oil viscosity for the same outcome, I think is confusing the "apparent" high shear viscosity.
Timing chains aren't hydrodynamic, as the motion in them is only over a partial arc, then reversal at every change of direction...they don't get to form a wedge.
Which means that they are probably predominated by squeeze film separation (oil gets between surfaces, and when the load is applied, has to get pushed out the sides, resistance to that holds the surfaces apart until contact is made...a 60 tonne generator shaft 20"dia 19"long bearing takes over half an hour to settle on brightstock to the point that the alignment can be trusted).
Timing chain wear is typically considered three body wear, it's not surface to surface, but surface to particle to surface, the particle acting on both surfaces...keep the squeeze film thick enough, and the particles don't get trapped.
Diesels, harder "soot" particles need more separation forces.
Gassers, smaller and softer soot, can live with lower viscosity.
Friction modifiers FTW in both cases, which is pretty much what Nissan said.
(note that part of their testing was at controlled oil temps of 50C...they did that for a reason.)
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding the cSt numbers, I think you forgot to include the ester Esterex™ NP343. The numbers I used are 4.1 cSt, 5.8 cSt, 8.0 cSt, and 4.3 cSt, respectively.
Cool, I had the Esterx included in the "additive" part, not Base oil...
Regarding the cSt numbers, I think you forgot to include the ester Esterex™ NP343. The numbers I used are 4.1 cSt, 5.8 cSt, 8.0 cSt, and 4.3 cSt, respectively.
Cool, I had the Esterx included in the "additive" part, not Base oil...
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
So somebody needs to start making a 10W20 oil (or even 15W20), or do we just all start running monogrades again?
Here's GMan's 20W20 monograde experiment
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1174209
Looks good, eh ?
So somebody needs to start making a 10W20 oil (or even 15W20), or do we just all start running monogrades again?
Here's GMan's 20W20 monograde experiment
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1174209
Looks good, eh ?
How does it tie back to reality?
Lots of talk of thicker/more base oil, but how much/thick is enough?
Do we have any real examples of excessive chain wear caused from manufacturer specified oil?
"A 0W-40 is an awful choice for valvetrain and timing-chain wear protection"
Can you provide evidence/examples of this claim (as used in road cars), relevant to this topic of chain wear ?
The theory assumes same base oils and VII are used, but when you compared real oils that we can buy, what are and how significant the differences to the life of my engine due to wear differences of the base oils?
Lots of talk of thicker/more base oil, but how much/thick is enough?
Do we have any real examples of excessive chain wear caused from manufacturer specified oil?
"A 0W-40 is an awful choice for valvetrain and timing-chain wear protection"
Can you provide evidence/examples of this claim (as used in road cars), relevant to this topic of chain wear ?
The theory assumes same base oils and VII are used, but when you compared real oils that we can buy, what are and how significant the differences to the life of my engine due to wear differences of the base oils?
dnewton3
Staff member
Interesting article of some merit. But like most things in life, it's not going to be 100% correct about, well, anything or everything.
Timing chains can either be link-plate design or roller type. These results of which Nissan speaks regarding the Ford engine are only really attributable to the former. This excludes older (but popular) American OHV engines (and similar). This does not mean the results are invalid; just limits their validity. Also important to note is the rpm at which tests are applied, versus the the reality of daily driving for one's own conditions. Again - test results may or may not be directly applicable.
I have never been a big fan of lubes with very wide spreads in vis; too much VII IMO. Also, may be at least anecdotal proof of why 5w-20 lubes do as well as 5w-30 lubes in many UOAs. I know I've seen essentially no difference in wear rates between the two in my personal cars.
Really want to know how well your oil/engine relationship is doing? Get a UOA. A UOA will not tell you everything, but it will tell you a whole lot more than guessing.
Timing chains can either be link-plate design or roller type. These results of which Nissan speaks regarding the Ford engine are only really attributable to the former. This excludes older (but popular) American OHV engines (and similar). This does not mean the results are invalid; just limits their validity. Also important to note is the rpm at which tests are applied, versus the the reality of daily driving for one's own conditions. Again - test results may or may not be directly applicable.
I have never been a big fan of lubes with very wide spreads in vis; too much VII IMO. Also, may be at least anecdotal proof of why 5w-20 lubes do as well as 5w-30 lubes in many UOAs. I know I've seen essentially no difference in wear rates between the two in my personal cars.
Really want to know how well your oil/engine relationship is doing? Get a UOA. A UOA will not tell you everything, but it will tell you a whole lot more than guessing.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
