Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Great posts Zee0six and Shannow.
Really makes a whole lot of sense what you both are saying. Glad I have run high efficiency oil filters on my Altima 3.5 two door coupe. I'm getting close to 225,000 miles and the car runs great with zero oil related issues.
Really makes a whole lot of sense what you both are saying. Glad I have run high efficiency oil filters on my Altima 3.5 two door coupe. I'm getting close to 225,000 miles and the car runs great with zero oil related issues.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Agree...and don't change them at the drop of a hat.
(It's the stuff around 1um that's hard to get out, but always better to get more of everything out)
Agreed.
Would be really nice to have a body of information on the OEM testing regimens as well. The Mercedes tests I linked above don't go into much detail other than stretch and wear and then the limits. The actual protocol would be good to read. I would imagine, given how extensive the Euro approval portfolios are, that this is a part of all of them in some fashion.
Any thoughts on Nissan spec'ing 0w-40 in the GT-R?
Agree...and don't change them at the drop of a hat.
(It's the stuff around 1um that's hard to get out, but always better to get more of everything out)
Agreed.
Would be really nice to have a body of information on the OEM testing regimens as well. The Mercedes tests I linked above don't go into much detail other than stretch and wear and then the limits. The actual protocol would be good to read. I would imagine, given how extensive the Euro approval portfolios are, that this is a part of all of them in some fashion.
Any thoughts on Nissan spec'ing 0w-40 in the GT-R?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Amsoil bypass kit is what, 2 um?
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
Here is real data:
From "Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (link).
Here is real data:
From "Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (link).
Gokham, I don't have access to the full paper, what was the test engine and conditions ?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
So we should all be running 20W50 and install oil pan heaters!
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
So we should all be running 20W50 and install oil pan heaters!
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
All of the timing chain stuff that I've read about for years treats timing chains as a three body wear proposition, not purely metal to metal (as I think the Nissan does)...and primarily diesels, but bear with me.
Three body wear is the two wear surfaces and something in between them (soot particle, dirt, whatever)...they use simulated soot (carbon black) to control the size and amount of the contamination.
No hydrodynamics in the link pin, but as the load is applied, there's a "squeeze" film effect as the oil is squeezed from the clearance...more viscosity, the longer it takes to squeeze out, the thicker the remnant (diminishing) film.
If this is bigger than the general particle size, low wear.
If it's not, wear goes up.
If the FMs help lubricate the third body, less wear. and yes, after the particles are smashed, metal to metal less wear.
Might also be a good reason to use a high efficiency oil filter to keep as much debris out of the oil as possible.
Add "soft" spheres (say Teflon? Viton?) bigger than the "general particle size", but smaller than part separations and filtration limit?
Then I suppose it'd be four body wear, but it might still be less. Startup separation too.
Have I just "invented" Slick 50? Don't think it was in the form of microspheres, but don't really know. Might cause some coking in the combustion chamber though.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
All of the timing chain stuff that I've read about for years treats timing chains as a three body wear proposition, not purely metal to metal (as I think the Nissan does)...and primarily diesels, but bear with me.
Three body wear is the two wear surfaces and something in between them (soot particle, dirt, whatever)...they use simulated soot (carbon black) to control the size and amount of the contamination.
No hydrodynamics in the link pin, but as the load is applied, there's a "squeeze" film effect as the oil is squeezed from the clearance...more viscosity, the longer it takes to squeeze out, the thicker the remnant (diminishing) film.
If this is bigger than the general particle size, low wear.
If it's not, wear goes up.
If the FMs help lubricate the third body, less wear. and yes, after the particles are smashed, metal to metal less wear.
Might also be a good reason to use a high efficiency oil filter to keep as much debris out of the oil as possible.
Add "soft" spheres (say Teflon? Viton?) bigger than the "general particle size", but smaller than part separations and filtration limit?
Then I suppose it'd be four body wear, but it might still be less. Startup separation too.
Have I just "invented" Slick 50? Don't think it was in the form of microspheres, but don't really know. Might cause some coking in the combustion chamber though.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
Here is real data:
From "Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (link).
I think that hypothesis is too simplistic.
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
Here is real data:
From "Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (link).
I think that hypothesis is too simplistic.
Originally Posted By: webfors
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
So we should all be running 20W50 and install oil pan heaters!
What if you parked where no electricity was available ? Variables such as climate and driving routine and habits should play a part here but the formula in question does not address those.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
With add packs being equal, can we now confidently say that for a SAE xW-y oil, how large the x is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the piston rings, valvetrain, and timing chain, and how large the y is determines how well the oil protects against wear in the bearings?
So we should all be running 20W50 and install oil pan heaters!
What if you parked where no electricity was available ? Variables such as climate and driving routine and habits should play a part here but the formula in question does not address those.
very interesting for sure. on the cold flow issue i remember seeing a graph on machinery lubrication i believe on the effects of heat + cold on base oils. it showed more thinning by heat for refined crude oils compared to group IV + V oils + it noted that the cold effect was even worse on the refined crudes thickening at a faster rate from the 40C used for the winter spec. i would think the group III's to be in between being purer with most waxes removed, but real synthetics groups IV + V being best as there is no wax to remove as well as not having other impurities of refined CRUDE oils. i live in PA + use mostly group III 10-30 but my motorcycles get 15-50 group IV oil + my little 300 hp TT with only 4 qts of oil gets Redline 10-40!!
Wow this thread kicks all the hype right in the butt that surrounded Castrol Edge SM 0W20 oil as being the elixir of the Gods for a 20 grade application a few years back, and a little more recently TGMO 0W20. Although there were some good UOAs. I'd love to see what 0W30 would look like on the chart. To me 10W30 is looking better and better everyday.
So how long take to settle in decantation most above 3 micron metals in a 0w40 oil. One week? Two weeks? Silica and carbon soot, one month, two months? I still do 6 months at half 10k oci. No filter is better than gravity, given enough time. M 2 rules, for those who get me...
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: NGRhodes
Gokham, I don't have access to the full paper, what was the test engine and conditions ?
"Wear scar" usually seems to mean a bench test, like the "4 ball" one.
How does that correlate to what happens in an engine ?
Originally Posted By: NGRhodes
Gokham, I don't have access to the full paper, what was the test engine and conditions ?
"Wear scar" usually seems to mean a bench test, like the "4 ball" one.
How does that correlate to what happens in an engine ?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Yes PAO usage changes everything, but the principle remains the same. I think it's safe to say that blenders are choosing their base oil profile to meet the W rating they're blending for, and relying on VIIs to fluff kinematic viscosity up to the desired grade.
That's basically the point I was making with respect to blender financials; price point. Two excellent examples are the Castrol Euro sisters, 0w-40 and 5w-40, one blended with PAO, the other not.
Then, we start looking at "expensive" 0w-20's like M1 EP versus "cheap" ones that are Group III, and then extending that comparison into the 5w-20 range. There's a lot of variance due to how the different blenders base their products.
Also, we can't forget OEM certifications/approvals here, which test for a lot of things including timing chain wear. Nissan spec'd 0w-40 for the GT-R and I'm sure there was a reason.
If we look at the MB 2012 spec for 229.1/229.3/229.31/229.5/229.51:
http://www.lubritecinc.com/PDF/MB_Spec_EO_Service_Oils_2012.1.pdf
Originally Posted By: Mercedes
M 271 Wear Test (MB DL, Wear, 250 h) c.)
Cam wear inlet / outlet valve (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 1 / ring 2 (avg.) e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 1 / groove 1 (avg.) e.)
Ring sticking yes/no
Main Bearing wear (avg.) e.) / (max.)
Conrod Bearing wear (avg.) e.) / (max.)
Timing chain wear (elongation) %
Timing chain wear (single chain link) %
Bore polishing (xmm) - max. value of 6 cylinders %
and then:
Originally Posted By: Mercedes
OM 646 DE22LA Wear (CEC L-99-08) c.)
Cam wear inlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Cam wear outlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Cylinder wear (avg. 4 cylinder)
Bore polishing (13 mm) - max. value of 4 cyl.%
Piston cleanliness (avg. 4 pistons) merit
Engine sludge avg.merit
Ring sticking yes/no
Tappet wear inlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Tappet wear outlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Bearing wear main / con rod bearing e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 1 e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 2 e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 3 e.)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 1 e.)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 2 e.)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 3 e.)
Timing chain wear (elongation)%
Oil consumptiong/test
Soot
Viscosity increase at 100°C
So, do we trust posit of base oil viscosity for wear control in the timing chain area, or do we look at spec's with actual engine tests that physically measure it? I know which way I'm leaning... (and this is why I've always been a proponent of the Euro lubes and approvals).
From a consumer perspective this allows us to see what oil is good enough, comparing base oil viscosity only gives us relative performance.
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Yes PAO usage changes everything, but the principle remains the same. I think it's safe to say that blenders are choosing their base oil profile to meet the W rating they're blending for, and relying on VIIs to fluff kinematic viscosity up to the desired grade.
That's basically the point I was making with respect to blender financials; price point. Two excellent examples are the Castrol Euro sisters, 0w-40 and 5w-40, one blended with PAO, the other not.
Then, we start looking at "expensive" 0w-20's like M1 EP versus "cheap" ones that are Group III, and then extending that comparison into the 5w-20 range. There's a lot of variance due to how the different blenders base their products.
Also, we can't forget OEM certifications/approvals here, which test for a lot of things including timing chain wear. Nissan spec'd 0w-40 for the GT-R and I'm sure there was a reason.
If we look at the MB 2012 spec for 229.1/229.3/229.31/229.5/229.51:
http://www.lubritecinc.com/PDF/MB_Spec_EO_Service_Oils_2012.1.pdf
Originally Posted By: Mercedes
M 271 Wear Test (MB DL, Wear, 250 h) c.)
Cam wear inlet / outlet valve (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 1 / ring 2 (avg.) e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 1 / groove 1 (avg.) e.)
Ring sticking yes/no
Main Bearing wear (avg.) e.) / (max.)
Conrod Bearing wear (avg.) e.) / (max.)
Timing chain wear (elongation) %
Timing chain wear (single chain link) %
Bore polishing (xmm) - max. value of 6 cylinders %
and then:
Originally Posted By: Mercedes
OM 646 DE22LA Wear (CEC L-99-08) c.)
Cam wear inlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Cam wear outlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Cylinder wear (avg. 4 cylinder)
Bore polishing (13 mm) - max. value of 4 cyl.%
Piston cleanliness (avg. 4 pistons) merit
Engine sludge avg.merit
Ring sticking yes/no
Tappet wear inlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Tappet wear outlet (avg. max. wear 8 cams)
Bearing wear main / con rod bearing e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 1 e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 2 e.)
Piston ring wear axial @ ring 3 e.)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 1 e.)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 2 e.)
Piston ring wear radial @ ring 3 e.)
Timing chain wear (elongation)%
Oil consumptiong/test
Soot
Viscosity increase at 100°C
So, do we trust posit of base oil viscosity for wear control in the timing chain area, or do we look at spec's with actual engine tests that physically measure it? I know which way I'm leaning... (and this is why I've always been a proponent of the Euro lubes and approvals).
From a consumer perspective this allows us to see what oil is good enough, comparing base oil viscosity only gives us relative performance.
It's not a four-ball test. It's a test used to measure and plot the Stribeck curve for a given lubricant, the fundamental curve of lubrication.
While engine tests are good, they could even be more irrelevant to real-life situations since every engine is different and even a used engine is different than a new one. An oil that may work for a 2018 Camry could destroy a 1969 Mustang in a few hundred miles and so on. On the other hand, these machines tests are universal and reproducible and are great supplements to engine tests and fleet tests.
Here is a link that works:
"Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (PDF link).
Perhaps I'll go back to the Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4 and try a UOA. It's selling for only $10.94 a gallon (mine takes 3.5 qt).
While engine tests are good, they could even be more irrelevant to real-life situations since every engine is different and even a used engine is different than a new one. An oil that may work for a 2018 Camry could destroy a 1969 Mustang in a few hundred miles and so on. On the other hand, these machines tests are universal and reproducible and are great supplements to engine tests and fleet tests.
Here is a link that works:
"Global perspective on base-oil quality and how it affects lubricant specifications (or Global perspective on lubricant specifications and how it affects base-oil quality)" by John Rosenbaum, Chevron global base oils (PDF link).
Perhaps I'll go back to the Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4 and try a UOA. It's selling for only $10.94 a gallon (mine takes 3.5 qt).
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
That Delvac had a 4.3 HTHS … think the new version is still 4.1 …
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
While engine tests are good, they could even be more irrelevant to real-life situations since every engine is different and even a used engine is different than a new one. An oil that may work for a 2018 Camry could destroy a 1969 Mustang in a few hundred miles and so on.
Manufacturers develop engine tests to evaluate the performance of the lubricant in their engines. If Mercedes didn't feel their two engine test for the 229.x approval was sufficient to cover the engines that call for that range of specs, they would include examples that did. Ergo, an oil that's approved by multiple OEM's using actual engine tests is pretty much guaranteed to do well in the majority of engines on the road. Engines that might be exceptional examples will, usually, have their own spec where again, actual performance has been evaluated by that OEM. There is no test more relevant than actual tear-down evaluation.
Bench tests are excellent screening tools, as has been posted by a few of the Tribologist folk on here in the past. Actual engine performance evaluation happens AFTER the bench tests, as they cover a broader range of metrics that cannot, realistically, be tested for on the bench.
An oil of the proper viscosity that is, additive-wise, appropriate for a 2018 Camry would be significantly better than anything that was available in 1969. I have a great deal of experience with classic and antique engines, they are not picky, generally low power density and most of the flat tappet ones had extremely mild profiles with low spring pressures. We ran a 425HP Ford 312 Y-block with a >6,000RPM ceiling in a 1932 Chris-Craft 22' Cadet for over a decade on Valvoline white bottle 5w-30, Castrol GTX 5w-30 and eventually Mobil 1 5w-30. Many of these old mills spec'd SAE20 and in extreme cold, wanted you to dilute it with Kerosene.
Not to thrash the bench test dead horse unnecessarily, but as has been stated several times, things like bleach, Pert Plus, Head and Shoulders and gear oils will do extremely well in many of the bench tests. Would you want to run any of them through an engine test? How do you think they would fare? On the other hand an oil that did extremely well on a tear-down test will almost assuredly do reasonably well on the bench tests. Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
While engine tests are good, they could even be more irrelevant to real-life situations since every engine is different and even a used engine is different than a new one. An oil that may work for a 2018 Camry could destroy a 1969 Mustang in a few hundred miles and so on.
Manufacturers develop engine tests to evaluate the performance of the lubricant in their engines. If Mercedes didn't feel their two engine test for the 229.x approval was sufficient to cover the engines that call for that range of specs, they would include examples that did. Ergo, an oil that's approved by multiple OEM's using actual engine tests is pretty much guaranteed to do well in the majority of engines on the road. Engines that might be exceptional examples will, usually, have their own spec where again, actual performance has been evaluated by that OEM. There is no test more relevant than actual tear-down evaluation.
Bench tests are excellent screening tools, as has been posted by a few of the Tribologist folk on here in the past. Actual engine performance evaluation happens AFTER the bench tests, as they cover a broader range of metrics that cannot, realistically, be tested for on the bench.
An oil of the proper viscosity that is, additive-wise, appropriate for a 2018 Camry would be significantly better than anything that was available in 1969. I have a great deal of experience with classic and antique engines, they are not picky, generally low power density and most of the flat tappet ones had extremely mild profiles with low spring pressures. We ran a 425HP Ford 312 Y-block with a >6,000RPM ceiling in a 1932 Chris-Craft 22' Cadet for over a decade on Valvoline white bottle 5w-30, Castrol GTX 5w-30 and eventually Mobil 1 5w-30. Many of these old mills spec'd SAE20 and in extreme cold, wanted you to dilute it with Kerosene.
Not to thrash the bench test dead horse unnecessarily, but as has been stated several times, things like bleach, Pert Plus, Head and Shoulders and gear oils will do extremely well in many of the bench tests. Would you want to run any of them through an engine test? How do you think they would fare? On the other hand an oil that did extremely well on a tear-down test will almost assuredly do reasonably well on the bench tests. Engine tests are expensive and time consuming, which is why they are done far later in the development process once one has come close to a final product.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
That Delvac had a 4.3 HTHS … think the new version is still 4.1 …
Yes, it has got a little thinner since CJ-4, hasn't it?
CK-4 also lists in the applications "high-performance gasoline engines requiring API SN." The ultimate oil for BMW, Corvette, and alike?
Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4
That Delvac had a 4.3 HTHS … think the new version is still 4.1 …
Yes, it has got a little thinner since CJ-4, hasn't it?
CK-4 also lists in the applications "high-performance gasoline engines requiring API SN." The ultimate oil for BMW, Corvette, and alike?
Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4
- Status
Similar threads
