Does anyone not believe in 0w-20?
- Thread starter horse123
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Justin251
Yeah, that's a big IF. As well. I suspect they will be very much the same or worse but because of the mds turned off. Not the oil.
The problem is not only detecting such a small change, it is much more being able to attribute it to the oil. An article I linked way back showed that even at the same gas station the energy density of gasoline varied about 4%. That right there will mask just about any other small change you might be looking for.
Yeah, that's a big IF. As well. I suspect they will be very much the same or worse but because of the mds turned off. Not the oil.
The problem is not only detecting such a small change, it is much more being able to attribute it to the oil. An article I linked way back showed that even at the same gas station the energy density of gasoline varied about 4%. That right there will mask just about any other small change you might be looking for.
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Justin251
Yeah, that's a big IF. As well. I suspect they will be very much the same or worse but because of the mds turned off. Not the oil.
The problem is not only detecting such a small change, it is much more being able to attribute it to the oil. An article I linked way back showed that even at the same gas station the energy density of gasoline varied about 4%. That right there will mask just about any other small change you might be looking for.
I do not disagree.
Originally Posted By: Justin251
Yeah, that's a big IF. As well. I suspect they will be very much the same or worse but because of the mds turned off. Not the oil.
The problem is not only detecting such a small change, it is much more being able to attribute it to the oil. An article I linked way back showed that even at the same gas station the energy density of gasoline varied about 4%. That right there will mask just about any other small change you might be looking for.
I do not disagree.
I'm losing my appreciation for 0W-20.
Driven by the escalating CAFE standards in the USA, other markets still specify thicker oil.
I'm thinking 5W-30 in my 0W-20 applications would offer more protection/longevity for my engines, albeit at the cost of not meeting the federal government's fuel saving edicts.
Maybe that's the problem. I see the mandate as set forth by big brother. And it is just like the costly emissions goals that have stretched well past the point of diminishing returns.
These federal goals of conserving gasoline keep ratcheting up while the same federal government intercedes in the development and expansion of domestic oil production. This is counterintuitive.
Couple that with the economic nation building our government has been doing with US jobs with NAFTA and the inefficiencies and pollution that is occurring unchecked in these third world markets, I have become disillusioned with the lies and continued tests of our gullibility.
Driven by the escalating CAFE standards in the USA, other markets still specify thicker oil.
I'm thinking 5W-30 in my 0W-20 applications would offer more protection/longevity for my engines, albeit at the cost of not meeting the federal government's fuel saving edicts.
Maybe that's the problem. I see the mandate as set forth by big brother. And it is just like the costly emissions goals that have stretched well past the point of diminishing returns.
These federal goals of conserving gasoline keep ratcheting up while the same federal government intercedes in the development and expansion of domestic oil production. This is counterintuitive.
Couple that with the economic nation building our government has been doing with US jobs with NAFTA and the inefficiencies and pollution that is occurring unchecked in these third world markets, I have become disillusioned with the lies and continued tests of our gullibility.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
More engine life than what? I have never seen this quantified anywhere. I have read statements that a 30 protects more than a 20, but I would say this could be measured in milliseconds from the point when a 20 would fail versus the point where a 30 would under the same conditions.
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
More engine life than what? I have never seen this quantified anywhere. I have read statements that a 30 protects more than a 20, but I would say this could be measured in milliseconds from the point when a 20 would fail versus the point where a 30 would under the same conditions.
30 has to protect 10 points better than 20. Right?
I think it's obvious 20 weight is for mpgs. But like I said. So what? It's still enough protection for the majority of what my truck and the Tucson do. Which is ride down the road unloaded.
I think it's obvious 20 weight is for mpgs. But like I said. So what? It's still enough protection for the majority of what my truck and the Tucson do. Which is ride down the road unloaded.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Viscosity is readily quantifiable, so there is absolutely no room for talk like it "seems thin at store shelf temperatures." The most important thing is that in your engine, it's almost exactly the same viscosity as the 10w-30 you use. The 5w-40 I use will be much better in extreme cold than your 10w-30, not to mention thicker at operating temperatures. As for its viscosity on store shelves, I'm not concerned in the least.
That does it ! I'm staying out of these thin oil threads. The flak I get is not worth it !
Viscosity is readily quantifiable, so there is absolutely no room for talk like it "seems thin at store shelf temperatures." The most important thing is that in your engine, it's almost exactly the same viscosity as the 10w-30 you use. The 5w-40 I use will be much better in extreme cold than your 10w-30, not to mention thicker at operating temperatures. As for its viscosity on store shelves, I'm not concerned in the least.
That does it ! I'm staying out of these thin oil threads. The flak I get is not worth it !
It's the flak and the in-store pourability that is the reason to stay around
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
More engine life than what? I have never seen this quantified anywhere. I have read statements that a 30 protects more than a 20, but I would say this could be measured in milliseconds from the point when a 20 would fail versus the point where a 30 would under the same conditions.
I have blown a brand new just broken in engine because of too thin an oil was spec by Honda and so did a lot of other riders on that bike. I never blew one up running a grade or even 3 thicker.
Honda quickly changed the spec with a TSB to 10w40, 10w50 or 10w60 in that engine after enough of them littered their dealerships service dept with blown engines running spec xw30.
With no other modifications the replacement engines running thicker oil had zero lubrication issues. Does the thicker oil protect better? For me that's more than proof that it does.
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
More engine life than what? I have never seen this quantified anywhere. I have read statements that a 30 protects more than a 20, but I would say this could be measured in milliseconds from the point when a 20 would fail versus the point where a 30 would under the same conditions.
I have blown a brand new just broken in engine because of too thin an oil was spec by Honda and so did a lot of other riders on that bike. I never blew one up running a grade or even 3 thicker.
Honda quickly changed the spec with a TSB to 10w40, 10w50 or 10w60 in that engine after enough of them littered their dealerships service dept with blown engines running spec xw30.
With no other modifications the replacement engines running thicker oil had zero lubrication issues. Does the thicker oil protect better? For me that's more than proof that it does.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
More engine life than what? I have never seen this quantified anywhere. I have read statements that a 30 protects more than a 20, but I would say this could be measured in milliseconds from the point when a 20 would fail versus the point where a 30 would under the same conditions.
I have blown a brand new just broken in engine because of too thin an oil was spec by Honda and so did a lot of other riders on that bike. I never blew one up running a grade or even 3 thicker.
Honda quickly changed the spec with a TSB to 10w40, 10w50 or 10w60 in that engine after enough of them littered their dealerships service dept with blown engines running spec xw30.
With no other modifications the replacement engines running thicker oil had zero lubrication issues. Does the thicker oil protect better? For me that's more than proof that it does.
Are we talking about automobiles or motorcycles? If the latter, I retract my statement. If the former, it still stands.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
But an absolutely shear stable SAE30 might mean more engine life... Still looking into that one elsewhere ...
More engine life than what? I have never seen this quantified anywhere. I have read statements that a 30 protects more than a 20, but I would say this could be measured in milliseconds from the point when a 20 would fail versus the point where a 30 would under the same conditions.
I have blown a brand new just broken in engine because of too thin an oil was spec by Honda and so did a lot of other riders on that bike. I never blew one up running a grade or even 3 thicker.
Honda quickly changed the spec with a TSB to 10w40, 10w50 or 10w60 in that engine after enough of them littered their dealerships service dept with blown engines running spec xw30.
With no other modifications the replacement engines running thicker oil had zero lubrication issues. Does the thicker oil protect better? For me that's more than proof that it does.
Are we talking about automobiles or motorcycles? If the latter, I retract my statement. If the former, it still stands.
You are talking an immediate and catastrophic failure of an oil film, nothing that anyone has suggested that these oils do.
Simple physics is that film thicknesses and parts separation gaps is lower with lower viscosity...what eventuates is not sudden and catastrophic failure, it's more operation in mixed/boundary regimes which have more potential for wear than hydrodynamics...closer parts separation makes filtration more important as an example, and higher reliance on FMs.
It may mean that your engine lasts 1.6 times as long as the body versus 1.8 times for the average use (single occupant, light duty) vehicle.
Look up Honda's papers, SAE papers and see how THEY word the compromises.
Simple physics is that film thicknesses and parts separation gaps is lower with lower viscosity...what eventuates is not sudden and catastrophic failure, it's more operation in mixed/boundary regimes which have more potential for wear than hydrodynamics...closer parts separation makes filtration more important as an example, and higher reliance on FMs.
It may mean that your engine lasts 1.6 times as long as the body versus 1.8 times for the average use (single occupant, light duty) vehicle.
Look up Honda's papers, SAE papers and see how THEY word the compromises.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,837
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You are talking an immediate and catastrophic failure of an oil film, nothing that anyone has suggested that these oils do.
Simple physics is that film thicknesses and parts separation gaps is lower with lower viscosity...what eventuates is not sudden and catastrophic failure, it's more operation in mixed/boundary regimes which have more potential for wear than hydrodynamics...closer parts separation makes filtration more important as an example, and higher reliance on FMs.
It may mean that your engine lasts 1.6 times as long as the body versus 1.8 times for the average use (single occupant, light duty) vehicle.
Look up Honda's papers, SAE papers and see how THEY word the compromises.
I would rather use the examples of the millions of vehicles racking up billions of miles as a testament to how well xW-20 protects. Frankly speaking, who cares if the engine lasts 1.6x or 1.8x as long as the body since that is typically what sounds the death knell of the vehicle anyway. For all of the hand wringing and discussions, xW-20 has more than proven itself.
You are talking an immediate and catastrophic failure of an oil film, nothing that anyone has suggested that these oils do.
Simple physics is that film thicknesses and parts separation gaps is lower with lower viscosity...what eventuates is not sudden and catastrophic failure, it's more operation in mixed/boundary regimes which have more potential for wear than hydrodynamics...closer parts separation makes filtration more important as an example, and higher reliance on FMs.
It may mean that your engine lasts 1.6 times as long as the body versus 1.8 times for the average use (single occupant, light duty) vehicle.
Look up Honda's papers, SAE papers and see how THEY word the compromises.
I would rather use the examples of the millions of vehicles racking up billions of miles as a testament to how well xW-20 protects. Frankly speaking, who cares if the engine lasts 1.6x or 1.8x as long as the body since that is typically what sounds the death knell of the vehicle anyway. For all of the hand wringing and discussions, xW-20 has more than proven itself.
I care, since I want to go a million miles on my vehicle.
Since we are on the topic, I don't believe in XW-20 oils...and god
Since we are on the topic, I don't believe in XW-20 oils...and god
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
I would rather use the examples of the millions of vehicles racking up billions of miles as a testament to how well xW-20 protects.
They are all doing it in parallel, so there's no "billions" in reference to longevity.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Frankly speaking, who cares if the engine lasts 1.6x or 1.8x as long as the body since that is typically what sounds the death knell of the vehicle anyway.
That's what I have been saying FOR YEARS ... to save the owner and the country fuel, for a part of engine life that they are NEVER going to use, it's a fair trade-off.
It's just that certain people don't want to accept that there IS a trade off as it makes them less manly or something.
I would rather use the examples of the millions of vehicles racking up billions of miles as a testament to how well xW-20 protects.
They are all doing it in parallel, so there's no "billions" in reference to longevity.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Frankly speaking, who cares if the engine lasts 1.6x or 1.8x as long as the body since that is typically what sounds the death knell of the vehicle anyway.
That's what I have been saying FOR YEARS ... to save the owner and the country fuel, for a part of engine life that they are NEVER going to use, it's a fair trade-off.
It's just that certain people don't want to accept that there IS a trade off as it makes them less manly or something.
What's going on here is almost like the "Anti-Thick Oil" crowd, perhaps like me, put forward. Yet in reality, there really isn't any evidence for either side.
Everyone knows about the Diesels that go a bazillion miles on 3K/3mths and bulk fleet oils, or the Volvo's running xW-30/40 oils and doing the same. What about the modern cars, the Hondas and Toyotas with their "API Energy Conserving" oils racking up equally absurd mileage?
"Thicker oil has a thicker film and therefore protects better"
vs, "Thinner oil flows better and can reach "difficult" parts of the engine better."
All sounds the same to me!
Fact of the matter is provided you're using whats recommended and changing on time; oil is probably not effecting the life of the engine much. Usage habits of short-tripping in particular may be more detrimental to engine life than minute differences between a 5w20 and 5w30.
These days, the engine is generally a very refined and precisely manufactured bit of kit. I'd hazard to suggest the various electronic whizz-bangery demanded by consumers chasing the lowest price would be the shortfall of modern vehicle, along with ingenious transmission concepts ruined by poor implementation and bodywork inadequately protected to deal with the rigors of a corrosive environment.
Do what the manufacturer says.
If doing that causes failure in warranty - well, you just got a free repair, an oil-related failure outside of the warranty? Evaluate what went wrong, fix it and implement a regime to prevent it happening again!
If problems arise at higher mileage, say some sort of oil consumption not due to sludge/buildup or systems on the vehicle not functioning, then go up *a* grade and you may fix it.
The fact that engines in the US are quite happy on xW-20 oils, while their counterparts overseas are equally happy with xW-30 or even -40 oils says that perhaps the problem is not what its made out to be.
Obviously going too thick or thin compared to the manufacturers recommendations (i.e. 20w70 or 25-70 oils) isn't going to get you any love from me, at least.
If manufacturers back-specced thinner oils for older engines out of warranty, they would be doing this with the expectation that customers wouldn't be returning with bad engines.
Remember the lawsuit with Toyota over the sludge in the 5S-FE and 1MZ-FE all those years AFTER the fact? Manufacturers don't want that type of liability or bad publicity.
The market is cut-throat enough as it is, with decreasing tariffs on imports and the like.
Everyone knows about the Diesels that go a bazillion miles on 3K/3mths and bulk fleet oils, or the Volvo's running xW-30/40 oils and doing the same. What about the modern cars, the Hondas and Toyotas with their "API Energy Conserving" oils racking up equally absurd mileage?
"Thicker oil has a thicker film and therefore protects better"
vs, "Thinner oil flows better and can reach "difficult" parts of the engine better."
All sounds the same to me!
Fact of the matter is provided you're using whats recommended and changing on time; oil is probably not effecting the life of the engine much. Usage habits of short-tripping in particular may be more detrimental to engine life than minute differences between a 5w20 and 5w30.
These days, the engine is generally a very refined and precisely manufactured bit of kit. I'd hazard to suggest the various electronic whizz-bangery demanded by consumers chasing the lowest price would be the shortfall of modern vehicle, along with ingenious transmission concepts ruined by poor implementation and bodywork inadequately protected to deal with the rigors of a corrosive environment.
Do what the manufacturer says.
If doing that causes failure in warranty - well, you just got a free repair, an oil-related failure outside of the warranty? Evaluate what went wrong, fix it and implement a regime to prevent it happening again!
If problems arise at higher mileage, say some sort of oil consumption not due to sludge/buildup or systems on the vehicle not functioning, then go up *a* grade and you may fix it.
The fact that engines in the US are quite happy on xW-20 oils, while their counterparts overseas are equally happy with xW-30 or even -40 oils says that perhaps the problem is not what its made out to be.
Obviously going too thick or thin compared to the manufacturers recommendations (i.e. 20w70 or 25-70 oils) isn't going to get you any love from me, at least.
If manufacturers back-specced thinner oils for older engines out of warranty, they would be doing this with the expectation that customers wouldn't be returning with bad engines.
Remember the lawsuit with Toyota over the sludge in the 5S-FE and 1MZ-FE all those years AFTER the fact? Manufacturers don't want that type of liability or bad publicity.
The market is cut-throat enough as it is, with decreasing tariffs on imports and the like.
Originally Posted By: GMFan
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the passenger car market moves away from multi viscosity oils and simply specifies straight weight light oils.
How would that work? You'll take an awful lot of climate change to obviate multigrade oils. Even an SAE 20 or lighter does no good if it doesn't meet MRV limits for the expected coldest ambient temperatures. And, if the SAE 20 or lighter does meet those limits, it is a multigrade, unless no VIIs are used, and I doubt that oil companies or OEMs are going to be going for oils that technologically advanced for appliances on wheels. Besides, a good VI does help fuel economy testing, and one isn't going to find that in a monograde by its definition.
A monograde up here in the winter would be a disaster, regardless of the SAE number.
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the passenger car market moves away from multi viscosity oils and simply specifies straight weight light oils.
How would that work? You'll take an awful lot of climate change to obviate multigrade oils. Even an SAE 20 or lighter does no good if it doesn't meet MRV limits for the expected coldest ambient temperatures. And, if the SAE 20 or lighter does meet those limits, it is a multigrade, unless no VIIs are used, and I doubt that oil companies or OEMs are going to be going for oils that technologically advanced for appliances on wheels. Besides, a good VI does help fuel economy testing, and one isn't going to find that in a monograde by its definition.
A monograde up here in the winter would be a disaster, regardless of the SAE number.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
That does it ! I'm staying out of these thin oil threads. The flak I get is not worth it !
Yeah, right. I'll see you in the next thread!
That does it ! I'm staying out of these thin oil threads. The flak I get is not worth it !
Yeah, right. I'll see you in the next thread!
I'm not a 0w20 fan because of price and selection.
I mostly use 5w20 and save about $8 on a Jug
That is with the oil I like.
I mostly use 5w20 and save about $8 on a Jug
That is with the oil I like.
Originally Posted By: Garak
How would that work? You'll take an awful lot of climate change to obviate multigrade oils. Even an SAE 20 or lighter does no good if it doesn't meet MRV limits for the expected coldest ambient temperatures. And, if the SAE 20 or lighter does meet those limits, it is a multigrade, unless no VIIs are used, and I doubt that oil companies or OEMs are going to be going for oils that technologically advanced for appliances on wheels. Besides, a good VI does help fuel economy testing, and one isn't going to find that in a monograde by its definition.
A monograde up here in the winter would be a disaster, regardless of the SAE number.
I guess that it could depend on how it's marketted in the rules that apply to J300.
Most 10W minerals COULD be sold as a 10W16 under the new J300...yep, multigrade, but still monograde.
Ravenol 0W16 appears to have no VII action, so is likely (or close to) a monograde...and if so, could be sold as a straight 16.
And
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3871970/Is_Fuel_Economy_Hiding_in_J300
I think that there will be changes, and I'm suspecting that they will be along the lines of not having "excessive KV100 for their HTHS"...the Japanese OEMs got stuck with J300 as it was, and created 0W20 unicorn oils to drop the KV40, and reduce shear stability to get where they felt that they wanted to be.
With the new J300 they are less hampered...when they drop KV and go to high shear rate viscosity only, I'm suspecting that VII use at the thin end will drop...last thing one of those oils needs is susceptibility to mechanical shear.
How would that work? You'll take an awful lot of climate change to obviate multigrade oils. Even an SAE 20 or lighter does no good if it doesn't meet MRV limits for the expected coldest ambient temperatures. And, if the SAE 20 or lighter does meet those limits, it is a multigrade, unless no VIIs are used, and I doubt that oil companies or OEMs are going to be going for oils that technologically advanced for appliances on wheels. Besides, a good VI does help fuel economy testing, and one isn't going to find that in a monograde by its definition.
A monograde up here in the winter would be a disaster, regardless of the SAE number.
I guess that it could depend on how it's marketted in the rules that apply to J300.
Most 10W minerals COULD be sold as a 10W16 under the new J300...yep, multigrade, but still monograde.
Ravenol 0W16 appears to have no VII action, so is likely (or close to) a monograde...and if so, could be sold as a straight 16.
And
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3871970/Is_Fuel_Economy_Hiding_in_J300
I think that there will be changes, and I'm suspecting that they will be along the lines of not having "excessive KV100 for their HTHS"...the Japanese OEMs got stuck with J300 as it was, and created 0W20 unicorn oils to drop the KV40, and reduce shear stability to get where they felt that they wanted to be.
With the new J300 they are less hampered...when they drop KV and go to high shear rate viscosity only, I'm suspecting that VII use at the thin end will drop...last thing one of those oils needs is susceptibility to mechanical shear.
- Status
Similar threads
