Originally Posted by Shannow
Wow
Wow
Educate me on 0w40 please
- Thread starter 53' Stude
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
Wow, talk about a massively gross and inaccurate generalization. I've provided below a few snips from some of the blending guides.
On the first one we see 5x different 0w-20 blends using Yubase 4, Yubase 4 plus, Yubase 6 some Group II and some PAO 4. PAO content ranges from zero to 10%, 6cSt base oil content ranges from 0 to 20%. VII treatment is between 6 and 7 %.
Then we have a couple different 0w-40's:
- One that's 30% 4.5cSt Group II+ and 47.7% 4cSt PAO with a VII treat rate of 9.4%.
- One that's 43.5% 4cSt PAO, 23% 6cSt PAO and 10% 5cSt POE with a VII treat rate of 12%
Then we have a Mobil blending guide that shows:
- A 0w-20 with 16.6% 4cSt PAO, 66.5% 6cSt PAO and a 2.6% VII treat rate (reminds me a lot of Mobil 1 Extended Performance /AP)
- A 0w-40 with 34.7% 4cSt PAO, 40% 6cSt PAO and a 11.6% VII treat rate
Which are obviously not the same base oil blend.
Mobil also has a less than detailed snippet on how you can blend a 0w-20 using Group II+ and Group III.
The rest of your post is probably going to make Shannow's head explode so I'm not touching that with a 10ft pole
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
Wow, talk about a massively gross and inaccurate generalization. I've provided below a few snips from some of the blending guides.
On the first one we see 5x different 0w-20 blends using Yubase 4, Yubase 4 plus, Yubase 6 some Group II and some PAO 4. PAO content ranges from zero to 10%, 6cSt base oil content ranges from 0 to 20%. VII treatment is between 6 and 7 %.
Then we have a couple different 0w-40's:
- One that's 30% 4.5cSt Group II+ and 47.7% 4cSt PAO with a VII treat rate of 9.4%.
- One that's 43.5% 4cSt PAO, 23% 6cSt PAO and 10% 5cSt POE with a VII treat rate of 12%
Then we have a Mobil blending guide that shows:
- A 0w-20 with 16.6% 4cSt PAO, 66.5% 6cSt PAO and a 2.6% VII treat rate (reminds me a lot of Mobil 1 Extended Performance /AP)
- A 0w-40 with 34.7% 4cSt PAO, 40% 6cSt PAO and a 11.6% VII treat rate
Which are obviously not the same base oil blend.
Mobil also has a less than detailed snippet on how you can blend a 0w-20 using Group II+ and Group III.
The rest of your post is probably going to make Shannow's head explode so I'm not touching that with a 10ft pole
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
The base oil of a 0W-40 is thinner than that of a synthetic 5W-20; therefore, in theory you get more wear with a 0W-40 than you would with a 5W-20.
The only reason why the European OEMs spec it is because their engines are high-revving engines, where the oil can get too high in high RPMs, requiring a higher HTHSV to make up for it so that you don't risk bearing damage during racing. Bearing wear is otherwise determined not by viscosity but the detergent type, TBN, and base-oil quality, which protect the copper and lead from oxidation. However, 0W-40s are usually good in these areas, despite having fallen behind in detergent technology (still using Ca detergent).
Another drawback is that since 0W-40 HTHSV is higher, you get less oil flow through your engine. It's not to mention that it will rob off fuel economy and horsepower.
Any 0W-xx will have good cold flow.
Disregard fancy OEM specs such as Porsche A40 etc., as they are irrelevant unless you own a Porsche etc. For example, A40 requires visual examination of bearings after racing. How does that help you when choosing an oil? Specs are not about oil quality. They are technical properties. Spec for one engine, even if it's for a Porsche, can hurt a different engine it's not specd for.
Long story short, unless your vehicle calls for 0W-40, you don't need it. It will only rob off performance and may even increase engine wear.
If 0W-40 is specd, Mobil 1 and Castrol should both be good with Castrol having more PAO but still a lot of Group III.
Mobil 1 0w30 is a lower-HTHSV oil but there are Euro 0W-30s with HTHSV >= 3.5 cP.
I did a comparison of TGMO 0W-20 and Mobil 1 0W-40. 0W-40 increased the valvetrain wear. However, its strong detergent helped reduce chromium and lead corrosion over TGMO's very low-TBN detergent.
Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/Mobil 1 0W-40): Final verdict
Gokhan, I appreciate some of your thorough posts, but either you (1) have rich insider knowledge of Euro OEM engineering teams or (2) your making significant assumptions based on your understanding of PCMO formulation.
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
The base oil of a 0W-40 is thinner than that of a synthetic 5W-20; therefore, in theory you get more wear with a 0W-40 than you would with a 5W-20.
The only reason why the European OEMs spec it is because their engines are high-revving engines, where the oil can get too high in high RPMs, requiring a higher HTHSV to make up for it so that you don't risk bearing damage during racing. Bearing wear is otherwise determined not by viscosity but the detergent type, TBN, and base-oil quality, which protect the copper and lead from oxidation. However, 0W-40s are usually good in these areas, despite having fallen behind in detergent technology (still using Ca detergent).
Another drawback is that since 0W-40 HTHSV is higher, you get less oil flow through your engine. It's not to mention that it will rob off fuel economy and horsepower.
Any 0W-xx will have good cold flow.
Disregard fancy OEM specs such as Porsche A40 etc., as they are irrelevant unless you own a Porsche etc. For example, A40 requires visual examination of bearings after racing. How does that help you when choosing an oil? Specs are not about oil quality. They are technical properties. Spec for one engine, even if it's for a Porsche, can hurt a different engine it's not specd for.
Long story short, unless your vehicle calls for 0W-40, you don't need it. It will only rob off performance and may even increase engine wear.
If 0W-40 is specd, Mobil 1 and Castrol should both be good with Castrol having more PAO but still a lot of Group III.
Mobil 1 0w30 is a lower-HTHSV oil but there are Euro 0W-30s with HTHSV >= 3.5 cP.
I did a comparison of TGMO 0W-20 and Mobil 1 0W-40. 0W-40 increased the valvetrain wear. However, its strong detergent helped reduce chromium and lead corrosion over TGMO's very low-TBN detergent.
Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/Mobil 1 0W-40): Final verdict
Gokhan, I appreciate some of your thorough posts, but either you (1) have rich insider knowledge of Euro OEM engineering teams or (2) your making significant assumptions based on your understanding of PCMO formulation.
Last edited:
Question: If running 0W-40 oil results in more bearing wear for daily driven cars, wouldn't that show up in an UOA?
Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Question: If running 0W-40 oil results in more bearing wear for daily driven cars, wouldn't that show up in an UOA?
No, things only show up in used oil analysis if it supports the suppositions being made.
Presence of "wear metals" is proof positive if it supports the view being made.
Absence of "wear metals" is inconclusive if it negates the view being made.
Question: If running 0W-40 oil results in more bearing wear for daily driven cars, wouldn't that show up in an UOA?
No, things only show up in used oil analysis if it supports the suppositions being made.
Presence of "wear metals" is proof positive if it supports the view being made.
Absence of "wear metals" is inconclusive if it negates the view being made.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
Wow, talk about a massively gross and inaccurate generalization. I've provided below a few snips from some of the blending guides.
Nope, not at all. We have the A_Harman index and VI for known oils. We don't need to look at the blending guides for fictitious oils.
For example, Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 has A_Harman index = 0.944, whereas Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0w40 has 0.865. That's more than a factor of two in temporary shear and probably the actual VII content as well.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
Wow, talk about a massively gross and inaccurate generalization. I've provided below a few snips from some of the blending guides.
Nope, not at all. We have the A_Harman index and VI for known oils. We don't need to look at the blending guides for fictitious oils.
For example, Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 has A_Harman index = 0.944, whereas Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0w40 has 0.865. That's more than a factor of two in temporary shear and probably the actual VII content as well.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
Wow, talk about a massively gross and inaccurate generalization. I've provided below a few snips from some of the blending guides.
Nope, not at all. We have the A_Harman index and VI for known oils. We don't need to look at the blending guides for fictitious oils.
For example, Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 has A_Harman index = 0.944, whereas Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0w40 has 0.865. That's more than a factor of two in temporary shear and probably the actual VII content as well.
You are REALLY reaching. The blending guides give examples, with quantities of and the different types and viscosities of bases, showing the range of options available. You are dumbing it down to "it's 0w-20 with more VII" and hanging your hat on it like it's fact based on a calculation designed to give one a rough idea of VII content in a finished lubricant, and ZERO information about what the base oils used are.
You are grossly over-simplifying how oils are blended and to what end I'm not even sure given your interest in formulation
[censored], the two oils you compared there, one is majority PAO, the other majority GTL and you are calling them the same thing and implying the only difference is the VII treat rate where the fact that this isn't even remotely the case is staring you right in the face
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
Wow, talk about a massively gross and inaccurate generalization. I've provided below a few snips from some of the blending guides.
Nope, not at all. We have the A_Harman index and VI for known oils. We don't need to look at the blending guides for fictitious oils.
For example, Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 has A_Harman index = 0.944, whereas Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0w40 has 0.865. That's more than a factor of two in temporary shear and probably the actual VII content as well.
You are REALLY reaching. The blending guides give examples, with quantities of and the different types and viscosities of bases, showing the range of options available. You are dumbing it down to "it's 0w-20 with more VII" and hanging your hat on it like it's fact based on a calculation designed to give one a rough idea of VII content in a finished lubricant, and ZERO information about what the base oils used are.
You are grossly over-simplifying how oils are blended and to what end I'm not even sure given your interest in formulation
So oil company blend guides are "fictitious"...but one can state confidently made up supposition trumps it ???
I take it that Gokhan likes the blend guides to be "fictitious", as it clearly puts the BOQI to sleep....for example, here is the BOQI, calculated from the Mobil data, from 100%PAO/ester basestocks.
Confirmational bias at it's best (albeit with no confirmation in sight)
I take it that Gokhan likes the blend guides to be "fictitious", as it clearly puts the BOQI to sleep....for example, here is the BOQI, calculated from the Mobil data, from 100%PAO/ester basestocks.
Confirmational bias at it's best (albeit with no confirmation in sight)
"Some who don't even know enough to know what's right/wrong in what he said, jumped on him like pre-teen boys"
For some, that's all they are capable of. Pick a "side" that "sounds good" to what you feel.
PeterPolyol is not wrong. It is best to stay away from VIIs if you can.
Dunning-Kruger indeed.
For some, that's all they are capable of. Pick a "side" that "sounds good" to what you feel.
PeterPolyol is not wrong. It is best to stay away from VIIs if you can.
Dunning-Kruger indeed.
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Having said that, can I just counter a statement made by He Who Makes Thing Up?
0W20 + VII does NOT make 0W40. It actually makes 5W40.
If HWMTU knew the first thing about oil formulation, this would be blatanty obvious!
Just because you worked for and dropped out of oil-blending business gives you the green light to spew unfounded nonsense, without bothering to present any evidence?
That depends on the base oil. It could be a 0W-40 or a 5W-40 according to how much the MRV increases with the VII content. I already discussed in the thread linked below that 0W-40 has a thinner base oil than 0W-20 in Exxon Mobil's blending guide. That amplifies my point rather than invalidating it that 0W-40 has a very thin base oil.
Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!
Having said that, can I just counter a statement made by He Who Makes Thing Up?
0W20 + VII does NOT make 0W40. It actually makes 5W40.
If HWMTU knew the first thing about oil formulation, this would be blatanty obvious!
Just because you worked for and dropped out of oil-blending business gives you the green light to spew unfounded nonsense, without bothering to present any evidence?
That depends on the base oil. It could be a 0W-40 or a 5W-40 according to how much the MRV increases with the VII content. I already discussed in the thread linked below that 0W-40 has a thinner base oil than 0W-20 in Exxon Mobil's blending guide. That amplifies my point rather than invalidating it that 0W-40 has a very thin base oil.
Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!
Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
"Some who don't even know enough to know what's right/wrong in what he said, jumped on him like pre-teen boys"
For some, that's all they are capable of. Pick a "side" that "sounds good" to what you feel.
PeterPolyol is not wrong. It is best to stay away from VIIs if you can.
Dunning-Kruger indeed.
Monograde, multigrade, less VII, more VII, motor oil is always a compromise.
VII has its place. You really have no choice but to have a lot of VII if you need both cold performance and a strong HTHSV, such as required for Euro applications where winters are cold and oil temperatures get hot because of high-revving engines. Otherwise, you can do better with less VII and lower HTHSV.
PeterPolyol's simple, fairly innocent statement was correct. However, mob attacks on BITOG take place often.
I don't look at the site for two days; I come back and see that another thread looks like the battle-aftermath scene in Gone with the Wind again.
![[Linked Image]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mFsaqQAZ04ofPCH9z2NiMDsyjQbbI-M4K1CNFy-6gz1NNKswxOVMiBjxoHInjOcX2XmAsK7R2TI945WAg7OcAESE2zw1gPtgdKFh5wq_xyB1ez3s8TuASbiXYYUNamivdKx9YmjV2R7RTm3W8gSbVsksFpvQMi7pyhH3wHpZbckP3Fo3ElyPeSd3gCeBklmOzd_vOBiqSqfTTxu4UEcbwrJjLyw0Pe6Lj1oRHCbHuMgaIs4QCFoHtd8iXZee5RtB4-_DAIjKXDMO7nuPYZPcrhGhUBj44QH-unC2Ddjwtr4j-BEWs1dIiUr32sOc6lz8k8DpPtEkVWoKhkTLN4NFm8AC3fFKnMYvYzUOhdMOVSP7NwnV2zuXo-A3oVNUpWbVgD7uICJN0D6Ty9CAFSWsaI6BPUYacVreCp3MwEmyu_AboliaT0ZqIHDPfOpGDgToa-F0XqJrmj13X8aUVExmLft8XMszUEzyAgdXHRbUzEg7T3UCeTbvVXbHsDNAPNG8K5wEHhOfYl3easeQLCiwKH9d7PfLS_b4wTXyU0a4P8psX131BiLNk-lf_Qr4g5B6UmjJLviPomlrV1-7-a6VQkWn8p50YWSJ4TV2ThP-iUwFsCKX-5qoawydB0XrmVsU6Jd7tVYIPLlIVbCi-92WYCVTUqvdNcjt=w800-h600-no?.jpg "[Linked Image]")
I didn't even bother to find out what happened, other than realizing that the title referred to a thick oil and someone spoke against thick oils.
"Some who don't even know enough to know what's right/wrong in what he said, jumped on him like pre-teen boys"
For some, that's all they are capable of. Pick a "side" that "sounds good" to what you feel.
PeterPolyol is not wrong. It is best to stay away from VIIs if you can.
Dunning-Kruger indeed.
Monograde, multigrade, less VII, more VII, motor oil is always a compromise.
VII has its place. You really have no choice but to have a lot of VII if you need both cold performance and a strong HTHSV, such as required for Euro applications where winters are cold and oil temperatures get hot because of high-revving engines. Otherwise, you can do better with less VII and lower HTHSV.
PeterPolyol's simple, fairly innocent statement was correct. However, mob attacks on BITOG take place often.
I don't look at the site for two days; I come back and see that another thread looks like the battle-aftermath scene in Gone with the Wind again.
I didn't even bother to find out what happened, other than realizing that the title referred to a thick oil and someone spoke against thick oils.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
The base oil of a 0W-40 is thinner than that of a synthetic 5W-20; therefore, in theory you get more wear with a 0W-40 than you would with a 5W-20.
The only reason why the European OEMs spec it is because their engines are high-revving engines, where the oil can get too high in high RPMs, requiring a higher HTHSV to make up for it so that you don't risk bearing damage during racing. Bearing wear is otherwise determined not by viscosity but the detergent type, TBN, and base-oil quality, which protect the copper and lead from oxidation. However, 0W-40s are usually good in these areas, despite having fallen behind in detergent technology (still using Ca detergent).
Another drawback is that since 0W-40 HTHSV is higher, you get less oil flow through your engine. It's not to mention that it will rob off fuel economy and horsepower.
Any 0W-xx will have good cold flow.
Disregard fancy OEM specs such as Porsche A40 etc., as they are irrelevant unless you own a Porsche etc. For example, A40 requires visual examination of bearings after racing. How does that help you when choosing an oil? Specs are not about oil quality. They are technical properties. Spec for one engine, even if it's for a Porsche, can hurt a different engine it's not specd for.
Long story short, unless your vehicle calls for 0W-40, you don't need it. It will only rob off performance and may even increase engine wear.
If 0W-40 is specd, Mobil 1 and Castrol should both be good with Castrol having more PAO but still a lot of Group III.
Mobil 1 0w30 is a lower-HTHSV oil but there are Euro 0W-30s with HTHSV >= 3.5 cP.
I did a comparison of TGMO 0W-20 and Mobil 1 0W-40. 0W-40 increased the valvetrain wear. However, its strong detergent helped reduce chromium and lead corrosion over TGMO's very low-TBN detergent.
Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/Mobil 1 0W-40): Final verdict
Gokhan, I appreciate some of your thorough posts, but either you (1) have rich insider knowledge of Euro OEM engineering teams or (2) your making significant assumptions based on your understanding of PCMO formulation.
My brain cells are dying off each day I see his posts.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
0W-40 = 0W-20 + a lot more VII
The base oil of a 0W-40 is thinner than that of a synthetic 5W-20; therefore, in theory you get more wear with a 0W-40 than you would with a 5W-20.
The only reason why the European OEMs spec it is because their engines are high-revving engines, where the oil can get too high in high RPMs, requiring a higher HTHSV to make up for it so that you don't risk bearing damage during racing. Bearing wear is otherwise determined not by viscosity but the detergent type, TBN, and base-oil quality, which protect the copper and lead from oxidation. However, 0W-40s are usually good in these areas, despite having fallen behind in detergent technology (still using Ca detergent).
Another drawback is that since 0W-40 HTHSV is higher, you get less oil flow through your engine. It's not to mention that it will rob off fuel economy and horsepower.
Any 0W-xx will have good cold flow.
Disregard fancy OEM specs such as Porsche A40 etc., as they are irrelevant unless you own a Porsche etc. For example, A40 requires visual examination of bearings after racing. How does that help you when choosing an oil? Specs are not about oil quality. They are technical properties. Spec for one engine, even if it's for a Porsche, can hurt a different engine it's not specd for.
Long story short, unless your vehicle calls for 0W-40, you don't need it. It will only rob off performance and may even increase engine wear.
If 0W-40 is specd, Mobil 1 and Castrol should both be good with Castrol having more PAO but still a lot of Group III.
Mobil 1 0w30 is a lower-HTHSV oil but there are Euro 0W-30s with HTHSV >= 3.5 cP.
I did a comparison of TGMO 0W-20 and Mobil 1 0W-40. 0W-40 increased the valvetrain wear. However, its strong detergent helped reduce chromium and lead corrosion over TGMO's very low-TBN detergent.
Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/Mobil 1 0W-40): Final verdict
Gokhan, I appreciate some of your thorough posts, but either you (1) have rich insider knowledge of Euro OEM engineering teams or (2) your making significant assumptions based on your understanding of PCMO formulation.
My brain cells are dying off each day I see his posts.
This went way off topic to the OP Could someone summarize the actual facts instead of the my thoughts are better than yours. Good grief.
Originally Posted by Purpfox
This went way off topic to the OP Could someone summarize the actual facts instead of the my thoughts are better than yours. Good grief.
That's what I am waiting for thanks!!!!
This went way off topic to the OP Could someone summarize the actual facts instead of the my thoughts are better than yours. Good grief.
That's what I am waiting for thanks!!!!
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Just because you worked for and dropped out of oil-blending business gives you the green light to spew unfounded nonsense, without bothering to present any evidence?
That's internet gold right there....the purveyor of made up pseudoscience (yet again) shutting down a veteran in the field's real life work, knowledge and experience as unfounded nonsense.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I don't look at the site for two days; I come back and see that another thread looks like the battle-aftermath scene in Gone with the Wind again..
And throwing in more of your made up nonsense is going to fix it ????
Just because you worked for and dropped out of oil-blending business gives you the green light to spew unfounded nonsense, without bothering to present any evidence?
That's internet gold right there....the purveyor of made up pseudoscience (yet again) shutting down a veteran in the field's real life work, knowledge and experience as unfounded nonsense.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I don't look at the site for two days; I come back and see that another thread looks like the battle-aftermath scene in Gone with the Wind again..
And throwing in more of your made up nonsense is going to fix it ????
Last edited:
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Just because you worked for and dropped out of oil-blending business gives you the green light to spew unfounded nonsense, without bothering to present any evidence?
That's internet gold right there....the purveyor of made up pseudoscience (yet again) shutting down a veteran in the field's real life work, knowledge and experience as unfounded nonsense.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I don't look at the site for two days; I come back and see that another thread looks like the battle-aftermath scene in Gone with the Wind again..
And throwing in more of your made up nonsense is going to fix it ????
Shannon, this is age where people expect to prove them what you know and did just because they were born.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Just because you worked for and dropped out of oil-blending business gives you the green light to spew unfounded nonsense, without bothering to present any evidence?
That's internet gold right there....the purveyor of made up pseudoscience (yet again) shutting down a veteran in the field's real life work, knowledge and experience as unfounded nonsense.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I don't look at the site for two days; I come back and see that another thread looks like the battle-aftermath scene in Gone with the Wind again..
And throwing in more of your made up nonsense is going to fix it ????
Shannon, this is age where people expect to prove them what you know and did just because they were born.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Another drawback is that since 0W-40 HTHSV is higher, you get less oil flow through your engine.
Flow isn't lubrication...we've been over that.
Heat that's carried away by "flow" is inherently CAUSED by the higher viscosity, with the flow being that which is naturally required to replenish things like side leakage....BTW, the artefact of more oil pressure gives you MORE flow through piston cooling jets where fitted.
"Flow" is meaningless...but we've been over that.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Disregard fancy OEM specs such as Porsche A40 etc., as they are irrelevant unless you own a Porsche etc. For example, A40 requires visual examination of bearings after racing. How does that help you when choosing an oil? Specs are not about oil quality. They are technical properties. Spec for one engine, even if it's for a Porsche, can hurt a different engine it's not specd for.
Please hook us up with the "facts and data" demonstrating that A40 is detrimental to non Porsche engines...or that DEXOS2 kills fords...or anything to support this position.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Long story short, unless your vehicle calls for 0W-40, you don't need it. It will only rob off performance and may even increase engine wear.
speculation, not facts driven...but covered by "may".
I posit that Porsche specced oils MAY reduce the incidence of meteor strikes on vehicles so equipped....and it's obviously every one else's role to prove that posit is wrong...after all if you are to argue against it, you MUST have the data, right ???
Another drawback is that since 0W-40 HTHSV is higher, you get less oil flow through your engine.
Flow isn't lubrication...we've been over that.
Heat that's carried away by "flow" is inherently CAUSED by the higher viscosity, with the flow being that which is naturally required to replenish things like side leakage....BTW, the artefact of more oil pressure gives you MORE flow through piston cooling jets where fitted.
"Flow" is meaningless...but we've been over that.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Disregard fancy OEM specs such as Porsche A40 etc., as they are irrelevant unless you own a Porsche etc. For example, A40 requires visual examination of bearings after racing. How does that help you when choosing an oil? Specs are not about oil quality. They are technical properties. Spec for one engine, even if it's for a Porsche, can hurt a different engine it's not specd for.
Please hook us up with the "facts and data" demonstrating that A40 is detrimental to non Porsche engines...or that DEXOS2 kills fords...or anything to support this position.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Long story short, unless your vehicle calls for 0W-40, you don't need it. It will only rob off performance and may even increase engine wear.
speculation, not facts driven...but covered by "may".
I posit that Porsche specced oils MAY reduce the incidence of meteor strikes on vehicles so equipped....and it's obviously every one else's role to prove that posit is wrong...after all if you are to argue against it, you MUST have the data, right ???
Shannow, you should make this your signature line, as it best describes you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You want opinions of people with extensive real-life experience? It doesn't get any better than experts at the Blackstone Labs, who constantly see UOA data. This is their take on viscosity.
Blackstone Labs: Which Viscosity to Use?
Engine owners often stray from manufacturers' recommendations regarding the viscosity of their oil. The engine builders dyno-test their engines using a specific viscosity oil, so when you use the viscosity they recommend, you are working with a known result. Going to another viscosity is an experiment, but it's usually a harmless one. For the sake of efficiency you want to run the lightest grade oil in your engine possible, within limits. We are seeing that trend for newer engines, for which the recommended grade is getting progressively lighter. The common 10w30 has become a 5w30, and some manufacturers even recommend 5w20 oil. The heavier the oil, the more bearing film it provides, and that's important at the lower end. If your oil is too light, the bearing metals can increase. If the oil is too heavy, the upper end metals can increase. The trick is to find the right viscosity for your particular engine, which is why we suggest following the manufacturer's recommendation.
I say an engine may benefit from better flow of a thinner oil. You say "Never!"
I say a thicker oil may increase wear. You say "Never!"
You say thicker the oil, less the bearing wear. I say, I still have to see the evidence of bearing wear changing with viscosity in used oil analysis here or anyone whose bearings failed because of too low viscosity. You never provide any. (Don't post that taxi cab study where they used the equivalent of 0W-12.)
Who is the one really making up stuff here without evidence? The word "never" is a very strong one to use without evidence. However, again, you're the king of psychological projection here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You want opinions of people with extensive real-life experience? It doesn't get any better than experts at the Blackstone Labs, who constantly see UOA data. This is their take on viscosity.
Blackstone Labs: Which Viscosity to Use?
Engine owners often stray from manufacturers' recommendations regarding the viscosity of their oil. The engine builders dyno-test their engines using a specific viscosity oil, so when you use the viscosity they recommend, you are working with a known result. Going to another viscosity is an experiment, but it's usually a harmless one. For the sake of efficiency you want to run the lightest grade oil in your engine possible, within limits. We are seeing that trend for newer engines, for which the recommended grade is getting progressively lighter. The common 10w30 has become a 5w30, and some manufacturers even recommend 5w20 oil. The heavier the oil, the more bearing film it provides, and that's important at the lower end. If your oil is too light, the bearing metals can increase. If the oil is too heavy, the upper end metals can increase. The trick is to find the right viscosity for your particular engine, which is why we suggest following the manufacturer's recommendation.
I say an engine may benefit from better flow of a thinner oil. You say "Never!"
I say a thicker oil may increase wear. You say "Never!"
You say thicker the oil, less the bearing wear. I say, I still have to see the evidence of bearing wear changing with viscosity in used oil analysis here or anyone whose bearings failed because of too low viscosity. You never provide any. (Don't post that taxi cab study where they used the equivalent of 0W-12.)
Who is the one really making up stuff here without evidence? The word "never" is a very strong one to use without evidence. However, again, you're the king of psychological projection here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
