Educate me on 0w40 please

[StevieC]

How many engines has Blackstone torn apart and measured though? They are going based on a narrow window view that the used oil analysis shows for wear metals.
There is lots of protection and wear that happens outside what they can see so the data they are making this assumption on is skewed because it's not the whole picture.

That's why used oil analysis can show lubricant life and with a bunch of them show a trend but only within a narrow window that they can measure. It's not the whole picture.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.

Every time I come back to read I stay amazed. This reminds me of anti-vaccination movement.
World did not start when you were born.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Every time I come back to read I stay amazed. This reminds me of anti-vaccination movement.
World did not start when you were born.

This is what best that describes your character as well, although you're second to Shannow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

An important excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

"Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of personal or political crisis but is more commonly found in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder."

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.


This study was interesting because they used different viscosity with the same add packs to see just the effect of the viscosity. Yeah, it's a 16 vs 30 ... but it makes a statement.

BTW - this study basically said they didn't see any wear difference in the journal bearings due to the viscosity difference, but did in other engine components (non-hydrodynamic lubrication points).

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847

https://crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2018/AVFL-28/CRC AVFL-28_Final Report_JAN2018.pdf

 

[Shannow]

LOL....more gold...

(BTW, you forgot to add your supporting data)...and I don'tr us the word never...maybe you need to look up "narcissist" and psychological projection.

Still waiting for your data on Porsche oils wearing out other engine designs.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
This study was interesting because they used different viscosity with the same add packs to see just the effect of the viscosity. Yeah, it's a 16 vs 30 ... but it makes a statement.

BTW - this study basically said they didn't see any wear difference in the journal bearings due to the viscosity difference, but did in other engine components (non-hydrodynamic lubrication points).

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847

https://crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2018/AVFL-28/CRC AVFL-28_Final Report_JAN2018.pdf

Thanks, this is a great study with extensive data! Finally, someone who provides an engineering study instead of psychological projection or personal attacks as the evidence.

Basically, 0W-16 held up very well in this turbo gasoline direct-injection (TGDI) engine, despite 5w30 being the manufacturer's recommendation and anything less than 0W-40 would give some people nightmares. It even did better than 5w30 in unexpected driving conditions, such as trailer towing, where you would think a thicker oil would do better. One thing that's not clear is what the base oils were, which is something I care about a lot (BOQI, anyone?) and could change the performance of the oils significantly even if the additive packs were the same. Another interesting result in the study is that the damages observed in some components seem to happen regardless of the viscosity and they indicate a design problem more than anything else. Well-designed parts, such as the rod bearings, experienced no wear whatsoever with either viscosity in any operating condition. (BMW M3 rod bearings failing quickly despite 10W-60, anyone?)

I never claim that you can go arbitrarily thin and you will still be safe against wear. (That's why I didn't pick up four bottles of TGMO 0W-16 last time I was at the Toyota dealer.) Nevertheless, this study shows that wear vs. viscosity is complicated and chances are that the vehicle owner will never notice the effect of viscosity on the longevity of the engine but may notice a change in the fuel economy and horsepower, depending on the viscosity used.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
Every time I come back to read I stay amazed. This reminds me of anti-vaccination movement.
World did not start when you were born.

This is what best that describes your character as well, although you're second to Shannow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

An important excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

"Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of personal or political crisis but is more commonly found in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder."

Now you becoming online psychologist?
Since we throwing diagnosis around, maybe ignoramus would fit you best.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
This is what best that describes your character

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Now you becoming online psychologist?
Since we throwing diagnosis around, maybe ignoramus would fit you best.

Good, my diagnosis was correct.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
This study was interesting because they used different viscosity with the same add packs to see just the effect of the viscosity. Yeah, it's a 16 vs 30 ... but it makes a statement.

BTW - this study basically said they didn't see any wear difference in the journal bearings due to the viscosity difference, but did in other engine components (non-hydrodynamic lubrication points).

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847

https://crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2018/AVFL-28/CRC AVFL-28_Final Report_JAN2018.pdf

Thanks, this is a great study with extensive data! Finally, someone who provides an engineering study instead of psychological projection or personal attacks as the evidence.

Basically, 0W-16 held up very well in this turbo gasoline direct-injection (TGDI) engine, despite 5w30 being the manufacturer's recommendation and anything less than 0W-40 would give some people nightmares. It even did better than 5w30 in unexpected driving conditions, such as trailer towing, where you would think a thicker oil would do better. One thing that's not clear is what the base oils were, which is something I care about a lot (BOQI, anyone?) and could change the performance of the oils significantly even if the additive packs were the same. Another interesting result in the study is that the damages observed in some components seem to happen regardless of the viscosity and they indicate a design problem more than anything else. Well-designed parts, such as the rod bearings, experienced no wear whatsoever with either viscosity in any operating condition. (BMW M3 rod bearings failing quickly despite 10W-60, anyone?)

I never claim that you can go arbitrarily thin and you will still be safe against wear. (That's why I didn't pick up four bottles of TGMO 0W-16 last time I was at the Toyota dealer.) Nevertheless, this study shows that wear vs. viscosity is complicated and chances are that the vehicle owner will never notice the effect of viscosity on the longevity of the engine but may notice a change in the fuel economy and horsepower, depending on the viscosity used.


Lubrication is complicated when it's really studied. This technical paper results did however show that overall the thicker oil did provide noticably more engine protection from wear in most situations.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I for one am glad that I can put 0w40 in the sump and get Higher levels of protection due to the higher HTHS.

I also appreciate the tear down results from thenprsche sequence test.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Lubrication is complicated when it's really studied. This technical paper results did however show that overall the thicker oil did provide noticably more engine protection from wear in most situations.

I just saw that it says, "Since this testing program ran without an oil filter, ..." That certainly put the 0w-16 at a disadvantage. I'm sure you being very big on oil-filter efficiency, disapprove this testing choice.

Another important point to realize is that the two oils not only have different HTHSV, they also have different base-oil viscosity (0W vs 5W). So, what part caused more wear with 0W-16 in certain driving conditions? My guess is the SAE 0W part, not the SAE 16 part. In other words, we don't know if a 0W-40 would do any better than a 0W-16, as it also has a very thin base oil, in fact likely even thinner. The Nissan paper I referenced also emphasized the importance of the base-oil viscosity:

Do you think that's "thick" oil? Think again!

Another excerpt from the study, with some here having criticized me, to say the least, for making similar statements:

"Although it may be expected that the SAE 0W-16 lubricant would give higher wear across all operating conditions and engine components tested, this did not prove to be the case, with a significant number of engine operating cycles giving higher component wear for the SAE 5w30 oil."

Very interestingly, the testing cycle in which the oil temperature is the highest, the towing test, showed far less wear with 0W-16 than with 5w30.

So, wear vs. oil viscosity is not a strawman as some here believe it to be.

 

[StevieC]

In case anyone is interested. Amsoil XL 5w30 which is an API Licensed oil has a HTHS of 3.3. Not quite a 3.5 but very close.
It's also rated for 12,000 miles and reasonbally priced with the PC Membership ($20-25/year) and is 25% off the standard website price.

They also have 2 0w40's as well. (Although not API Licensed but the one carries some official Euro licensing)

 

[ZeeOSix]

... double post.

 

[Gokhan]

One more thing to note in the study is that some engine components got damaged, such as the broken chromium insert in the ring and intercooler fluid leaked into the cylinder. Looking at some of the results that seem erratic, it may have to do with this.

In any case, 0W-16 held up really well in this TGDI engine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I just saw that it says, "Since this testing program ran without an oil filter, ..." That certainly put the 0w-16 at a disadvantage. I'm sure you being very big on oil-filter efficiency, disapprove this testing choice.


There was a reason for that:
"No oil filter was fitted during the break-in or the engine testing phase of this project. This was to ensure all wear particles collected in the lubricating oil was available to pass through the radiation detector."

Keep in mind there was lots of oil changing going on during this whole testing sequence, so an oil filter wasn't needed that badly and if they had used a good filter it could have actrually skewed the test data. They were looking for all wear due to lubrication performance. You can't filter out the stuff you're measuring or you don't have test data.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
In any case, 0W-16 held up really well in this TGDI engine.


It held up ... however:
"Comparing the wear rates using SAE 5w30 and SAE 0W-16 oils, lower viscosity lubricant resulted in higher wear across roughly two thirds of the engine operating conditions."

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
In any case, 0W-16 held up really well in this TGDI engine.
It held up ... however:
"Comparing the wear rates using SAE 5w30 and SAE 0W-16 oils, lower viscosity lubricant resulted in higher wear across roughly two thirds of the engine operating conditions."

If you read the whole study, the same happened even in the "very cold" engine, which indicates that there were other factors than the viscosity. I mentioned the damaged engine components and unknown base-oil types.

Therefore, it's unclear if some of the results are related to the oil viscosity. Also, if they are related, it's unclear if it's because of the SAE 0W/5W part or SAE 16/30 part.

 

[PimTac]

From a laypersons point of view, that study was a valiant effort and did show some interesting points. However the engine damage resulting from the ring failure puts a cloud on the testing.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Another important point to realize is that the two oils not only have different HTHSV, they also have different base-oil viscosity (0W vs 5W). So, what part caused more wear with 0W-16 in certain driving conditions? My guess is the SAE 0W part, not the SAE 16 part. In other words, we don't know if a 0W-40 would do any better than a 0W-16, as it also has a very thin base oil, in fact likely even thinner.


What I've noticed with anything blended with straight 4cSt bases appears to be higher Noack.
- A 0w-16, with a 4cSt Group III base 4.6% VII and 12.9% Noack (just using one of the examples from the Yubase blending guide)
- A 0w-30, with 4cSt Group III and 10% 4cSt PAO, 10% VII has a 12.3% Noack
- A 0w30 with a 4cSt Group III+ and 10% VII has an 11.5% Noack
- A 0w-20 with 4cSt Group III and 7% VII has a 14.4% Noack
- A 0w-20 with 4cSt Group III+, 20% 6cSt Group III and 6% VII has an 11.5% Noack
- A 5w30 with 4cSt Group III and 9.1% VII has a 12.8% Noack (Of note is this throws a wrench in your claim that a 0w-16 and a 5w30 have different base oil viscosities)
- A 5w30 with 4cSt Group III+ and 25% 6cSt Group III with 8% VII had a much lower 10.1% Noack
- A 0w-40 with 4cSt Group III and 4cSt PAO with 9.4% VII has a Noack of 11.8%, which won't meet the Mercedes 10% limit for a Euro oil.
- A 0w-40 with a 4.5cSt Group II+ and 4cSt PAO with 9.4% VII has a Noack right on the 10% limit.
- A 0w-40 with 4cSt PAO, 6cSt PAO and 4cSt POE with 11.6% VII has a Noack right on the 10% limit.

We know the majority of the 0w-40's on the market have a Noack below 10%. Mobil 1 0w-40 was 8.8%, FS is 9%. Since Noack is related to base oil viscosity, I'm going to say your claim that 0w-16 has a heavier base than 0w-40 doesn't seem plausible. Even the 4cSt PAO's are between 12 and 14%, only the Esterex 4.3cSt product has a lower 4.7% Noack.

Of the readily available 0w-16's that we have Noack for
- Amsoil's OE 0w-16 iis 12.3%
- Valvoline 0w-16 is 11.4%,
- TGMO 0w-16 is 13%
- Honda "Green" 0w-16 is 25%
- Idemitsu ZEPRO 0w-16 is 13%
- Havoline ProDS 0w-16 is 12% (their 0w-20 is 12.1)
- CAM2 Synavex is 13%
- Eneos 0w-16 is 13.1%
- Sunoco 0w-16 is 13.9%

All are significantly higher than any of the readily available 0w-40's, pointing to lighter bases used, likely all straight 4cSt.

I'd wager the one with the lowest Noack is Mobil 1 0w-16 given it is majority PAO and has a low VI, but unfortunately we don't have that actual figure available that I'm aware of.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by PimTac
From a laypersons point of view, that study was a valiant effort and did show some interesting points. However the engine damage resulting from the ring failure puts a cloud on the testing.


Hard to say because they don't know when that slight ring and land damaged actually occurred - they think it was near the end of the testing. From the damage reported, I doubt it made much of a difference. It was one small sliver of chromium that flaked off the face of one ring in Cyl #3 (Fig I9). They made it sound like there was no matching cylinder scuffing and didn't believe it made any real difference based on their statement:

"Due to the location of the cylinder scuff on the anti-thrust side, no radiation wear data was accumulated related to this event. Figure I10 shows a radioactive sliver found in the sump, post test, believed to be the missing chrome segment."