Educate me on 0w40 please

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
They made is sound like they didn't see any spike in wear metal monitoring, so they didn't think it made any increase in wear.

I've written a lot of scientific papers and also refereed (peer-reviewed) many. Authors will say anything to justify their results. It's the job of the referees to criticize and decide whether an article can be published as it is or published at all. This is not even a peer-reviewed article.

If there is obvious ring damage, obvious groove damage, and obvious crown damage, it will affect the results significantly. Speaking of spikes, there are multiple. See, for example, the start - stop cycle in Figure 7. There is a factor of 288 difference between the two oils. Is this really a viscosity effect?

I would say there are a lot of people here with scientific background that written papers etc. Since you are bragging about it, let us see. Let's see those papers.


Specifically papers that relate to lubrication I would say.

Gokhan discounts engineering degrees (multiple posters), and people who hold extensive experience in the development of lubricants and additive, and hold multiple lubricant related patents as irrelevant so one would assume that he's well and truly published in the field that he claims the expertise in...wouldn't you think ?

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted by Shannow

I would say there are a lot of people here with scientific

Specifically papers that relate to lubrication I would say.

Gokhan discounts engineering degrees (multiple posters), and people who hold extensive experience in the development of lubricants and additive, and hold multiple lubricant related patents as irrelevant so one would assume that he's well and truly published in the field that he claims the expertise in...wouldn't you think ?


Reminds me of 540rat. Wait, is Gokhan 540rat!?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
What is typical hths of 0Wx16? Is there a api range (e.g. between 1.3 & 1.7) or is there a min (e.g. Not lower than 1.3)


http://machinerylubricationindia.co.../328-how-to-determine-engine-oil-quality

Minimum HTHS viscosity in cP defined below.

"Japanese automakers have recently called for even lower viscosity grades. As a consequence, the SAE has introduced three new operating grades identified as SAE 16 (2.3 cP minimum at 150 degrees C), SAE 12 (2.0 cP minimum at 150 degrees C) and SAE 8 (1.7 cP minimum at 150 degrees C). "

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by OilUzer
What is typical hths of 0Wx16? Is there a api range (e.g. between 1.3 & 1.7) or is there a min (e.g. Not lower than 1.3)
http://machinerylubricationindia.co.../328-how-to-determine-engine-oil-quality

Minimum HTHS viscosity in cP defined below.

"Japanese automakers have recently called for even lower viscosity grades. As a consequence, the SAE has introduced three new operating grades identified as SAE 16 (2.3 cP minimum at 150 degrees C), SAE 12 (2.0 cP minimum at 150 degrees C) and SAE 8 (1.7 cP minimum at 150 degrees C). "

To add a note, the dynamic viscosity of water at room temperature (20 °C [68 °F]) is about 1.0 cP.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
They made is sound like they didn't see any spike in wear metal monitoring, so they didn't think it made any increase in wear.

I've written a lot of scientific papers and also refereed (peer-reviewed) many. Authors will say anything to justify their results. It's the job of the referees to criticize and decide whether an article can be published as it is or published at all. This is not even a peer-reviewed article.

If there is obvious ring damage, obvious groove damage, and obvious crown damage, it will affect the results significantly. Speaking of spikes, there are multiple. See, for example, the start - stop cycle in Figure 7. There is a factor of 288 difference between the two oils. Is this really a viscosity effect?

I would say there are a lot of people here with scientific background that written papers etc. Since you are bragging about it, let us see. Let's see those papers.


Specifically papers that relate to lubrication I would say.

Gokhan discounts engineering degrees (multiple posters), and people who hold extensive experience in the development of lubricants and additive, and hold multiple lubricant related patents as irrelevant so one would assume that he's well and truly published in the field that he claims the expertise in...wouldn't you think ?

Of course. If he did, he would know never to brag about publishing peer reviewed papers unless you can prove. One thing is to say, I worked, I drove, but there is a reason why peer review is gold standard, and you do not throw that around.
Now, maybe Gokhan thinks forum posts are also peer reviewed? I mean, we do review them?

 

[LeoStrop]

After reading all this thread i have a few questions:

1.How does the blend of a 15W50 looks like? Is the base oil thick enough to reach that viscosity without needing a lot of VII? The same goes for a manual trans oil like a 75W90, how they reach that viscosity?

2.Would a 15W40 contain less VII, or will it be a very similar blend like the 15W50 (considering that they are made by the same company)?

Always a good read, thank you guys.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by LeoStrop
After reading all this thread i have a few questions:

1.How does the blend of a 15W50 looks like? Is the base oil thick enough to reach that viscosity without needing a lot of VII? The same goes for a manual trans oil like a 75W90, how they reach that viscosity?

2.Would a 15W40 contain less VII, or will it be a very similar blend like the 15W50 (considering that they are made by the same company)?

Always a good read, thank you guys.

I would think it really depends on the blend of base oil. I thought far less is required with newer base oils. I remember that PAO/ester blends resulted in higher VI.

Also, gear oil viscosity uses a different scale. 75W90 can be within the 5W/10W to 40 or 50 engine oil range.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by LeoStrop
After reading all this thread i have a few questions:

1.How does the blend of a 15W50 looks like? Is the base oil thick enough to reach that viscosity without needing a lot of VII? The same goes for a manual trans oil like a 75W90, how they reach that viscosity?

2.Would a 15W40 contain less VII, or will it be a very similar blend like the 15W50 (considering that they are made by the same company)?

Always a good read, thank you guys.



One thing before I talk numbers...

For 0W, 5W & 10W oils, it's usually necessary to use some (or all) synthetic base oil in the blend (either for CCS or to keep Noack in check). With 15W40s & 15W50s, you don't need ANY fancy base oil & the crappiest of Group Is or IIs will suffice. Also be aware that you generally can't physically make all Group III 15W40s & 15W50s because the heaviest available Group III is too light.

A typical low tier 15W40 might contain a 70:30 mix of 150SN (5.5 cst) & 600SN (11.0 cst) base oils, so you're going to have a relatively heavy base oil mix. Typically it would contain around 7.5% liquid OCP VII. The corresponding 15W50 might have the same base oils in a 75:25 ratio & a VII content of about 12.5% (the base oil mix needs to be lighter to accommodate the extra VII).

Personally I don't like 15W50 oils because of all the common grades of engine oil, they have the highest VII content. They are generally awful on piston deposit tests (especially the diesel variety). Thankfully they're not anything like as popular as they once were.

Can't talk much about transmission oils as they never were 'my thing'. However I would say keep engine & transmission oils very separate as the VII requirements are totally different.

 

[LeoStrop]

y_p_w & SnofJoe Thanks!

Originally Posted by SonofJoe

...

Personally I don't like 15W50 oils because of all the common grades of engine oil, they have the highest VII content. They are generally awful on piston deposit tests (especially the diesel variety). Thankfully they're not anything like as popular as they once were.



That is what i didn't wanted to hear, but expected.

The options i have for my car are 15W40, 15W50 or 20W50. Both 20W50 and 15W40, are normally cheap oils around here, being conventional or semi synthetic and don't carry ACEA specs.

Even if "any" oil would run good on that engine, i want to take a good care out of it. I bought that car to start a project, so probably it will have a turbo some time in his life. That is why i chose the 15W50 with A3/B4 (curently using Total, going for Motul 4100 Power). Also, i drive a bit fast and the car doesn't give me any informations, since it olny has speed, water temp. and fuel indicators (and none of them are accurate).

Do you think the 15W50 is a step back compared to the other options i have?

 

[JAG]

Thanks SOJ. In the earlier era of these forums, it used to get stated about the tendency of VIIs to form deposits, then over time, it seemed to be mentioned less and less. I think that's due to the changes in active posters, as opposed to changes in VIIs. I've always kept the deposit tendency of VIIs in my mind as a negative. Of course, they have positives, particularly with Group 1 and 2 base oils and synthetic blends, since their cold temperature viscometrics are in more need of help then Groups III-V are.

As oil nerds, when selecting a motor oil, we should understand that there are oils that lose a significant percentage of their viscosity due to mechanical and thermal stresses imposed on its VIIs. The joke has been made that the final blending process occurs when it's in the engine. The percent reduction in HTHS viscosity has been found to be around 1/2 of the percent reduction in KV@100C. That's because the VIIs cause a larger percent increase in kinematic viscosity than the percent increase added to the HTHS, as a result of temporary viscosity loss at high shear rates present in the HTHS test. With past used oil analysis, the above rule, and product data sheets, one can get estimates used oil HTHS viscosity. If significant fuel is present, it reduces the KV@100C by a similar percentage that the HTHS is reduced because fuel is a Newtonian fluid. It is possible to approximately account for the effect of the fuel in the estimated used oil HTHS viscosity, but I wouldn't bother unless their is a lot of fuel. Unfortunately with many DI engines, a lot of fuel dilution is the norm.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Can't talk much about transmission oils as they never were 'my thing'. However I would say keep engine & transmission oils very separate as the VII requirements are totally different.

They were very much mixed at one time - at least when Saab and Honda spec'ed motor oil as a gear lube. Generally 10w30 or 10W-40 were recommended in the 90s. I believe the end of it was the API SH oil spec. The independent Japanese car specialist I took my car to would use whatever current Castrol GTX 10w30 was available. But from reading the owner's manual, they really wanted API SF or SG. I heard it was because SH was where they started reducing the allowable phosphorus levels (i.e. ZDDP) which were what allowed motor oil to be suitable as a gear lube. My wife's 2002 Civic is an automatic, but I've got a copy of the owner's manual with all the recommendations for gear lube. They of course recommend Honda MTF, but the alternate recommendations (in case MTF isn't available) are interesting.

Quote
If Honda MTF is not available, you
may use an API service SG, SH or SJ
grade motor oil with a viscosity of
SAE 10w30 or 10W-40 as a
temporary replacement. An SG
grade is preferred, but an SH or SJ
grade may be used if SG is not
available. However, motor oil does
not contain the proper additives and
continued use can cause stiffer
shifting. Replace as soon as it is
convenient.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by LeoStrop

y_p_w & SnofJoe Thanks!

Originally Posted by SonofJoe

...

Personally I don't like 15W50 oils because of all the common grades of engine oil, they have the highest VII content. They are generally awful on piston deposit tests (especially the diesel variety). Thankfully they're not anything like as popular as they once were.



That is what i didn't wanted to hear, but expected.

The options i have for my car are 15W40, 15W50 or 20W50. Both 20W50 and 15W40, are normally cheap oils around here, being conventional or semi synthetic and don't carry ACEA specs.

Even if "any" oil would run good on that engine, i want to take a good care out of it. I bought that car to start a project, so probably it will have a turbo some time in his life. That is why i chose the 15W50 with A3/B4 (curently using Total, going for Motul 4100 Power). Also, i drive a bit fast and the car doesn't give me any informations, since it olny has speed, water temp. and fuel indicators (and none of them are accurate).

Do you think the 15W50 is a step back compared to the other options i have?



Hmmmm...tricky...

Back in the day I did a couple of oil development programs with Group I Petrobras stocks. The typical target would be SL/CF with A2/B2 or A3/B3 thrown in as needed. Most of the engine testing would be done in a (very highly optimised) 15W40 and the data 'read & across' to the other grades.

However reading stuff across to 15W50, whilst officially allowed, isn't actually that clever. As a formulator you know this and, if you can get away with it, it's why you always test the 'easy' grade and never test the 'hard' grade. Unless things have changed since I left the industry (and I doubt they have) you could count the total number of mineral 15W50 Peugeot TU5 passes (needed for ACEA A2/A3) on the fingers of one hand of someone who one day carelessly picked up a live grenade! That's for the ENTIRE industry.

My advice, such as it is, is forget the 15W50 and either use the 15W40 (preferred) or 20W50 (okay but change it often).

Also I might just forget the turbo. Turbos and Group I oils really don't go together.

Sorry!

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Can't talk much about transmission oils as they never were 'my thing'. However I would say keep engine & transmission oils very separate as the VII requirements are totally different.

They were very much mixed at one time - at least when Saab and Honda spec'ed motor oil as a gear lube. Generally 10w30 or 10W-40 were recommended in the 90s. I believe the end of it was the API SH oil spec. The independent Japanese car specialist I took my car to would use whatever current Castrol GTX 10w30 was available. But from reading the owner's manual, they really wanted API SF or SG. I heard it was because SH was where they started reducing the allowable phosphorus levels (i.e. ZDDP) which were what allowed motor oil to be suitable as a gear lube. My wife's 2002 Civic is an automatic, but I've got a copy of the owner's manual with all the recommendations for gear lube. They of course recommend Honda MTF, but the alternate recommendations (in case MTF isn't available) are interesting.

Quote
If Honda MTF is not available, you
may use an API service SG, SH or SJ
grade motor oil with a viscosity of
SAE 10w30 or 10W-40 as a
temporary replacement. An SG
grade is preferred, but an SH or SJ
grade may be used if SG is not
available. However, motor oil does
not contain the proper additives and
continued use can cause stiffer
shifting. Replace as soon as it is
convenient.



My first car (an utterly rubbish Austin 1100 death trap!) had an engine where the crankcase & manual gearbox shared the same oil (a 20W50 if memory serves). Changing gear on that car, especially as there was no synchro on 1st & Reverse, was always an adventure! The good thing was that there were so many other things wrong with the car that the gearbox was the least of my worries.

Yes you can use engine oils for MT gearboxes & they will work. However my (vague) recollection is that 'proper' MT oils use very shear stable Poly-methacrylate VII's as opposed to the less shear stable OCP & HSD ones you get in engine oils. They also contain a lot less of other typical engine oil additives because of the lack of contact with blow-by gas & combustion products.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Yes you can use engine oils for MT gearboxes & they will work. However my (vague) recollection is that 'proper' MT oils use very shear stable Poly-methacrylate VII's as opposed to the less shear stable OCP & HSD ones you get in engine oils. They also contain a lot less of other typical engine oil additives because of the lack of contact with blow-by gas & combustion products.

Wasn't it more or less a kludge to specify motor oil? I heard that Honda primarily did that for fuel economy gains.

It was always a 30K "normal" and 15K "severe" service interval. With Mobil Super 10w30 selling for 99 cents a quart, it was pretty cheap to simply do it every 15K miles. I was using it until I discovered Red Line MTL. By then Honda had come out with their specific MTF to replace motor oil for use in transmissions.

It was really odd though. I thought I'd call the 800 number in my owner's manual to ask about the recommendation that said API SF or SG motor oil. SH was the standard at the time for engine oil when I took delivery of my car (and on the recommended fluids and spark plugs printed on the air box). All I got from them was that I needed to use API SF or SG in the transmission. I don't think the operator was allowed to do anything other than operate off of scripted answers.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Yes you can use engine oils for MT gearboxes & they will work. However my (vague) recollection is that 'proper' MT oils use very shear stable Poly-methacrylate VII's as opposed to the less shear stable OCP & HSD ones you get in engine oils. They also contain a lot less of other typical engine oil additives because of the lack of contact with blow-by gas & combustion products.

Wasn't it more or less a kludge to specify motor oil? I heard that Honda primarily did that for fuel economy gains.

It was always a 30K "normal" and 15K "severe" service interval. With Mobil Super 10w30 selling for 99 cents a quart, it was pretty cheap to simply do it every 15K miles. I was using it until I discovered Red Line MTL. By then Honda had come out with their specific MTF to replace motor oil for use in transmissions.

It was really odd though. I thought I'd call the 800 number in my owner's manual to ask about the recommendation that said API SF or SG motor oil. SH was the standard at the time for engine oil when I took delivery of my car (and on the recommended fluids and spark plugs printed on the air box). All I got from them was that I needed to use API SF or SG in the transmission. I don't think the operator was allowed to do anything other than operate off of scripted answers.



Interesting. I think things must be different over there as opposed to over here.

The additive packs that go into MT oils are a big deal over in Europe. I got involved with them very briefly when I was once banished to sit on the naughty step for being beastly to someone (deservedly so as it turned out!).

As I recall, Lubrizol had a near monopoly of the business. It was primarily fill-for-life business (or close to) & there were a ton of OEM approvals that you absolutely had to secure if you wanted to paddle in that particular pool. However the pay off was that it was way more profitable than bog standard engine oil stuff.

I was 'rehabilitated' before I could get too deeply into MT fluids. Shame really. I do seem to remember thinking that our people really didn't understand what they were doing & that it might benefit from the SoJ treatment.

 

[LeoStrop]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe

Hmmmm...tricky...

Back in the day I did a couple of oil development programs with Group I Petrobras stocks. The typical target would be SL/CF with A2/B2 or A3/B3 thrown in as needed. Most of the engine testing would be done in a (very highly optimised) 15W40 and the data 'read & across' to the other grades.

However reading stuff across to 15W50, whilst officially allowed, isn't actually that clever. As a formulator you know this and, if you can get away with it, it's why you always test the 'easy' grade and never test the 'hard' grade. Unless things have changed since I left the industry (and I doubt they have) you could count the total number of mineral 15W50 Peugeot TU5 passes (needed for ACEA A2/A3) on the fingers of one hand of someone who one day carelessly picked up a live grenade! That's for the ENTIRE industry.

My advice, such as it is, is forget the 15W50 and either use the 15W40 (preferred) or 20W50 (okay but change it often).

Also I might just forget the turbo. Turbos and Group I oils really don't go together.

Sorry!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
I got involved with them very briefly when I was once banished to sit on the naughty step for being beastly to someone (deservedly so as it turned out!).

...

I was 'rehabilitated' before I could get too deeply into MT fluids. Shame really. I do seem to remember thinking that our people really didn't understand what they were doing & that it might benefit from the SoJ treatment.

Your rehabilitation didn't work. You're still a know-it-all (translation: know-nothing) and don't know how to get along and/or work with people.

I won't even get into many false statements you made during your recent rant here. I suggest you keep the "SoJ treatment" to yourself and stop spreading the fake news.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
I got involved with them very briefly when I was once banished to sit on the naughty step for being beastly to someone (deservedly so as it turned out!).

...

I was 'rehabilitated' before I could get too deeply into MT fluids. Shame really. I do seem to remember thinking that our people really didn't understand what they were doing & that it might benefit from the SoJ treatment.

Your rehabilitation didn't work. You're still a know-it-all (translation: know-nothing) and don't know how to get along and/or work with people.

I won't even get into many false statements you made during your recent rant here. I suggest you keep the "SoJ treatment" to yourself and stop spreading the fake news.


I trust what SonofJoe says long before I trust any of the nonsense you keep spouting on here.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Patman
I trust what SonofJoe says long before I trust any of the nonsense you keep spouting on here.

That's a nonissue because you're unable to comprehend either.

 

[irekm]

Scientist has spoken