Engine Damage caused from 0W20/5W20?

[TiGeo]

xW-30 is going to give more engine protection regardless ... that's the whole purpose of stepping up a grade. I like headroom, not possibly running on the ragged edge in some situations. Have you tore it down to verify all the bearings are not showing any undue wear?

Of course not, nobody does this, it's a silly thing to talk about really. You accept that a vehicle that runs strong and doesn't have excessive oil consumption is "fine". We all do it and it's a reasonable assertion. Nobody is tearing engines down on their street/daily vehicles to check this. Yes, we all understand 30 gives more protection regardless, again, why not 40 b/c it always gives more protection over 30 regardless. You do b/c at some level "it's enough".

Re: bold above. So you're saying you think a xW-20 would be fine for that car in track use just because it's a low-density engine? It depends on a lot more than just that factor. Any of your race folks ever tear open those engines used for track use with 20 to inspect bearings? Just because an engine doesn't blow a rod through the block doesn't mean it's wearing out faster.

Sure/yes. And no, nobody is tearing down engines, neither are you or anyone else on BITOG in these discussions.

Yes, I do on the Coyote V8 even though it will run on 87. I also run 5W-30 instead of 5W-20 ... such a rebel ! I made the switch to 5W-30 way before Ford finally woke up and started specifying 5W-30 not long ago for the Coyote in the USA. Apparently the switch to a higher viscosity by Ford was going to sacrifice CAFE credits for something better.

You drive a performance car, not a mundane daily. So if you had a 2015 Camry, you would run 93 in it and upgrading oil grade to drive around town? Do you recommend everyone here the extra headroom 93 provides regardless of vehicle or use? That's the discussion here, not your Mustang or my track-wagon. This discussion seems to be 9/10 folks buying Kias, Hyundais, Toyotas sweating running "cafe water" 0W20s etc. and folks in the posts telling them to run a 30 or 40 grade. Won't hurt them for sure but it's just not hurting them to run the thinner oils b/c they aren't being used in conditions (most of the time I suspect) that it would ever matter. I'm surpised you are not running a 40 in that car but if you're just driving around town I can understand.

 

[TiGeo]

That’s fair, and reasonable. Gold star for you today!

The correct BITOG answer is actually it doesn't matter, 0W40.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Of course not, nobody does this, it's a silly thing to talk about really. You accept that a vehicle that runs strong and doesn't have excessive oil consumption is "fine". We all do it and it's a reasonable assertion. Nobody is tearing engines down on their street/daily vehicles to check this. Yes, we all understand 30 gives more protection regardless, again, why not 40 b/c it always gives more protection over 30 regardless. You do b/c at some level "it's enough".

Just because a vehicle "runs fine and doesn't have excessive oil consumption" still doesn't mean it could be wearing faster with thinner oil in the sump. For some reason, extra wear protection headroom seems to be a "bad thing" to some people.

Sure/yes. And no, nobody is tearing down engines, neither are you or anyone else on BITOG in these discussions.

The good example is the YT track guy who ran 5W-20 thinking he could keep oil temps down because he "heard" that thinner oil doesn't get as hot, but later found out his rod bearings were worn out, lol. He found out first hand that 20 wasn't cuttin' it on the track in his car at least. So if nobody is opening up engines here, then how could someone claim that 20 is providing full protection all the time? I don't need to tear down my own engines to realize from tons of studies and controlled engine wear tests that a 30 is going to add more engine protection than a 20. It's a no-brainier for those who understand how higher viscosity works between two moving surfaces.

You drive a performance car, not a mundane daily. So if you had a 2015 Camry, you would run 93 in it and upgrading oil grade to drive around town? Do you recommend everyone here the extra headroom 93 provides regardless of vehicle or use? That's the discussion here, not your Mustang or my track-wagon. This discussion seems to be 9/10 folks buying Kias, Hyundais, Toyotas sweating running "cafe water" 0W20s etc. and folks in the posts telling them to run a 30 or 40 grade. Won't hurt them for sure but it's just not hurting them to run the thinner oils b/c they aren't being used in conditions (most of the time I suspect) that it would ever matter. I'm surpised you are not running a 40 in that car but if you're just driving around town I can understand.

If the OM said to use 93 for better performance I'd probably do it, or at least run a mid-grade octane (I do that on my Tacoma). And yes if the OM called out a xW-20 or less, I would go up a grade even if the thing only idled in the driveway. There's a difference between "damage"/"hurt them" vs extra wear. Every time someone brings up the fact that thinner oil can cause more engine wear, the thinnies only hear "it's gonna blow-up your engine". I don't think anyone here with any kind of knowledge about lubrication has actually claimed that ... unless you maybe use 0W5 in extreme use conditions ... then a rod might say "peek-a-boo", lol.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The correct BITOG answer is actually it doesn't matter, 0W40.

It certainly can depending on use conditions. Like said, throw some 0W-20 in those track VWs and see how things work out.

 

[Klutch9]

The correct BITOG answer is actually it doesn't matter, 0W40.

Wait, we’re not blanket recommending GC 0w30 anymore? ::furiously updates notes::

 

[TiGeo]

Wait, we’re not blanket recommending GC 0w30 anymore? ::furiously updates notes::

Get with the program man, M1 0W40 is lyfe here on the 'tog...if you ain't running that in your Prius to Door Dash are you even real?

 

[TiGeo]

It certainly can depending on use conditions. Like said, throw some 0W-20 in those track VWs and see how things work out.

Why would I do that? That's not what VW says to run in that car. If I had a MK8 GTI that calls for VW508...honestly? I may not bother changing it b/c I don't believe it's hurting anything but my gut says run thicker in that use case (hard track use). I certainly would have no issues running 0W20 in any vehicles that the manufacturer recommended it/called for it for normal daily use (a MK8 GTI for example). Running 5W20 for 13 years without any concerns.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Why would I do that? That's not what VW says to run in that car. If I had a MK8 GTI that calls for VW508...honestly? I may not bother changing it b/c I don't believe it's hurting anything but my gut says run thicker in that use case (hard track use). I certainly would have no issues running 0W20 in any vehicles that the manufacturer recommended it/called for it for normal daily use (a MK8 GTI for example). Running 5W20 for 13 years without any concerns.

You said it doesn't matter in post 262 ... so don't listen to the manufacture, lol. If it doesn't matter in your mind then throw some 0W-20 those cars and just run it no matter what the use conditions are. Why do you think VW speced that oil viscosity when they could have speced something thinner for more CAFE credits. Why do you think Ford gave up CAFE credits and bumped the viscosity spec up to 5W-30 for the everyday Coyote, or why Ford specs 5W-50 for their track focused vehicles? Or why GM specs 0W-40 in the Corvette. Sure, viscosity "doesn't matter".

 

[TiGeo]

Just because a vehicle "runs fine and doesn't have excessive oil consumption" still doesn't mean it could be wearing faster with thinner oil in the sump. For some reason, extra wear protection headroom seems to be a "bad thing" to some people.

It's not a bad thing, the question is simply, how much headroom is enough or even necessary?

The good example is the YT track guy who ran 5W-20 thinking he could keep oil temps down because he "heard" that thinner oil doesn't get as hot, but later found out his rod bearings were worn out, lol. He found out first hand that 20 wasn't cuttin' it on the track in his car at least. So if nobody is opening up engines here, then how could someone claim that 20 is providing full protection all the time? I don't need to tear down my own engines to realize from tons of studies and controlled engine wear tests that a 30 is going to add more engine protection than a 20. It's a no-brainier for those who understand how higher viscosity works between two moving surfaces.

Your engine tear down may show that you should have been running a 40 or even 50 in that V8 all along, you don't actually know without that tear down how the 30 is doing. More headroom is better and you have a peformance car, suprised you aren't running something higher viscosity TBH for max protection on that Coyote, seems like the prudent way to go.

If the OM said to use 93 for better performance I'd probably do it, or at least run a mid-grade octane (I do that on my Tacoma).

Your logic dictates 93 no matter what though - more headroom is always better for knock resistance, regardless of what the manufacturer says the min. octane rating is.

And yes if the OM called out a xW-20 or less, I would go up a grade even if the thing only idled in the driveway. There's a difference between "damage"/"hurt them" vs extra wear. Every time someone brings up the fact that thinner oil can cause more engine wear, the thinnies only hear "it's gonna blow-up your engine". I don't think anyone here with any kind of knowledge about lubrication has actually claimed that ... unless you maybe use 0W5 in extreme use conditions ... then a rod might say "peek-a-boo", lol.

What the "thickies" stuggle with is that the extra wear is likely so tiny over a normal life-of-engine that it's not material - that's really all the thin side of this agrument is saying, they aren't arguing the tribology that shows that thicker provides more protection, it does (that's where you get v. hung up it seems). See the Prius dude somewhere above with the 600K miles on 0W20. If he gets in, starts it, and drives and power etc. is within the normal range, what does it matter if there was slighly more wear over those 600k miles vs. using a 30? Without a tear down, nobody actually knows if that's even the case. Is there anywhere showing a side by side 20 vs. 30 tear down over the same mileage/use?

 

[TiGeo]

You said it doesn't matter in post 262 ... so don't listen to the manufacture, lol. If it doesn't matter in your mind then throw some 0W-20 those cars and just run it no matter what the use conditions are. Why do you think VW speced that oil viscosity when they could have speced something thinner for more CAFE credits. Why do you think Ford bumped the viscosity spec up to 5W-30 for the everyday Coyote, or why Ford specs 5W-50 for their track focused vehicles? Or why GM specs 0W-40 in the Corvette. Sure, viscosity "doesn't matter".

Post 262 was sarcasm....having trouble picking that up?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Post 262 was sarcasm....having trouble picking that up?

Based on your views on the subject matter, I think subconsciously in your mind it really wasn't sarcasm.

 

[Patman]

This thread has gone off the rails, time to shut it down