"Engine oil viscosity has VIRTUALLY NO EFFECT ON WEAR."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting quote, Buster.
quote:

... Dirt, the number one cause of engine failure, was found to be responsible for 43.4% of failures, and insufficient lubrication, the second most common cause of failure, was responsible for 16.6% of failures. Insufficient lubrication is the general term used when not enough oil gets through to the engine to lubricate it (lack of oil volume).

And if the dirt is smaller than the oil film through the bearing, it is harmless. So the thicker oil in an engine that has the bearing clearance to handle the thicker oil, would be safer. Thiner oil in modern engines probably needs a finer filtration (but still there is bypass). Insufficent lubrication or lack of oil volume could be caused by too thick an oil as (all else equal) higher pressure would equate to lower flow.
 
quote:

Modern metallurgy allows engineers to build engines with tighter clearances between moving parts than was possible in the past. These modern engine designs offer improved fuel economy, emission control, and performance, but they require motor oil that provides immediate lubrication to close-tolerance parts. High-viscosity oil may delay critical lubrication right after startup, even in hot weather. This can lead to premature engine wear and reduced operating efficiency. The best advice for selecting a motor oil that is right for your car is to follow the manufacturer's recommendations for the general climate in which you drive.


Source: http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,1398,1004010302%7C2024,00.html
 
quote:

Modern metallurgy allows engineers to build engines with tighter clearances between moving parts than was possible in the past. These modern engine designs offer improved fuel economy, emission control, and performance, but they require motor oil that provides immediate lubrication to close-tolerance parts.

I keep hearing the claim of tighter clerances, but I have yet to see anybody post actual figures to substantiate that claim. While my current car is 9 years old and hardly "the latest" in terms of engine design, its clearances are in line with 30 year old designs, and from what I've seen, also in line with current designs.


What I do know is that manufactring tolerances have become a lot smaller, and thus precision, fit and finish, is superior now compared to maybe 15 or 20 years ago. I believe that tight manufacturing tolerances are making the traditional break-in process essentially obsolete.
 
quote:

keep hearing the claim of tighter clerances, but I have yet to see anybody post actual figures to substantiate that claim.

Agree and I believe Molekule looked into this and they havn't changed much if at all. I'll do a search to see if I can find it.
 
'Tighter clearances' doesn't make sense considering how different oils are spec'd for the same vehicles in different parts of the world.
 
Moribundman, I agree with you 100% clearance have not changed much. They have tightened up some but not to the extent most people would think. Tolerances adn tolerance stacking have improved greatly though! The real difference though between an engine that just does not wear much and one that craps all over itself is material, surface finish and heat treatments. Surface finishing and heat treatment can increase the cost of a part 30%-100% but can also conservatively tripple the life of the part. Little details like filleting, ballanceing and stress reliveing area can also greatly increase the life of the part. These things all add cost.

Rest assured that when you see some engines and manufactures consistently do well in UOA it is by design!

At best all we can see is how various additives and oil either raised or lowered our wear rates in relationship to previous UOA.

I too think that it is odd that so many people discount the oil recomendations made for various engines when shipped to the other 75% of the globe!!
 
I agree that clearances have been the same for years. It is plain physics and part clearances are gotten off a chart. The polishing of the surface asperities has been improved as has oil filtering. This has allowed the use of thinner oils.

Catastrophic engine failures are often blamed on motor oils but are usually a result of manufacturing defects. Often a single cam lobe or bearing failed when all the others showed little or no wear.

I was talking with a Lamborghini engineer who told me that they have never had cams or valve shims wear at all even after 150,000 miles. He said the wear approaches zero. It is a function of solid manufacturing. My Murcielago owners manual says to check valve shim clearances every 30,000 miles but the factory man told me to just forget it, leave them alone.

aehaas
 
http://www.getahelmet.com/jeeps/tech/syntheticoil/

This is old btw:

quote:

Generally speaking, the lower the viscosity, the better the fuel economy of the engine. In formulating lower-viscosity oils, it has become clear that synthetics are the base stock of choice. This is because it is possible to produce a synthetic oil of a given low viscosity without incurring the excessive oil consumption (due to evaporation) and resultant thickening of the same low-viscosity petroleum oil. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy, in its pamphlet entitled “An Assessment Of The Effects Of Engine Lube Oils On Fuel Economy”, states: “It is evident that low-viscosity oils will help minimize engine friction losses in the prevalent hydrodynamic region and thereby achieve better fuel economy. In addition, such oils help to reduce friction during ambient (cold) start by increasing the oil


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...oil flow furnishes up to 30% of an engine’s cooling requirements."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flow rate to critical engine parts. However, low-viscosity engine oils, blended from conventional petroleum base stocks, may have problems with high oil consumption and engine wear. (unit during operation, and can surpass 650°F (!!!) during a short period immediately following engine shutdown…both figures far exceeding the thermal limits of petroleum oil. Synthetics, with their capacity to maintain proper (low) viscosity and lubricity under these high heat and stress conditions, and with their natural resistance to oxidation, have risen to the fore. It is also important to note that the high-temperature-stability properties of synthetics are designed primarily into the base-stock oil itself, rather than being achieved primarily with additives. The advantage with this approach is twofold:

(1) Additives, which may account for as much as 25% of the volume of a can of premium petroleum oil, by themselves have little or no lubricating properties per se. Thus the more the additive content in an oil, the less lubrication is available to the engine.

(2) Most additives tend to volatilize (evaporate) and deteriorate with heat and age and use, so that the overall effectiveness of the lubricant is significantly diminished within only a few thousand miles of driving.

It is also important to note that, contrary to what many take for granted, higher viscosity in and of itself does not translate into better engine protection. Extensive testing has shown the opposite to be in fact true. As long as a lower-viscosity oil is formulated to resist evaporation and provide high film strength, this lighter oil will actually deliver more complete protection to the engine parts, since its more rapid circulation delivers both better lubrication per se, and far better cooling characteristics…a critical advantage, given that oil flow furnishes up to 30% of an engine’s cooling requirements. Prior to the introduction of synthetics, however, the problem of evaporation (and the resultant thickening of the remaining oil) was addressed primarily by increasing viscosity. In short, don’t be concerned with the relatively lower viscosity ratings of some synthetics. Syn lubes are a whole new ball game

Something to think about. If a synthetic 20wt is giving you a film strength of a conventional SAE 30 or SAE 40, yet has more flow, this might be what they are refering to about the film strength being higher in the ring area with a thinner oil.

[ February 15, 2005, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
quote:

If a synthetic 20wt is giving you a film strength of a conventional SAE 30 or SAE 40, yet has more flow, this might be what they are refering to about the film strength being higher in the ring area with a thinner oil.

Are they inferring that my 5 gpm flow with a 20 weight will be higher than my 5 gpm flow with a 30/40 wieght
dunno.gif


..or are they saying that my rods are going to whip more oil out of them and rob my bearings due to the reduced flow ihibitions???
 
quote:

Are they inferring that my 5 gpm flow with a 20 weight will be higher than my 5 gpm flow with a 30/40 wieght

How much of that 5 GPM is the engine getting when oil is going over relief?

[ February 15, 2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Tommy ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Tommy:
How much of that 5 GPM is the engine getting when oil is going over relief? [/QB]

That's right. It takes more pressure to pump a thicker oil at a given flow rate (or more accurately, in the case of a positive displacemenet oil pump, a given flow rate GENERATES more pressure with a thicker oil). If the pressure relief is tripped, then there will be less oil flow into the engine with a thicker oil, than a thinner one.
That said, I don't see myself EVER running a xW-20 in either of my cars (which are GM SBCs).
 
quote:

It takes more pressure to pump a thicker oil at a given flow rate (or more accurately, in the case of a positive displacemenet oil pump, a given flow rate GENERATES more pressure with a thicker oil). If the pressure relief is tripped, then there will be less oil flow into the engine with a thicker oil, than a thinner one.

and

quote:

How much of that 5 GPM is the engine getting when oil is going over relief?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!!!!!
 -


Assumes facts not in evidence!
 -


No mention of relief settings were inferred or implied in the assertion. It simply asserted more flow with lower weight ..which doesn't flush for the "truth" of the statement as it stands. Without a point of reference, relief settings and viscosity can have some impact, great impact, or no impact upon relief settings. Any statement implying that it does would be baseless without saying that increased viscosity, , at some point, MAY make relief settings a factor in total flow under some conditions. It can't be a blanket statement and be true.

[ February 16, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
 
From Drstressor: (smart guy)

quote:

Engines can be designed for low vis oil. The key factor is the rate of oil flow through the bearing journal area. Film strength is a function of viscosity which is inversely related to temperature. To benefit from the lower coefficient of friction of a lower vis oil, higher oil pressure and optimally designed oil passages may be necessary to minimize wear. So if the engine doesn't specify xW-20 oil, we are on our own. But let's face it, xW-20 will get you past the warrantee period, which is what the industry cares about. I would also worry about cam lobe wear in OHC engines using low vis oil (roller cam followers should be fine). I question whether evidence for gaulling and stress fracture wear would show up in conventional oil analysis. If you can see the damage with your eye, the metal particles would be captured by the oil filter or would at least be too large to be detected by IRS.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom