IMHO 20wt does not cushion the puunding metal components take as as such intill something breaks used oil analysis will not show impending falure only wear rates.
bruce
bruce
Future is THIN
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
20 weight oils just may push more into using synthetic blends or full synthetic oil. They might agree to use a 20 weight if they have synthetic as a sort of backup in case the oil is really just a little too thin. Now that we have fi with digital engine controls there will be fewer problems with oil becoming contaminated with fuel, pinging or detonation and other problems.
My daughter has a Honda Odyssey and she runs Mobil 1 0w-30, which, in the specs looks very much like a 5w-20.
My daughter has a Honda Odyssey and she runs Mobil 1 0w-30, which, in the specs looks very much like a 5w-20.
Well yes, diesels are inherently more efficient. It's kinda unfair to compare them to gas engines. I'd still prefer a gasoline engine though, better performance. Forget hydrogen, I want alcohol based fuels.
I agree with Doug Hillary. I've tried many things to improve mileage. The most noticeable was when I put a THINNER SYNTHETIC (9.6 vs. 11.26 viscosity) transmission lube in my manual transmission.
what you really need are one of these
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7993916387&sspagename=STRK
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7993916387&sspagename=STRK
Gas in Europe can be $8/gallon yet xw-20 is rare. Why is this? Are they stupid or something?
Or are they smarter, those germans aren't stupid when it comes to engines.
"manual transmission"
Yes, the drive train. A good reminder that the CAFE (see post earlier) is all a political con game. Change every vehicle to a stick/column shift, and presto! 3 MPG gains. Then listen to the women scream, and vote the politicians out of office. Same MPG gains would be seen with driving without A/C. Or certain expensive tires. What up-ing US CAFE requirements really means is what is currently acceptable for option-laden luxury vehicles, and Congress hoping that enough duped citizens ("the OTHER guys") drive an 1800 lb. econobox, saving more foreign-obtained petro for them, and their voters.
Sorry, feel better. Off my soapbox.
Yes, the drive train. A good reminder that the CAFE (see post earlier) is all a political con game. Change every vehicle to a stick/column shift, and presto! 3 MPG gains. Then listen to the women scream, and vote the politicians out of office. Same MPG gains would be seen with driving without A/C. Or certain expensive tires. What up-ing US CAFE requirements really means is what is currently acceptable for option-laden luxury vehicles, and Congress hoping that enough duped citizens ("the OTHER guys") drive an 1800 lb. econobox, saving more foreign-obtained petro for them, and their voters.
Sorry, feel better. Off my soapbox.
the Jeep Lib disel doesn't get good MPG at all...look at the latest Consummer Report on itquote:
Originally posted by MNgopher:
Until you put a smaller turbo diesel in it to replace whatever gas engine is in there now. Hopefully the Liberty diesels being offered by Jeep will keep moving so the automakers get the hint that some of want this option.
My "ideal" truck would be a 1/2 ton with a six cylinder turbodiesel that delivers 24+ mpg freeway, hp like a small V8 and torque like a big V8. Ford almost did this in the F150's a few years back but backed out in a "cost savings" measure.
Using a big V8 and a serious overdrive (0.50) enables the Corvette attain 28-ish MPG Highway while operating just above idle RPMs.
None of its competitors with high tech engines attain anywhere near this kind of milage.
But the point about light weight cars is appropriate. Back before the first oil crisis, the average sports car weighed in around 2000 pounds (with a number of the lighter cars around 1600 pounds), now you are lucky to see any sports car under 3200 pounds.
Is there not some way to shed this weight and still meet crash-worthiness standards?
An even bigger savings would appear, if engine ECUs were programmed to limit acceleration and leave the 70 MPH speed limits alone. A car that accelerates at 0.25 Gs uses far far less gasoline than a vehicle that accelerates at 1 Gs. With electroninc throttles, the ECU can provide this limit.
Just imaging a light turing green, everybody floors their throttles at the same time, and a vast string of cars accelerate at the exact same rate!
Conversely, we could impliment MPG dependent speed limits. If you achiever 40 MPG of higher, there would be no speed limit, 30-40 gets to go 80 MPH, 25-30 gets to go 70 MPH, 20-25 gets to go 60, 15-20 gets to go 55, less than 15 gets limited to 50 MPH.
I, personally, will never buy another FWD car. I have driven many and never found one that has the chassis composure as a mid-engined rear-wheel drive car. Next in line are front-engined rear-drive cars, followed by rear-engined rear wheel drive cars, followed by 4WD cars, followed by FWD cars.
If it comes to buying a FWD car, I will end up restoring an old XKE or Ferrari 330.
Why even have a car at this point? driving is certainly no fun.
Culling laywers is not such a bad ideal, though....
Many foreign cars have greater American content than cars from the Big 3! GM builds engines in Canada, and transmissions in Mexico and only assembles car in the states.
They said this in 1972, and for a while (1974-1985) it looked like a correct statement. We will see.....
buster, Fear is the wrong word to use.
Once we go to the 42 Volt batter wich would have a 36 volt working voltage a lot of things will change. First the accesories other then the alternator/starter will all be electricaly driven and that parasitic loss saveing alone will be huge. It will also allow powertrain engineers to seperate the controls from the hydralic fluid. You will basicly see an essentialy manual transmission with high speed electrical shift solinoids. Somewhere between 8-9 forward gears is the magic number according to an interview Automotive News conducted afew years ago with GM power train. The CVT's simply cannot be made to function reliably in high power high torque application that also see lots of loading. You also have a lot of expenses that can not really be brought down much with the CVT's.
We are still playing around with late 1950's and 1970's technology in terms of engine designs and engine management systems. THe technology is here right now for hege leaps in fuel ecconomy and emmissions but no one wants to pay for it. So until big government or the consummer(unlikely) forces the industry to jump ahead it will not happen.
Once we go to the 42 Volt batter wich would have a 36 volt working voltage a lot of things will change. First the accesories other then the alternator/starter will all be electricaly driven and that parasitic loss saveing alone will be huge. It will also allow powertrain engineers to seperate the controls from the hydralic fluid. You will basicly see an essentialy manual transmission with high speed electrical shift solinoids. Somewhere between 8-9 forward gears is the magic number according to an interview Automotive News conducted afew years ago with GM power train. The CVT's simply cannot be made to function reliably in high power high torque application that also see lots of loading. You also have a lot of expenses that can not really be brought down much with the CVT's.
We are still playing around with late 1950's and 1970's technology in terms of engine designs and engine management systems. THe technology is here right now for hege leaps in fuel ecconomy and emmissions but no one wants to pay for it. So until big government or the consummer(unlikely) forces the industry to jump ahead it will not happen.
I'll ignore the big brother and socialist implications and focus on the science.
An engine is most efficient at higher loads. 3/4 throttle is generally stated to avoid WOT fuel enrichment.
Of course you have to use common sense. And it is hard to do with automatics.
With your method fuel usage would not be decreased. Low throttle acceleration giving better mileage is a myth.
Smooth traffic flow is dependent upon everyone travelling approximately the same speed.
Good point Paul. Smooth driving is something that Bob Bondurant teaches in his books. It's absolutely key to handling a car properly. It's the same way with MPG, being "unsmooth" leads to refueling more often.
OK...then if you use the same engineering principles of the Corvette, just scale down the engine size (fewer cylinders?), vehicle weight with the same aerodynamics, just think of the MPG that could be achieved at 65-70 MPH.
If you see failures from oil thickness/pressure, it will first be found in spun rod bearings IMHO. There will be plenty evidence for a seasoned engine builder to determine if the oil pressure alone was the culprit.
I have said it before, thickness and pressure are interelated, some engines are running higher pressures than others, especially in the crank region. The Ford 4.6 is one that has a dramatic difference between the oil pressure at the crank and the pressure at the head.
There is just alot more too it than to say 20W sucks. It depends where you put it IMHO.
Well, low throttle openings vs. high throttle openings make your statement true, but limiting acceleration rates (normally done by the driver by limiting throttle openings) most certainly results in better fuel economy. Slower accerelation is accomplished with fewer hp, which uses less fuel. Taking longer to reach your target velocity reduces consumption by reducing the amount of time you spend (and therefore the fuel you use) at target velocity. The most fuel efficient way you can drive is to make the engine produce precisely the amount of hp you need to maintain your target velocity and keep it there. From there, use the cycle efficiency and throttle to your best advantage. You'll take many miles to achieve a freeway speed, but you'll use the least amount of fuel in doing it.
Yeah meant to type opening.
What you say disagrees with BMW and SAAB
What you say disagrees with BMW and SAAB
Fast acceleration keeps the transmission in lower gears, which runs the engine at higher speeds -- more friction.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
