GM recommends Mobil 1 15w50 for 2016 Corvette

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's more related to RPM than specific engine load, and yes, higher vicsosity with more shear will run hotter naturally, but those two effects never bring it back to the oil film thickness of a thinner oil under the same RPM/Load.


Yes, I didn't mean to imply that the thicker oil would get so hot that the viscosity gain would be lost compared a thinner oil. It would be counterproductive for GM to recommend the thicker oil for track use if that were true, and I doubt very much that is the case!!
 
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
4 cylinder engines are harder on oil than a V8.


Please - it depends entirely on engine design, spring pressures, bearing sizes, rod angles, ring paks, etc. You can't support that blanket statement ...
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Manufacturers since the dawn of time has always recommended thicker oil for high load situations (track, towing,mountain driving etc). This is nothing new yet people get surprised at this? Even my lowly 2010 Subaru Forester says this.


Absolutely not true, which was the whole point of my post. For decades, GM owners manuals have had the following wording in them (this is from my 2005 Corvette owners manual). There is no recommendation anywhere to use thicker oil for ANY situation. In fact, as you can see, GM specifically states NOT to use thicker oil.

 
Originally Posted By: KL31
I'm finding the HP/L comparison somewhat invalid. I'm no engineer and my mechanical knowledge is basic but the corvette has a much larger engine. There are 8 cylinders therefore there is simply more metal moving than a small 4cyl engine. There are 8 cylinders worth of combustion also, more fuel is used. Revving this engine will produce more heat than an engine that has three times less capacity. It's that simple. Comparing the viscosity requirements of each is pointless. I doubt (I may be wrong) the radiator is three times bigger on the corvette or three times more efficient than a 2.0L 4cyl with similar HP/L.

I don't think it would take a whole lot of higher rpm driving to increase the oil temps in a large powerful engine like this one. In fact I have seen a video of a newer V8 on youtube with an oil temp sensor (I was looking at that particular gauge and this was a video of it). He was displaying how quickly the oil temp rose during a cruise when he accelerated for around a minute. He didn't redline or race through gears, he simply went from 1800rpm or thereabouts and held 3K for a minute and the temps shot way up.

With that being said, while aquariuscsm may have ruffled a few feathers of the thin oil team, I'd put my money on the thicker is better side for this particular example.


Fair points. Even though I brought it up, I sort of agree that the metric would really need to include rpm (tried to show this via the dyno charts), or even hp normalized to bearing area or loading. The reason I brought in my cars in terms of hp/L was because i see plenty of other vehicles that drive hard from light to light, and are no worse for wear. The "routine use" argument perhaps went overboard...

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
4 cylinder engines are harder on oil than a V8.


Please - it depends entirely on engine design, spring pressures, bearing sizes, rod angles, ring paks, etc. You can't support that blanket statement ...


Exactly. Plus, even if the same engine fundamentally is used in two vehicles (vette and pickup for example), other ways to buy margin are available. Im still a believer that if this werent a fundamental cooling issue, that guidance woukd have been given long ago for HD trucks. After all, gm even gave AT temperature gauges for trucks, and they have no cafe issues for trucks that dont report fuel economy...

The manual says high temperatures and track/competition use. Why cant we accept that not everyone is in severe service, even if they get heavy on the throttle sometimes, and that low viscosity oios have gotten more robust in terms of the base fluid and add pack, to address design considerations across multiple manufacturers and engines, while still offering longevity, economy and performance.

Everything in engineering is a tradeoff in some way or another.
 
The difference when comparing light duty tucks to commercial trucks to Corvettes is life expectancy.
Million mile pick up trucks are exceptional, expected in commercial trucks and unheard of in Corvettes.
 
Originally Posted By: robertcope
There is nothing you can do around town in a Corvette (or just about any car) that will put it under the stresses it would see on track.

robert

Amen.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Heck,owning a Corvette would mean competitive driving anytime you drive it haha. I couldn't imagine putting around town like a lil old lady in one. I'd never run a CAFE oil in a high power muscle car. I'd run the 50wt rec all the time,plus M1 15W50 is dirt cheap. This just goes to further prove that thin oils are for CAFE ONLY and thicker does protect better,or else it'd say "For track or competitive driving,use Mobil 1 0W20".

I don't totally agree with this, though I see your point.
The cam phasers in the Ford 4.6 3v's are sensitive to oil pressure and you cannot deviate too far from 5w-20 or 5w-30 without them losing functionality. Not to mention the bearing clearances in the new mod motors are spec'd in the neighborhood of .0006". If it were me I would run an aftermarket oil cooler with a deeper sump for track days.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Just ordered an SLT 1500 Max trailer 6.2L 8 speed 3.42 gear. Should see it in 10 weeks.
Out in 600 miles will be the FF 0W20, and in will go Duron CK-4 10W40.
I'll post a photo of the engine when it blows up.

I have a feeling we will be waiting a long time for the carnage photos.
 
Originally Posted By: semaj281
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Just ordered an SLT 1500 Max trailer 6.2L 8 speed 3.42 gear. Should see it in 10 weeks.
Out in 600 miles will be the FF 0W20, and in will go Duron CK-4 10W40.
I'll post a photo of the engine when it blows up.

I have a feeling we will be waiting a long time for the carnage photos.


Probably as long as we'd be waiting for carnage photos if he used what's recommended
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
The wording is poor and inexact, but the fact that the oil temp warning light is mentioned in the same paragraph in which the higher viscosity oil for racing is discussed suggests to me that it is a warning to "racers" that it is likely that the light will illuminate when the car is tracked with that thick oil.


I think the statement in the manual is simply saying to use the thicker oil for track events because GM knows the oil will get pretty hot and thin down to a potentially dangerous level if 5W-30 was used. The oil temperature sensor doesn't know what viscosity oil is being used. Not sure if the over temp statement is directly associated with 15W-50 use, but one thing is for sure ... I'd rather see the oil over temp warning come on with 15W-50 than with 5W-30. If the oil temp warning pops up, better back off and get the temperature back down.
 
Originally Posted By: robertcope
While I don't doubt that thicker oil may run hotter, it's running the engine at full throttle for a much higher percent of the time that gets the oil hot. It would happen regardless of the weight of the oil in there. I agree that the wording isn't great. My take is that they're just letting you know that the oil temperature light may turn on and that you can safely ignore it.

robert


Agree that much of the heating up of the oil (talking overall sump temperature) in a track situation is coming from head temperature (due to massive combustion), and the oil flowing over the heads in the valve train picking up that heat, and heat into the oil if oil squirters are impinging on the undersides of the pistons ... all that, along with heat generated due to shearing of the oil in the bearings. It's not all just due to the oil heating up in the bearings.

I don't think GM want's you to ignore the oil temp warning if it come on. Would have to see what the manual says to do if the warning pops up, but I'm betting it's not going to say ignore the warning and continue on at WOT.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The difference when comparing light duty tucks to commercial trucks to Corvettes is life expectancy.
Million mile pick up trucks are exceptional, expected in commercial trucks and unheard of in Corvettes.

So you're saying commercial trucks that run on 5w-30 last longer than Corvettes running on 15w-50?
I doubt a 2500HD truck with its rings shot out could have lasted much longer on thicker oil after years of towing and hard acceleration. Wear and breakage is part of the game in these scenarios. I would be more concerned about cold start protection (or should I say ambient temp start protection) than be splitting hairs over high temp viscosity changes.
 
Last edited:
For a Corvette to hit a million miles, a person would have to drive it 50,000 miles a year for 20 years, or 25,000 miles for 40 years.
The 1st example a 1996 Corvette, and the 2nd example, a 1976 Corvette. That is why a million miles on a Corvette is unheard of.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
For a Corvette to hit a million miles, a person would have to drive it 50,000 miles a year for 20 years, or 25,000 miles for 40 years.
The 1st example a 1996 Corvette, and the 2nd example, a 1976 Corvette. That is why a million miles on a Corvette is unheard of.


Some are close: LINK
 
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Originally Posted By: CT8
GM must not have read oil 101 !

That is probably because Oil 101 is a joke at best.


New and improved MOU

It's all been re-written by Solarent and reviewed by others. Just waiting for it to replace the old stuff.
 
Originally Posted By: semaj281
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Heck,owning a Corvette would mean competitive driving anytime you drive it haha. I couldn't imagine putting around town like a lil old lady in one. I'd never run a CAFE oil in a high power muscle car. I'd run the 50wt rec all the time,plus M1 15W50 is dirt cheap. This just goes to further prove that thin oils are for CAFE ONLY and thicker does protect better,or else it'd say "For track or competitive driving,use Mobil 1 0W20".

I don't totally agree with this, though I see your point.
The cam phasers in the Ford 4.6 3v's are sensitive to oil pressure and you cannot deviate too far from 5w-20 or 5w-30 without them losing functionality. Not to mention the bearing clearances in the new mod motors are spec'd in the neighborhood of .0006". If it were me I would run an aftermarket oil cooler with a deeper sump for track days.


I don't see how that makes sense. Viscosity is entirely temperature dependant. A 5w-20 in Edmonton in January is going to be orders of magnitude thicker than 20w-50 in Dallas. Even at operating temperature, with ambient driving down oil temperatures, you are going to have heavier oil. Engines simply cannot be that viscosity sensitive and survive the variance in climate in North America. What I have heard, is with systems like Chrysler's MDS, if you run an oil that is significantly heavier than spec (say 5w-40 in a vehicle that spec's 5w-20) that you may get a code for viscosity being out of range in the winter, as at a certain oil temperature it expects a certain range of oil pressures and stepping it up a few grades screws with that reading. I believe former member Clevy was able to make this happen on a singular occasion, in Edmonton, in the winter, with a 0w-40.

Otherwise, phasers simply cannot be that viscosity dependant. The same 5.0L Modular in the Mustang GT spec'ing 5w-20, spec'd 5w-50 in the same engine in the "Track Pack" version of the same car. BMW would interchangeably specify their LL-01 5w-30 and 10w-60 Motorsport oil for various M-cars all featuring the same VANOS variable camshaft timing.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: robertcope
While I don't doubt that thicker oil may run hotter, it's running the engine at full throttle for a much higher percent of the time that gets the oil hot. It would happen regardless of the weight of the oil in there. I agree that the wording isn't great. My take is that they're just letting you know that the oil temperature light may turn on and that you can safely ignore it.

robert


Agree that much of the heating up of the oil (talking overall sump temperature) in a track situation is coming from head temperature (due to massive combustion), and the oil flowing over the heads in the valve train picking up that heat, and heat into the oil if oil squirters are impinging on the undersides of the pistons ... all that, along with heat generated due to shearing of the oil in the bearings. It's not all just due to the oil heating up in the bearings.


Never have I said that it's "ALL" from the bearings, but the majority is from viscosus shear in the "bearing surfaces" including piston skirts and the like.

Most of the cylinder head surfaces, the oil is on the other side of a water cooled jacket, the oil isn't exposed to combustion temperatures except around the exhaust valve area. To get back to the sump in a typical V configuration, it spends quite some time running over yet another water heated surface in the valley, which is clearly no hotter than the coolant temperature.

Piston cooling is a factor for sure, but it's a fairly small flow in comparison...Did some review and analysis, and it's not the major contributor either...

My L67 Caprice, with a type K thermocouple down the dipstick, my normal commute at 1,700 RPM in Drive is 95C...hold it in "2" at 4,000 RPM for the same trip (i.e. same road load, more parasitic drag for sure), and I've seen 135C...Aside from the increase in parasitic loads, there's no "massive increase in combustion" taking place there.
 
Originally Posted By: KL31
With that being said, while aquariuscsm may have ruffled a few feathers of the thin oil team, I'd put my money on the thicker is better side for this particular example.


For track use thicker is better. The vast majority of Corvette owners are not going to the track. I would not be surprised if a very high percentage are driving >10 miles at >50MPH for 15 minutes a trip. A 50 grade under said conditions is counter productive because it would not get to operating temperature and the majority of engine wear is done before oil reaches operating temperature.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: robertcope
While I don't doubt that thicker oil may run hotter, it's running the engine at full throttle for a much higher percent of the time that gets the oil hot. It would happen regardless of the weight of the oil in there. I agree that the wording isn't great. My take is that they're just letting you know that the oil temperature light may turn on and that you can safely ignore it.

robert


Agree that much of the heating up of the oil (talking overall sump temperature) in a track situation is coming from head temperature (due to massive combustion), and the oil flowing over the heads in the valve train picking up that heat, and heat into the oil if oil squirters are impinging on the undersides of the pistons ... all that, along with heat generated due to shearing of the oil in the bearings. It's not all just due to the oil heating up in the bearings.


Never have I said that it's "ALL" from the bearings, but the majority is from viscous shear in the "bearing surfaces" including piston skirts and the like.


Never said you said that, so don't be so paranoid and think everyone is disagreeing with you (I know that's your worse nightmare
wink.gif
). I'm just clarifying that in an engine that's being pushed hard (ie, "massive increase in combustion" taking place), that the bulk temperature of the sump will increase significantly up and beyond what heat the bearing friction is putting in. One source of heat is from bearing RPM (as you've stated), and the other source is the heat from much increased combustion heating up the internals of the engine, and some of that heat is absorbed by the oil.

And as you know, as the sump temperature continually increases, the viscosity continually decreases, with means the delta-t caused by the oil shearing in the bearing will make the oil film area even more viscous, and that results in an ever decreasing MOFT until metal to metal contact occurs, then it's game over. That's why GM put an oil temperature warning system on the Vette. Main reason racers use large capacity sumps and oil coolers is to keep that sump bulk temperature down to give the bearing a better chance of surviving in sever racing conditions. Pulling as much heat out of the supply oil before it goes through the oiling system does a lot of good for engine durability on the track. Every NASCAR, Indy and F1 cars have crazy oil coolers for a reason.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Most of the cylinder head surfaces, the oil is on the other side of a water cooled jacket, the oil isn't exposed to combustion temperatures except around the exhaust valve area. To get back to the sump in a typical V configuration, it spends quite some time running over yet another water heated surface in the valley, which is clearly no hotter than the coolant temperature.


My Mustang GT has a head temperature sensor, and if you run it hard for a good period the temperature will approach 250~260 deg F. In normal street driving it runs around 215~220 deg F. All the oil supply that washes over the top of the heads during valve train lubrication picks up some of that heat and takes it down into the sump to increase the sump's bulk temperature. Temperature of engine components don't stay the same temperature when you really push the engine just because it has a good cooling system. Internal components will still get hotter when the engine is continually putting out peak HP levels.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
My L67 Caprice, with a type K thermocouple down the dipstick, my normal commute at 1,700 RPM in Drive is 95C...hold it in "2" at 4,000 RPM for the same trip (i.e. same road load, more parasitic drag for sure), and I've seen 135C...Aside from the increase in parasitic loads, there's no "massive increase in combustion" taking place there.


Do that same test at WOT but holding the RPM at 4000 by towing a heavy trailer with the brakes partially on ... tell me what oil temperature you then see.
 
To get back to the sump, it runs down the (quite massive) surface are of the valley, which is unlikely to be much over the block coolant temperature.

What's the percentage oil flow to the heads versus the mains and big ends ?

Even if the oil returning from the heads STAYS at 250-260 (it wont), the majority (bigger percentage) will be exiting the mains and big ends at 300F.

The oil from the mains and big ends is straight back to the sump, as opposed to being cooled by the water jackets in the valley....clearly, the heat in the valley having a flow of fresh (cold) coolant between the cylinder and itself CAN'T be 266F head temperature, can it ?

Look at the "percentage flows" (sic), and the temperature rises that occur for those masses, and you can add up what makes a difference with relative ease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom