Heavy oil RANT!

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by BlazerLT:
Tell them to go to a 15w40 just because of the 15w40 having "supposedly" a better additive pack is just plain wrong.

Why wouldn't you want an oil with a better add pack? Just because its a little thicker? The extra viscosity doesn't make that much difference!

People on BITOG aren't like the government: We don't mandate the use of ONE viscosity over ALL temperature ranges. People aren't being told to use 15W-40 no matter what the temperature. If you look, most recommendations will say something like "In your part of the country, HDEO would work great." Places like southern California have no issue with 15W-40. 15W-40 may not appropriate for cars in winter in many regions, but what about summer? That's several months where cars are rarely started at cold temperatures. There's not much of a pumpability issue then.


BTW, when people keep saying things like "What is the optimum viscosity?" or "What about when that viscosity is recommended in other countries?" why do you keep saying that its not the point of the thread?

You say that this thread isn't about viscosity, but instead about people recommending the wrong viscosity. That sure sounds like a thread about viscosity to me! How can we talk about how one viscosity is wrong and another is right without talking about viscosity???

Maybe we should start all of our posts with this:
offtopic.gif


Phew.

Do you know what would be even better? All of us being able to express our views on motor oil, and offer each other input in attempts to help each other, without being attacked and told that we're wrong. I'd like that.
smile.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by BlazerLT:

quote:

Originally posted by Shannow:
what about if it states 5W-30 over there, and 10W-50 here ?

Again, not the point of this thread.


OK, can you post another thread that is actually defining the point of the thread ?
 
quote:

Originally posted by Shannow:
good point.

your first 3 seconds are vastly different to my 3 seconds.

There's the point at which the engine is "dry" (BTW, most (all?) of the engines I've pulled apart still had a film of oil on all wearing surfaces) and the oil has to get to all lubtricated points.

Then it then takes a while for the antiwear additives to kick in, as they need some heat.

So what do you feel is the optimum viscosity ?


If the vast majority of engine wear occurs in the first few seconds of a cold start then the optimal viscosity would be the thinest cold viscosity one could find, probably 0w or 5w depending on the temp (5w is thinner than 0w until maybe -20F).

Why anyone would want a 10w,15w, or 20w anything for street use when excellent 0w and 5w oil is available is beyond me.
 
quote:

Originally posted by pitzel:
I think you have to look at how engines are turning up when cars are sent to the scrapper or are being sold off after a long life of use.

The junkyards here are filled with two types of cars: either a) cars that haven't received much in terms of maintenance and have messed up engines and other components, or b) cars that have perfectly good engines but are complete wrecks.

In essence, what this information leads me to believe is that properly maintained cars are not being sent to the scrapper unless they are also wrecks. In which case, their engines are perfectly fine.

What can be deduced from this is that maybe there is far too much emphasis on reducing engine wear since most engines in most cars driven an average number of miles can outlast the body and other components.

Meanwhile savings from fuel are tangible and can be measured. A 2% improvement in fuel consumption over the period of 300k miles at 30mpg is 210 gallons of fuel or roughly $420 at $2/gallon. Put a 10% discount rate on those figures, 3% inflation in oil and the general economy, and that is a current savings of $672.

As anyone here can tell you, $672 goes a long, long ways towards buying a 15-year-old vehicle, or a reasonable specimen of an engine out of a 15-year old car that could be swapped in.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be sending a totally worn out and rusted through car to the shredder and have $672 in my pocket rather than send the same vehicle with a slightly less worn engine to the wrecker without that $672 in my pocket.

Keeping the wear to an absolute minimum in an engine does absolutely nothing if the other systems in the car are functionally or technically obsolete -- for example, a 1981 GM I own that still drives like brand new, but was never built to be powerful enough to cruise at modern freeway speeds. And the evidence isn't exactly very strong either that contemporary 5W-20 oils promote accelerated wear in the engines they are spec'ed for.


If economics were the objective then everyone would use the "on sale" dino oil of the appropriate viscosity and a $2 oil filter for a maybe $5 oil change every 3,000 miles. Engines would outlast the body and all would save $$. Total cost of oil changes for 300,000 miles would be $500.
 
quote:

OK, can you post another thread that is actually defining the point of the thread ?

lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif


Let's make concessions to BLT.

You should use, for the sake of fuel economy, the lightest oil that affords you the minimum required protection. This may or many not afford you the absolute best wear protection over the life span of your engine. This will also reduce the stress that your oil pump will see in colder situation over a heavier oil in start up conditions.

Let's offer counter point:

A heavier oil (index any visc you choose) may or may not offer reduced start up protection. The rate of flow is identical for a 0w-0 and a 10w-40 or a 20w-50 if the oil pump's relief limit is not reached. Only the stress/hp realized to pump it is different. Anything else is pure speculation and resides only in the imagination of the poster. You may cite testing in extreme cold conditions ..but if you're not indexing your assertion under those conditions, your assertion is pure fantasy.

As Dr. Haas cites in the works of the esteemed Schnieder, startup/warmup wear has approximately a 20 minute duration. I speculate that it is from ill fitting parts ..however..and this too is speculation ..I believe that this wear has a decreasing rate as you approach the full warm up temp (piston skirts fully saturated). So I speculate that although the first few seconds may indeed have the highest rate of wear that it is far less than the combined wear after this short event

Q?: How many engines seize compared to how many engines evidense excessive blowby?? Which wear item would you conclude is failing given that evidense?? Which item (or items) do you think is (are) subject to the most stress in cold startup conditions? Are they the same item?

This is turning into a evolution vs. creationism debate. A cow has one tooth formation ..a horse another ..yet both can coexist on the same grass field eating the same diet without difficulty.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
On my oil scavenger hunt through various autozones I here the darndest things.

It is hardwired in to many peoples heads that thicker is better. And they absolutely fear low numbers. It goes with the supersized, bigger is better, if a little is good alot must be great, Attitudes.
pat.gif


SNIP


Bryan,

I know exactly what you mean. You know, the SAE numbers are based on what amounts to a completely arbitrary metric, albeit one that had some meaning in one particular engine around the time of the first World War.
What would our discussion on this topic be like if the SAE scale had been inverted?
What if rather than (originally) measuring time to flow through an arbitrary engine, the number was based on "Speed of Flow" or "Slipperiness Index" ?
I wonder if we'd still have that attitude.
 
Blazer, you must remember several facts:

N.A. owner's have been dummied-down into thinking "use 5-30" for everything everytime every temperature. Now it's 5-20.

Sadly, the tried-and-true recommendation of viscosity based on temperature has been abandoned. But, some owner's have reported this on a continent to continent variation. Others note a Euro to US difference in the same engine. Yet others (like myself), have ALL grades listed in my manual...eg. 5-20 up to 20-50. Why? Because they all work. But when does one work better?

I will clarify it:

A dino 15-40 is BETTER than a dino 5-20 in ALL engines when it is 30-40 C outside (eg. Arizona, Texas, etc).

Conversely, a dino 5-20 is BETTER than a dino 20-50 in ALL engines when it is -30C outside eg. Canada
grin.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by pitzel:
Meanwhile savings from fuel are tangible and can be measured. A 2% improvement in fuel consumption over the period of 300k miles at 30mpg is 210 gallons of fuel or roughly $420 at $2/gallon. Put a 10% discount rate on those figures, 3% inflation in oil and the general economy, and that is a current savings of $672.

While this is a good financial analysis, you're assuming the 2% improvement in fuel consumption is guaranteed for every engine, in every climate, under all driving conditions and average trip length. I've read scientific papers that show that this isn't always the case, and my personal experience corroborates this. YMMV.

[ March 02, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
We wouldn't be having this conversation if we trusted the owner's manual recommendations. Unfortunately that is gone now. The car manufacturers are caught between the tradeoff of meeting CAFE or recommending oil based on engineering and we know it.

The only manufacturers that ignore CAFE seem to be the Europeans and the Japanese, since they sell either nearly all high MPG cars (VW) or don't care because of market segment (BMW, Mercedes, etc) and pass the cost to consumers.

Honda wants to sell more Pilots, minivans, and high performance Acuras (the RL gets 18 mpg). These all have high profit margins.

If the goal is to get people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, then the law should be applied to demand (ie taxing fuel) rather than the supply.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
[/QB]While this is a good financial analysis, you're assuming the 2% improvement in fuel consumption is guaranteed for every engine, in every climate, under all driving conditions and average trip length. I've read scientific papers that show that this isn't always the case, and my personal experience corroborates this. YMMV. [/QB]

Good point, but 2% isn't that unrealistic if you compare a 5W-20 to a 15W-40 HDEO. Even if the figure is 1%, half of that, $300 saved per vehicle multiplied by the 200 hundred million vehicles on the road is 'only' $60 billion.

$60 billion knocked off the cumulative trade deficit with foreign nations would do wonders for the economy.
 
Here is the point I'm trying to make for Blazer:

Motor oil gets thicker with cold temperatures and the "W" rating, such as 0W or 5W, only reflects the extreme cold temperature properties of that viscosity grade.

Here is a group of oils that are all between 560-600 cSt at a temperature of 32 degrees.

Viscosity at 0C (32 degrees F)


0W-30 Esso XD Extra 599 cSt
12.1 @ 100C, 168 VI index


0W-40 Mobil 1 597 cSt
14.3 @ 100C, 187 VI index


5W-30 Chevron Supreme 568 cSt
10.8 @ 100C, 159 VI index


10W-30 Havoline Synthetic 571 cSt
10.1 @ 100C, 151 VI index


At this temperature, 0C(32F), is the 0W going to provide a better start-up than the 10W, or is the 30 weight better than the 40W?
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dr. T:
Blazer, you must remember several facts:

N.A. owner's have been dummied-down into thinking "use 5-30" for everything everytime every temperature. Now it's 5-20.

Sadly, the tried-and-true recommendation of viscosity based on temperature has been abandoned. But, some owner's have reported this on a continent to continent variation. Others note a Euro to US difference in the same engine. Yet others (like myself), have ALL grades listed in my manual...eg. 5-20 up to 20-50. Why? Because they all work. But when does one work better?

I will clarify it:

A dino 15-40 is BETTER than a dino 5-20 in ALL engines when it is 30-40 C outside (eg. Arizona, Texas, etc).

Conversely, a dino 5-20 is BETTER than a dino 20-50 in ALL engines when it is -30C outside eg. Canada
grin.gif


All true. My GM manual specifically states not to use 20W-50 period. They know that these cars will try to start no matter what and some idiot in Antarctica will break the oil pump and claim warranty.
lol.gif
I think they have too much history of not so good 10W-40's and long oci's, too. So, it makes sense that they try to dumb down their recommendations. It's the "kiss" principle.

Since they are pushing the OLM changes, rather than specific miles and time, I think good 5W-30's and 10W-30 make sense as a recommendation for NA overall.

Your warranty is ok if you apply intelligence, but they want to keep it simple and avoid confusion. If it was all about CAFE, GM would push 0W-20, but they don't.

Even in desert high heat and high speed most GM cars just don't benefit from anything thicker than GC 0W-30. Thicker will work, but hurt fuel economy.

Forever thanks for turning us on to GC.
grin.gif
bowdown.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by TomJones76:

quote:

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
On my oil scavenger hunt through various autozones I here the darndest things.

It is hardwired in to many peoples heads that thicker is better. And they absolutely fear low numbers. It goes with the supersized, bigger is better, if a little is good alot must be great, Attitudes.
pat.gif


SNIP


Bryan,

I know exactly what you mean. You know, the SAE numbers are based on what amounts to a completely arbitrary metric, albeit one that had some meaning in one particular engine around the time of the first World War.
What would our discussion on this topic be like if the SAE scale had been inverted?
What if rather than (originally) measuring time to flow through an arbitrary engine, the number was based on "Speed of Flow" or "Slipperiness Index" ?
I wonder if we'd still have that attitude.


Tom,

Good point. The argument may very well be reversed if the scale had been based differently as you said. This has alot more to do with psychology than we might care to admit.
Would you rather have a thick gravy or a watery gravy? Whole milk or skim?
dunno.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by pitzel:
Good point, but 2% isn't that unrealistic if you compare a 5W-20 to a 15W-40 HDEO.

Good luck trying to convince people who drive a LS1/LS6/LS2/LS7 hard without an oil cooler in FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, OK, AZ, NM, NV during the summer months to use an inexpensive dino 5w20 instead of a 15W-40 HDEO to possibly gain 1% better fuel economy.
grin.gif
cheers.gif
 
BlazerLT, You need to take a deeper look at the world market place and what is recomended! Only in North AMerica do some people consider a 40Wt as a thick oil! THe vast majority of the world considers that to be a middle of the road viscosity. Why is it that 5W30,5W20,and 0W20 are not marketed outside the USA with a few exceptions? Why does Honda use predominately 5W40 and 10W30 outside the USA. Why does Toyota recomend 5W40 in most of Asia? Why do so many European companys have their own oil standards? Why was an HTHS 3.5 picked by so many European OEM's? Why do no comerical diesels use an oil with a viscosity lower then 5W40 and 10W30? Commerical diesel fleets have the most to gain form fuel saveing!!!

Here comes the big questions? How much faster is a 0W20,0W30,0W40 going to reach the head in Toyota Camry in 70°F weather on a cold start then a 5W20,5W30,10W30,5W40,15W40 with identical base stocks and simalar additives? Where is all the evidence of cavitation and starvation? Rest assured that it is easy to spot oil starvation problems on Cams, Followers,Lifters,oil pumps, pistons, etc......... Where are all the failed oil pumps? Cavitation is also easily spoted on parts as it leave really bad pit like marks in the alloy.Wear are all the horrable UOA of cars running 5W40,5W50,10W40 and 15W40 most especialy? How have you determined that a thiner oil is better in your application then one that might be thicker?Why is a 50/50 mix of GC and Syntec 10W40 working just fine in my Camry at 13°F?

bugshu, I dare you to run M1 5W40 or 10W30EP and do a UOA this summer! I am betting you wont take me up on it though!UOA does not lie everyting else is just opinon! I am sure that any difference between these oils and M1 0W20 will be statisticly insignificant! I am sending out my M1R 0W30 sample tomorrow!
 
The other side of improved fuel mileage due to the use of oils thinner than the rest of the world uses is decreased vehicle life, which is harder to estimate. It's not an issue to someone who buys newer vehicles on a regular basis, but to someone like myself who will keep a vehicle until it's run into the ground it is a serious issue. We donated an 87 Honda Civic with only 120k miles on it to charity as it was pretty much shot; lots of blue smoke at startup, compression low in one cylinder, carb needing a rebuild, etc. Civics tend to do better on vehicle life but driving up and down the hill that we live on with a larger family seem to take it's toll. Using a heavier oil may have made a difference, like it seems to have on our older Taurus which has over 180k miles on it. It just passed the smog test and is running well. Every year that I can hold off replacing one saves me at least $15k, but $20k seems more likely from looking around.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by pitzel:
Good point, but 2% isn't that unrealistic if you compare a 5W-20 to a 15W-40 HDEO.

Good luck trying to convince people who drive a LS1/LS6/LS2/LS7 hard without an oil cooler in FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, OK, AZ, NM, NV during the summer months to use an inexpensive dino 5w20 instead of a 15W-40 HDEO to possibly gain 1% better fuel economy.
grin.gif
cheers.gif


Talk to Patman.
 
I like this discussion, it is really bringing some good information forward.

Again guys, I am NOT, let me make this perfectly CLEAR, NOT, saying people should go to a 0w20 when their engine states for example 5w40 for example.
nono.gif


People saying there is only a 1% fuel economy difference between 5w30 and 15w40 is truly mistaken.

This is not the 60s, performance engines do not require extra thick grades to protect perfectly. Look at Patman for example, the guy drives his car all year round with temperatures ranging from -10f to almost 100f with 0w30 in the crankcase and he is seeing excellent results.

People saying that the LS1 requires 15w40 needs to look at this. Patman is probably freeing up a couple HP and MPG by using 0w30, getting better startup protection and less engine wear than anyone.

Everyone may need to check out that it might not by GC's chemistry that makes it excellent, it might indeed be the grade.

Just throwing that out as food for thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top