In thick vs thin don't forget the additives

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Brent_G

How did the 15w50 trash the engine?


Oil that's too thick causes excessive ring wear. I had oil on the plugs after 80K miles.

So its ok to assume thin oil causes wear with no proof but not the other way around?

 

[Brent_G]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Brent_G

How did the 15w50 trash the engine?


Oil that's too thick causes excessive ring wear. I had oil on the plugs after 80K miles.

So its ok to assume thin oil causes wear with no proof but not the other way around?



And you know it was from the 15w50 how exactly?

I'm not saying thin oil causes more wear in the correct applications, you are the one saying 20w50 wore out your 350 and 15w50 destroyed your 3.8.

You are grasping for straws here turt...

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Brent_G
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Brent_G

How did the 15w50 trash the engine?


Oil that's too thick causes excessive ring wear. I had oil on the plugs after 80K miles.

So its ok to assume thin oil causes wear with no proof but not the other way around?



And you know it was from the 15w50 how exactly?

I'm not saying thin oil causes more wear in the correct applications, you are the one saying 20w50 wore out your 350 and 15w50 destroyed your 3.8.

You are grasping for straws here turt...


You're right it's heresay. Just like all the other personal stories and political opinions about CAFE mandates.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Exactly...with modern friction modifiers, in modern oils, the curve doesn't have the traditional uptick to the left, but gets more of a flat line, allowing OEMs to operate more in mixed lubrication modes in places.

eg.

http://www.threebond.co.jp/en/technical/technicalnews/pdf/tech09.pdf

Table 6. for the effective curve with friction modifiers.


Good visual contrast of the FM plot vs the plot in the OP, supporting the premise of this thread. As I understand it, it's the 'invisible' organic FMs that are really the 'unseen crutch'- the enabler, if you will, that allow acceptable COF during viscosity breakdown. What about wear?

What cool about the organic FMs is their efficacy at low temperatures, operating below the temp threshold of the classic metallic additives, which is great for warm-up COF.

I still have a few q's about the organic FMs, perhaps for another thread. It's just great that we can have this level of discussion on this forum!

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: jrustles

What cool about the organic FMs is their efficacy at low temperatures, operating below the temp threshold of the classic metallic additives, which is great for warm-up COF.


The way I understand classic ZDDP type additives is that the surfaces initially have to touch and create heat to activate the additive. So you have some wear for an instant before there is a boundary layer created.

So I'm assuming these more modern additives reside on the metal surface and are ready to go instantly so no wear ever occurs.

I think CAFE mandates are going to lead to some new super slick additives. Bad bad government.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Good visual contrast of the FM plot vs the plot in the OP, supporting the premise of this thread. As I understand it, it's the 'invisible' organic FMs that are really the 'unseen crutch'- the enabler, if you will, that allow acceptable COF during viscosity breakdown. What about wear?

What cool about the organic FMs is their efficacy at low temperatures, operating below the temp threshold of the classic metallic additives, which is great for warm-up COF.

I still have a few q's about the organic FMs, perhaps for another thread. It's just great that we can have this level of discussion on this forum!


Friction and wear are obviously linked but even the term wear is a little to generic when it comes to talking about the individual components of oil additives.

Again from the STLE website
Quote:
Early investigators could not do much to investigate wear because it is usually a very gradual process, and they did not have accurate means to quantify it. Although friction and wear influence each other, the relationship is complex and involves many other factors including the chemical environment and temperature, each of which influences the others. A simple correlation between friction and wear data is therefore hardly ever found. Modern research has shown that there are 12 main types of wear.

These are:

• Mild Adhesion
• Severe Adhesion
• Abrasion
• Erosion
• Polishing
• Contact Fatigue
• Corrosion
• Fretting Corrosion
• Brinelling
• Electro-Corrosion
• Electrical Discharge
• Cavitation Damage

Wear can be prevented by:
Recognizing the type of wear.
Making changes in the lubricant, design or operation.


Organic FM's work exceptionally well at preventing friction and wear in most boundary conditions. This is one of the great secrets of oil formulation - finding a combination of FM's that synergize with AW's and if necessary EP's. The other part is how these compounds react to the detergents and viscosity modifiers.

Honestly, most of the big additive suppliers create preapproved packages which takes some of the hard work out for making an oil which meets current specs but because of the pressure for innovative solutions in fuel economy more and more tweaks to the formulas are becoming commonplace to the industry.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Brent_G

How did the 15w50 trash the engine?


Oil that's too thick causes excessive ring wear. I had oil on the plugs after 80K miles.

So its ok to assume thin oil causes wear with no proof but not the other way around?



But there are plenty of anecdotes to the contrary out there. I know plenty of guys that ran M1 5w-50 (and later 15w-50) along with the Castrol 5w-50 in their boosted and sprayed 302's and had immaculate bores and no measurable ring wear. In fact on the tear-down of the one engine, which had over 300,000Km on it, it had factory-spec compression and was only torn down because it ate an intake gasket under boost and he was concerned that he damaged a bearing.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

But there are plenty of anecdotes to the contrary out there. I know plenty of guys that ran M1 5w-50 (and later 15w-50) along with the Castrol 5w-50 in their boosted and sprayed 302's and had immaculate bores and no measurable ring wear. In fact on the tear-down of the one engine, which had over 300,000Km on it, it had factory-spec compression and was only torn down because it ate an intake gasket under boost and he was concerned that he damaged a bearing.


yep, That's why emotions are so strong. Everyone has their own experiences. They have been burned by some stuff and other things have worked well. Some guys grandfather tells them some old mans tale and it sticks for life. And nobody wants to move off the dime. Everybody is certain they know what the deal is.

I was convinced 50wt oil was the balls too when I first joined here. I've changed my mind since reading threads here and particularly Catherm's stuff.

As I said, I think all the new technology is going into the lightweight oils from here on.

What do you say when Ford says 10W-30 is an outdated oil.

 

[Shannow]

As an engineer, you obviously try to work out why they are saying that...and generally they (and Honda etc.) tell you it was for economy/CO2.

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
On the boundary side (or left of the base of the curve) chemical additives such as friction modifiers, antiwear additives and ep components of engine oils which provide protection when viscosity alone is not enough. On the hydrodynamic side (or the right of the base of the curve) more stable viscosity properties of high index, lower viscosity base oils are reducing frictional drag. Today's oils are the sum of their parts not just one attribute or one component of the base or additive package. (Good base oils + High performing additives = Great Oil)

Gary Allen's old 0W-10 Jeep uoa's come to mind here. Unfortunately it's too bad that this additive package wouldn't meet GF5/GF6 specs.

02 Jeep 2.5/5k Bruceblend 0w-10 5100

If there are delays with GF6 and 0W-16 due to engine development, couldn't the concerns easily addressed by boosting the metallic AW package to old school levels (not that it would ever happen).

-Dennis

 

[Zaedock]

Nice bump. I miss Gary.

 

[JHZR2]

This has gone nowhere. Turtlevette, if you're unwilling to pay for books that are recommended, and just want to argue, you're getting nowhere and just making friction (ha, ha).

Please at least review Mike Khonsari's book, which is free to look at on google.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Applied_Tribology.html?id=k4fgJRho0M0C

Time for a rest; pointed, thought provoking questions, even if they cause some level of heated debate are welcome. Argument that is non-constructive is not.