Interesting GM presentation on new Dexos for 2016

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 06VtecV6
Interesting you mention increased friction diminishing FE cause when I "poured" 1 qt of 10-30 PYB into a 5w-30 Val SP OCI, my FE shot up (started with a stick gas needle) Makes sens because decreased friction (thru MOly as a FM) increases FE just like you eloquently put it!


Even Google Translate isn't helping me with that.


PYB has a lot of moly in it, and adding it should mean less friction, is what I read from that. I'd think it would only be a fraction of a percent change in fuel economy though, hard to actually notice.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I found it interesting when she said an engine designed to use xw30 oil can take a fuel economy hit using xW20 oil.

I doubt 5W-20 would really improve my mpg but I'd be possibly losing some engine oil protection.


Those engines that were back-speced to use a thinner oil probably increased MPG with very little loss of protection via careful selection by engineers.

I do appreciate comments made indicating it is possible to increase friction (lower MPG) when going to a thinner oil in some engines. Must mean the oil film thickness just gets too low in some engines, creating more boundary friction.


That makes sense. After listening to that part of the presentation, I will no longer go down a grade simply because an engine was back spec'd. Now I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind the back spec'ing of the engine.

 

[Pontual]

Running by parts churning in the Zddp glass make friction at or below 5m Per second.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

That makes sense. After listening to that part of the presentation, I will no longer go down a grade simply because an engine was back spec'd. Now I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind the back spec'ing of the engine.

CAFE Credits. By back spec'ing an engine family the manufacture can then apply the theoretical gains in fuel economy for those model years as CAFE credits. They can use the credits in the following ways:
Quote:
In a shortfall situation, a manufacturer may comply by (1) carrying forward credits earned in a prior model year; (2) transferring credits from one of its fleets (cars or light trucks) to the fleet with the shortfall; (3) trading for credits (purchasing credits) from another manufacturer; (4) providing nhtsa with a plan to make up the difference in the next three years (carry back credits); or (5) paying a civil penalty.

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCTbriefing_CAFE-credits_20140307.pdf

Ed

 

[tig1]

I used 20 wt oils in the late 60's and 70's, by preference,in engines calling for 30 and 40 wt oils. My engines simply performed better. This was long before CAFE. Is there any evidence that engines using 20 wt oils wear our sooner than engines using 30-40 wt? I can use any wt oil I want, but I chose to use 0-20 because of the performance.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

That makes sense. After listening to that part of the presentation, I will no longer go down a grade simply because an engine was back spec'd. Now I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind the back spec'ing of the engine.

CAFE Credits. By back spec'ing an engine family the manufacture can then apply the theoretical gains in fuel economy for those model years as CAFE credits. They can use the credits in the following ways:
Quote:
In a shortfall situation, a manufacturer may comply by (1) carrying forward credits earned in a prior model year; (2) transferring credits from one of its fleets (cars or light trucks) to the fleet with the shortfall; (3) trading for credits (purchasing credits) from another manufacturer; (4) providing nhtsa with a plan to make up the difference in the next three years (carry back credits); or (5) paying a civil penalty.

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCTbriefing_CAFE-credits_20140307.pdf

Ed


You got it. Back spec'ing might not have the end users best interests at heart.

I also found the reasoning for 30 grade oil used for many turbo applications. It has nothing to do with film strength it has to do with cooling the turbo. According to the presentation it appears 5w30 oil provides better cooling for many turbos as well. Right now 5w30 is the better choice for cooling turbos. Around 19 minutes into the presentation she addresses that. So while a 20 grade might provide better engine cooling as has been mentioned here many times, it is not better for cooling a turbo. I wonder if that applies to other engine parts as well in an engine which is operated under severe service such as hot summer towing.

I plan on listening to it again at another time. It is a very interesting presentation.

 

[Jake777]

Fortunately this particular conversation is not a 5-20 vs 5-30 but more a general post about the future of Dexos and modern engine oils. It was interesting to see the issues they were having with turbo deposits.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Ford, Chrysler-Fiat, etc., and all other non-German car makers, should rally around the dexos specs instead of chasing GF-6. GM is getting out front with it all, making the continued usage of GF-x just redundant.

Similar to how for the third time in the past decade, General Motors and Ford are now collaborating on transmissions. GM's 6T70 6-speed automatic, front-wheel-drive transmission was developed out of one such collaboration.

We already know if you want a better oil than SN-GF5, just buy a dexos rated oil, even if you own a Toyota or Ford.

 

[06VtecV6]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 06VtecV6
Interesting you mention increased friction diminishing FE cause when I "poured" 1 qt of 10-30 PYB into a 5w-30 Val SP OCI, my FE shot up (started with a stick gas needle) Makes sens because decreased friction (thru MOly as a FM) increases FE just like you eloquently put it!


I was dropped on my head as a child and that's why I ha8 vegetables


PYB has a lot of moly in it, and adding it should mean less friction, is what I read from that. I'd think it would only be a fraction of a percent change in fuel economy though, hard to actually notice.


why and well hello Colorado. Spot on per usual! This is out of nowhere but I really loved the deal you get at the Pandas at Denver Intl airport!

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: tig1
My engines simply performed better. This was long before CAFE. Is there any evidence that engines using 20 wt oils wear our sooner than engines using 30-40 wt? I can use any wt oil I want, but I chose to use 0-20 because of the performance.


By using a thinner oil, the reduced parasitic drag will invariably make the engine feel as though "performance" has indeed improved.
As an example a small capacity 4 cyl carburetor engine with an Xw-50 grade will invariably idle at higher RPM's than the same engine with an Xw-30 grade (especially when cold).
The effects obviously flow on throughout the RPM range in normal driving.

With regard to longevity.
Motor racing teams have certainly been known to run a thinner oil for qualifying in order to get the very last drop of performance out of the engine.
But they drop the thin oil out straight away as soon as they return to the pits after qualifying and put the thicker oil in for the race.
This is in order to preserve the engine throughout the race and make it to the finish line. Hopefully in first position.
Especially so in endurance type motor racing.
Further to this.
I have seen a Clevite presentation on their bearings, and they state that basically the reason why coated bearings now exist is because of the manufacturers tendency to spec thinner oils for the engines.
There's no other reason other than to mitigate against the increased tendency for boundary lubrication to occur.

There is absolutely no substitute for a good hydrodynamic state of lubrication to maximise longevity by any measure. Period.

Just have a look at modern high end Phonograph turntables.
The very best of them go to extreme lengths to engineer spindle bearings that are perpetually floating on a thin film of oil in the hydrodynamic state. (See J.A Michell for example, and others).
Similarly high quality mechanical watch movements are totally dependent upon hydrodynamic lubrication at the critical points of their lubricated bearings for absolutely every aspect of their functionality and longevity.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I also found the reasoning for 30 grade oil used for many turbo applications. It has nothing to do with film strength it has to do with cooling the turbo. According to the presentation it appears 5w30 oil provides better cooling for many turbos as well. Right now 5w30 is the better choice for cooling turbos. Around 19 minutes into the presentation she addresses that. So while a 20 grade might provide better engine cooling as has been mentioned here many times, it is not better for cooling a turbo. I wonder if that applies to other engine parts as well in an engine which is operated under severe service such as hot summer towing.


I don't think she was eluding to that 5W-30 cools turbos better (ie, has better heat capacity), but rather 5W-30 is a better oil than 5W-20 for the cooling of turbos because the added heat that is absorbed in the oil while cooling turbos can be tolerated better with 5W-30, and therefore keep the required level of protection better than 5W-20 would. It would go along the same lines as saying that 5W-30 will provide more protection in an engine when operated very hard in service like when towing on a hot summer day.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Ford, Chrysler-Fiat, etc., and all other non-German car makers, should rally around the dexos specs instead of chasing GF-6. GM is getting out front with it all, making the continued usage of GF-x just redundant.

Fiat never will; they'll do their best to flummox North American service bay personnel, and leave Chrysler fans with another series of oil specifications for their laundry list, when Fiat is done with them down the road.

Incidentally, there are A1/B1 A5/B5 specs that any of them could chase, rather than latching onto dexos1. Of course, there is precedent, though, with Infiniti/Nissan specify Dexron-VI as PSF.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Incidentally, there are A1/B1 A5/B5 specs that any of them could chase, rather than latching onto dexos1.


That is a good point.

Does anybody know how similar dexos-1 is to ACEA A1/B1 or A5/B5. Or more importantly, any significant differences in particular areas.

Valvoline make two 5W-30 SynPower full synthetic oils

One is SynPower FE that is Ford WSS-M2C-913-D, C, B and A., ACEA A5/B5 and API SL/CF. Plus Renault RN700.

The other is SynPower DX1 that is dexos-1, ILSAC GF-5 and API SN/CF. Plus GM4718M, GM6094M, GM-LL-A-025, Ford M2C-929-A, Ford M2C-946-A.

OK one is made for Ford and the other GM, but if I wanted a good quality synthetic 5W-30 for a Japanese car say, I wouldn't be able to pick between the two.

I suspect the FE is API SL due to extra Phos & Zinc to meet the A5/B5 wear test, and therefore may be better in that regard. To me they are both resource conserving (low HTHS) oils, not a heavy A3 oil.

 

[Garak]

I've been wondering how close they are all along. I'm guessing that dexos1 is less rigorous than A5/B5, at least in a few aspects. Just about all our A5/B5 5w-30 options are dexos1 licensed, but there are several 5w-30 dexos1 options that aren't A5/B5, lacking TBN, at the very least.

We do have A5/B5 oils that meet SN/GF-5 at the same time, of course, since every dexos1 oil I've seen is also SN/GF-5. Castrol 5w-30 in black and gold bottles and PP and PUP are the most obvious examples of dexos1 and A5/B5 (not to mention SN/GF-5, since that's the norm here).

 

[SR5]

Hi Garak,

What you say makes sense.

It makes me wonder why bother making the dexos-1 standard when A5/B5 (or A1/B1) already existed. Maybe they wanted it to be more affordable to produce, I've never seen a A5/B5 semi-synthetic, but you can get a semi-synthetic dexos. Maybe they just wanted it more GM or more American than a Euro standard.

I don't know much about Ford standards, but it looks like Ford WSS-M2C-913-D is a tougher spec to meet. Yet the dexos spec has become the yard stick an oil is judged by, not the Ford spec. I suspect the Ford WSS-M2C-913-D spec is very close to A5/B5. Does it appear on many of your A5/B5 oils ?

 

[Garak]

I'd agree, and I'm sure most BITOGers would, but I suspect they have a few reasons. Affordability might be one, since otherwise, they could have just kept and/or refined the GM Vette spec. Since dexos1 allows synthetic blends, it would appear that affordability was at least somewhat of a concern. GM includes entry level vehicles up to some pricey equipment, so I guess if they want a standard across all gasoline engines, they have to take into account the university student scraping by as well as the guy driving the Vette.

Also, I'm sure they did want it more GM than European, and did come up with logos and everything. It's hard enough to get people to pay attention to viscosity and the Starburst up front for ILSAC certification, let alone reading the fine print for A1/B1 or A5/B5. Of course, those who want to pay attention will, and I can't see anyone having a problem using an A5/B5 5w-30 in a dexos1 5w-30 application, if one could find one that had no dexos1 license.

I would also gather that the dexos1 spec made sense to accountants. No, it's not a giant cash grab like some would have us believe. GM isn't rolling in money from dexos1 royalties that they're going to quit the car business. But, if engineers can explain to accountants that an oil specification and the R&D involved is going to be self-funding, they're going to have a much better chance at succeeding.

As for that Ford spec, that's a puzzler. I don't know if there's anything in Canada that meets that, aside from perhaps some dealer specific stuff. Our favourite Ford counterperson here might be able to answer that one. I can't find anything off the top of my head in Canada that meets that specification. I do see it in conjunction with A5/B5 on non-North American oils, so it's not something totally out in left field. In fact, I can't even find anything that meets the last high end Ford gasoline spec, WSS-M2C-913-C, which was, if I recall correctly, used in Jaguars and/or Land Rovers here. The last product I saw bearing that one on the shelf was Mobil 1, but that was when it was SM/GF-4, and it was gone with the SN/GF-5 rollout. Castrol has an OE product for that. Perhaps there isn't enough demand to be making either the C or D spec readily available here. I can find all kinds of examples that are available outside of North America.

One might have luck at a speed shop or European shop selling boutiques. But, the majors list nothing here.

 

[SR5]

I just had a look at the Castrol lube guide for Ford, and it's all over the place in Australia. A standard 6 cylinder engine takes 5W-30 SN & GF-5, for the performance cars (turbo 6 cyl. or V8) they suggest Edge 0W-40 and for the new EcoBoost engines they have a professional grade Magnatec 5W-30 that is API SN/CF, ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; ILSAC GF-4 Ford WSS-M2C913-C/WSS-M2C913-D.

Again you see the Ford spec in conjunction with A5/B5.

Maybe a Ford person, reading this dexos thread, can tell us more.

But looking at the Ford oils, I can see your point about GM dexos oils. One good oil that will work on every car they produce makes life easier for everybody.

I also think, as you suggest, that a good 5W-30 A5/B5 would probably work for most people. Even if it hasn't got dexos or WSS-M2C-913-D on the label.

 

[Garak]

The last time someone wanted something with the WSS-M2C913-C spec in a thread here, they wound up having to go to a dealer for the Castrol professional stuff. To find a reference on a consumer product, I had to go back to the old Mobil 1 data sheets from before SN. Imperial Oil used to hang onto all the stuff; they don't really, any longer.

If you look at something like my G37, all it calls for is 5w-30 in SM or SM/GF-4 or newer, so it's not exactly asking for something ridiculously demanding. The dexos1 spec is certainly something for someone to look at when making a choice, particularly with A1/B1 A5/B5 not being listed in a very rigorous fashion here. You look at something like QSUD, which had some of those before, then some older versions, now with none. Did the ACEA specifications get dated, did the formulation change, or do they simply not care about A1/B1 A5/B5 on a jug of QSUD? The waffling happened with PP and PU in the past, too. A5/B5 has disappeared from M1 5w-30, too, for some perplexing reason. As much as I hate Castrol's data sheets and their vague numbers and "minimum" spec business, at least they don't play games with specifications. It's either there, or it's not.

Interestingly enough, Castrol got dexos1 certification in Canada ahead of the States. Up here, though, that doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I also found the reasoning for 30 grade oil used for many turbo applications. It has nothing to do with film strength it has to do with cooling the turbo. According to the presentation it appears 5w30 oil provides better cooling for many turbos as well. Right now 5w30 is the better choice for cooling turbos. Around 19 minutes into the presentation she addresses that. So while a 20 grade might provide better engine cooling as has been mentioned here many times, it is not better for cooling a turbo. I wonder if that applies to other engine parts as well in an engine which is operated under severe service such as hot summer towing.


I don't think she was eluding to that 5W-30 cools turbos better (ie, has better heat capacity), but rather 5W-30 is a better oil than 5W-20 for the cooling of turbos because the added heat that is absorbed in the oil while cooling turbos can be tolerated better with 5W-30, and therefore keep the required level of protection better than 5W-20 would. It would go along the same lines as saying that 5W-30 will provide more protection in an engine when operated very hard in service like when towing on a hot summer day.


I agree.

 

[Jake777]

If your GM the reason is clear. You want control over the standard that you plan on running in every vehicle you make. Your looking to develop small DI Turbo motors with lower and lower viscosity ratings. Why piggy back on someone else's standard that you have no control over. This allows them to do the testing they want and decide for themselves what the best chemistry solution would be then make it part of the standard. If you just backed another standard you would have no ability to affect change.