Kenworth Selects New Factory Fill Oil

[durallymax]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

When I hear stuff like that, I really have a hard time really thinking it is valid. 1% of a semi truck getting between 7 and 8 mpg (that is darn good on a long haul class 8 commercial truck. Industry average is just over 6 mpg) is still less than one tenth. There are so many variables with a class 8 truck, that there is almost no way to determine if the oil or something else caused any increase. And those that categorically make claims like above, have never hauled any freight year round in their life.

On the surface, it would appear to make sense that a lower viscosity oil would be more fuel efficient. How that plays out in the real world is another thing. Type of tires, the wear on them, the tread design will make more of a difference in fuel economy. Blends of diesel, time of year, etc will also be an issue. Of course, seasonal weather with varying winds, also contribute considerably. Life cycle of air filtration. Wheel bearing tightness will offset fuel economy more than the 1% that is claimed being gained by using a particular engine oil. Even the gap between the cab and trailer can make more of difference than an oil ever could. Controlled lab settings are fun to see what happens. But anyone who has been trucking for more than 30 days, knows that controlled lab and track settings hardly compare to the realities of trucking. And if one digs a little deeper, when a 1% improvement is claimed in commercial trucking, there is usually an agenda being pushed.


I have a hard time believing it when an owner operator claims improvements, but with the size of UPS fleet, and the similarities in it I would think they would be able to notice an increase or decrease in fuel economy over time due to the fact they are one of the more consistant fleets. The trucks loads vary, but spread out over a fleet that large it shouldn't be hard to see the average go up or down.

Delo claims 2% increase with 10w30. Weather or not it is true who knows, its not enough of a difference for a small fleet but a large one it could be.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Like TiredTrucker I'm very sceptical about fuel economy claims in Heavy Trucks.

When I came to OZ in the late 1970s the Interstate Trucking Industry average fuel economy was 5 mpg. Today it is near 6 mpg around a 20% improvement

In this time permissible weights have risen about 15% and road speed 25%

We now have much better roads, electronic engine management, much lower hiway engine revs, radial tyres and aerodynamic enhancements - and etc!

Did engine lubricant type figure much? - I seriously doubt it!

Lower viscosity lubricant will help where the engine idles a lot and when there is a lot of cold running time. City use Trucks may get some benefits

IMO the greatest benefits accrue from good Driver education and using their new found expertise. And of course from good Management of Drivers (minimising idling etc) and Vehicles (tyre management practices etc)

They would assist in Truck Refrigeration units and in other areas

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Like TiredTrucker I'm very sceptical about fuel economy claims in Heavy Trucks.

Check out pg18 in this LNG. They gained .5% by going from a 15w40 to a 5w30 and again going to 0w20. HTHS of 3.7, 3.5, 2.9.
http://www.lngpublishing.com/LNGmagEMEA/LNG_july2008.pdf

“This amount soon adds up to 500 liters per year, or 600 Euro per truck,” he said. This can certainly make a difference, given the strong competition in the transport sector, where costs are already causing great strains.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
martinq - Thanks for the reference. At least one error though, I used 5W lubricants in my Detroit engines during the latter 1990s with great success

Introducing low viscosity lubricant into mixed Fleets is at best a challenge and at worst t-it could be a disaster. Note the increase in wear rates mentioned.

The Curser engines are not too prolific here - we use CAT, Detroits and Cummins primarily. Benz, Volvo and MAN are growing in number

My Fleet was largely IVECO ("S" Line Internationals)

 

[TiredTrucker]

Interesting read..... as far as it goes. There are variables that were not addressed in the article. Easy to slip by on a transportation novice.

1) How worn were the tires from one test to the other? It has been shown that tires, especially after the first 5000 miles, will produce better fuel economy numbers than new tires. Were air pressures checked daily using calibrated air gauges? A simple 5 lb variance in air pressure between tires has been shown to create a 1% variance in mpg due to the tires "fighting each other". As tires wear down, the become more fuel efficient. So, were the tires new tires at each viscosity testing change? Or did they start with the heavier viscosity and new tires, and change to each lower viscosity as the tires wore down and became more fuel efficient themselves, and then claim it was the oil viscosity? Very disingenuous at best.

2) while locations were standardized for the testing, were the loads? Were the drivers the same? Was the weather temperatures and conditions similar? Was the fuel used obtained from the same source, and the temperature of the fuel measured for consistency at each fill, each day, at the same time of day? BTU inconsistencies between fuels can have a 1% or greater effect on fuel mileage. This was not addressed in the article. Were the drivers switched between vehicles at specified intervals to enable factoring out driver idiosyncrasies in the study? Michelin, in their recent tire testing went to these lengths in making sure to factor out all they could to enable a proper measuring of their XDA Energy truck tires. You can find all the videos showing the lengths they went to to ensure proper testing of their tires here.... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...c.1.yBAvtY_OcSA

Article, like I said, was interesting, but far from conclusive. And in the final analysis, a class 8 engine manufacturer may not honor warranty if a lower viscosity oil is used than the one recommended for their engine. And the oil manufacturer is not going to back their product if used in an engine where the manufacturer is not on board with that viscosity rating. And at over $25,000 a pop for an engine (factory reman cost without factoring labor and downtime), many are not going to play games with oils like those that own a Chevy Cavalier.

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Like TiredTrucker I'm very sceptical about fuel economy claims in Heavy Trucks.

Check out pg18 in this LNG. They gained .5% by going from a 15w40 to a 5w30 and again going to 0w20. HTHS of 3.7, 3.5, 2.9.
http://www.lngpublishing.com/LNGmagEMEA/LNG_july2008.pdf

“This amount soon adds up to 500 liters per year, or 600 Euro per truck,” he said. This can certainly make a difference, given the strong competition in the transport sector, where costs are already causing great strains.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Article, like I said, was interesting, but far from conclusive. And in the final analysis, a class 8 engine manufacturer may not honor warranty if a lower viscosity oil is used than the one recommended for their engine. And the oil manufacturer is not going to back their product if used in an engine where the manufacturer is not on board with that viscosity rating. And at over $25,000 a pop for an engine (factory reman cost without factoring labor and downtime), many are not going to play games with oils like those that own a Chevy Cavalier.

I don't see anything suspicious in that article and I'm sure they could fill many more pages outlining the information but that's not what the article was for. Maybe they have a white-paper with all the details available. I don't think they would publish their results if they were that questionable. The results look very believable to me and is consistent with what we see in other applications (0.5% gain). This project was a joint-effort of three reputable companies (Infineum, FTP Iveco, FL Selenia) and not just a marketing push from a lube-shop or blender.

 

[durallymax]

TiredTrucker.

I skimmed the article on the LNG trucks and could not find how many they used. It seemed like only a couple, then everything you mentioned is true. The UPS example I provided is different. When you compare a handful of trucks, every little thing plays into it. When you compare thousands and thousands of trucks, you level the playing field a lot and any general increase is easier to notice. Drivers will always be different, as will routes and loads, but the average over time is what matters and with a fleet that size, unless something in the trucks themselves changed or the fuel supply changed, it would be easier to spot a noticeable difference in fuel economy.

Im not saying it is wrong or right. For 1% I do not feel I would see enough advantages to switch. We go through a little over 40,000 gallons of fuel per year. A 1% savings is 400 gallons. So that is a $1,500 savings roughly. Now figure in the added costs of the 10W30 oil and the savings just don't seem worth the hassle to me at this point. With enough machines under warranty and having a lot of issues, I like to keep the OEM stuff in there to keep them happy. If they OEM wants 10W30 then that is what it is getting. Our smaller diesels all run 10W30, but the larger ones are still 15w40.

I realize this mostly applies to highway trucks though.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Then, to make vast claims, they should not provide only half-vast data. (say that out loud). Lot of "maybe" there. They maybe have a white paper. Then why wasn't a link or something provided? But it is a marketing thing. Infineum has a lot to do with oil ad packs. Iveco makes trucks/engines. I sure didn't glean from the article independent objective testing like the European version of the Technology and Maintenance Council here in N. America, which is the defacto trucking industry standards committee here on things of this nature. Therefore, feelings aside, I see no real substance to cause me to take more than a cursory look at what the article said. I have been at this for long enough to know that many folks make some pretty major claims, of which only a handful ever prove to be what they say.

But anyone is free to hang their hat on what that article says and invest their own money to try it and see for themselves. God forbid that I stand in their way.

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Article, like I said, was interesting, but far from conclusive. And in the final analysis, a class 8 engine manufacturer may not honor warranty if a lower viscosity oil is used than the one recommended for their engine. And the oil manufacturer is not going to back their product if used in an engine where the manufacturer is not on board with that viscosity rating. And at over $25,000 a pop for an engine (factory reman cost without factoring labor and downtime), many are not going to play games with oils like those that own a Chevy Cavalier.

I don't see anything suspicious in that article and I'm sure they could fill many more pages outlining the information but that's not what the article was for. Maybe they have a white-paper with all the details available. I don't think they would publish their results if they were that questionable. The results look very believable to me and is consistent with what we see in other applications (0.5% gain). This project was a joint-effort of three reputable companies (Infineum, FTP Iveco, FL Selenia) and not just a marketing push from a lube-shop or blender.