I agree what has been stated - unless it is a late model Hyundai 2.4L non - turbo GDI engine : The engines are shipped with 5W20 (CAFE) oil but if the engine fails due to crank shaft bearing issue , piston coating flake off issue , etc. the Hyundai replacement engines ALL get 5W30 oil . Why is that ? The Hyundai answer is to make it easier on technicians , liability , less oil grades to inventory , etc. to just use 5W30 (which also covers turbo GDI engines ) . *Me thinks this : "If your engine design is marginal to meet CAFE oil grade requirements in the first place - then better to go up a oil grade and keep it full . Other OEM engines can do just fine on 0W20 or 5W20 for 300K Miles - I just don't have the confidence that day in and day out Hyundai is an engine where you would want to use a 20 weight oil regardless of the circumstances . Honda , Toyota , Ford , GM - yes , have at it with 20W oils .
Low Viscosity doesn't have to mean low quality
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Please show me where they are still using the 4 ball wear test I have proven to you this isn't the case and you admitted they are now using ASTM and that it has been a while since you read their information but you call it out here again?
Everyone knows their Signature Series oil is their flagship and so it's not fair to compare it to the OE line and expect the same marketing for both.
Seems to me you have a hard on to call them out and you have never used the product yourself, but whatever. I guess the lawsuits against their claims will take care of them. Only been 40 years, any day now.
Everyone knows their Signature Series oil is their flagship and so it's not fair to compare it to the OE line and expect the same marketing for both.
Seems to me you have a hard on to call them out and you have never used the product yourself, but whatever. I guess the lawsuits against their claims will take care of them. Only been 40 years, any day now.
Last edited:
OVERKILL quote:
"Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it."
I've often wondered if the increased bearing width to accommodate thinner oils didn't negatively offset the desired results of the thinner oils. Boundary and mixed, with the right additives, will always win the hydrodynamic race but running in those modes is running a fine line between success and failure in my opinion.
"Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it."
I've often wondered if the increased bearing width to accommodate thinner oils didn't negatively offset the desired results of the thinner oils. Boundary and mixed, with the right additives, will always win the hydrodynamic race but running in those modes is running a fine line between success and failure in my opinion.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by StevieC
Understood, but we shouldn't be afraid of lower viscosities either.
Absolutely not. Those who are selling them, though, should be pointed out the measurable, verifiable benefits, rather than trotting out scare tactics. That's no better than the OEMs where one year a car is allowing all sorts of things, then the next year, warning to use 0w-20 year round in all temperature conditions for the same car and warning of dire consequences, when the real wording should be, "We did it for the CAFE credits." I'm the first to choose a lube based on its year round suitability from -40 C to +40 C, but we don't need the apocalyptic warnings.
^^^^^^^
Great, great post here by Garak.
Funny how the VQ motor is now specd for a 0w20 and yet when mine came out it was quite wide open... And nothing has really changed with these motors.
There's NO way I'd use a W20 in these engines. I used to frequent the Z33 boards and W40s were the oils mostly used via uoa analyses achieving the best results.
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by StevieC
Understood, but we shouldn't be afraid of lower viscosities either.
Absolutely not. Those who are selling them, though, should be pointed out the measurable, verifiable benefits, rather than trotting out scare tactics. That's no better than the OEMs where one year a car is allowing all sorts of things, then the next year, warning to use 0w-20 year round in all temperature conditions for the same car and warning of dire consequences, when the real wording should be, "We did it for the CAFE credits." I'm the first to choose a lube based on its year round suitability from -40 C to +40 C, but we don't need the apocalyptic warnings.
^^^^^^^
Great, great post here by Garak.
Funny how the VQ motor is now specd for a 0w20 and yet when mine came out it was quite wide open... And nothing has really changed with these motors.
There's NO way I'd use a W20 in these engines. I used to frequent the Z33 boards and W40s were the oils mostly used via uoa analyses achieving the best results.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Firstly, if SAE papers and charts should be dissuaded from the board for being overly scary, then how are the quotes that you felt needed to be bolded...some of them patently untrue for any grade at operating temperature allowable ?
Originally Posted by StevieC
It's the title of the article, maybe not the best but it's about folks thinking of thinner viscosity as lower quality protection.
Is there a technical measure of the "quality" of protection ?
That's just made up and not representative of what the Vice President of Product Development (VPPD) wrote.
"As motor oil viscosity continues to decrease, base oil and additive quality become more important"
He's talking ingredients , not some new measure of "lubrication quality" invented in the last 24 hours.
Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't post this Article to tout Amsoil, it's about the validating information they are talking about, being that there is more to protection than viscosity / HTHS. Additives and Basestock play important roles in providing the same protection in thinner oils as thicker ones. And using a thicker oil can cause increased wear and why that is.
Have always maintained that there's more to it than HTHS...just some people are fixated on "hating" HTHS, and viscosity (first time I've used that...it feels good, I understand why people keep getting labelled haters...it's sooo easy.
Viscosity keeps parts separated...they don't touch. In classic engineering, that used to be called the "zero wear regime".
When the parts touch, you need additives to CONTROL the wear...just like he said.
...And just like I've always said.
That's the region of "controlled wear"...it's there, it's just slow enough to not really matter that much in the lifetime of the equipment...for industrial applications, you pick which regime you want, and design to suit.
Next post, VPPD's "information" and validating it.
Well said.
Firstly, if SAE papers and charts should be dissuaded from the board for being overly scary, then how are the quotes that you felt needed to be bolded...some of them patently untrue for any grade at operating temperature allowable ?
Originally Posted by StevieC
It's the title of the article, maybe not the best but it's about folks thinking of thinner viscosity as lower quality protection.
Is there a technical measure of the "quality" of protection ?
That's just made up and not representative of what the Vice President of Product Development (VPPD) wrote.
"As motor oil viscosity continues to decrease, base oil and additive quality become more important"
He's talking ingredients , not some new measure of "lubrication quality" invented in the last 24 hours.
Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't post this Article to tout Amsoil, it's about the validating information they are talking about, being that there is more to protection than viscosity / HTHS. Additives and Basestock play important roles in providing the same protection in thinner oils as thicker ones. And using a thicker oil can cause increased wear and why that is.
Have always maintained that there's more to it than HTHS...just some people are fixated on "hating" HTHS, and viscosity (first time I've used that...it feels good, I understand why people keep getting labelled haters...it's sooo easy.
Viscosity keeps parts separated...they don't touch. In classic engineering, that used to be called the "zero wear regime".
When the parts touch, you need additives to CONTROL the wear...just like he said.
...And just like I've always said.
That's the region of "controlled wear"...it's there, it's just slow enough to not really matter that much in the lifetime of the equipment...for industrial applications, you pick which regime you want, and design to suit.
Next post, VPPD's "information" and validating it.
Well said.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
OVERKILL quote:
"Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it."
I've often wondered if the increased bearing width to accommodate thinner oils didn't negatively offset the desired results of the thinner oils. Boundary and mixed, with the right additives, will always win the hydrodynamic race but running in those modes is running a fine line between success and failure in my opinion.
I changed the oil in my Accord last weekend with 10W30 and couldn't be happier. The engine smoothness and responsiveness is a day and night difference,especially when good and hot. Cold startups are smooth as silk.
OVERKILL quote:
"Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it."
I've often wondered if the increased bearing width to accommodate thinner oils didn't negatively offset the desired results of the thinner oils. Boundary and mixed, with the right additives, will always win the hydrodynamic race but running in those modes is running a fine line between success and failure in my opinion.
I changed the oil in my Accord last weekend with 10W30 and couldn't be happier. The engine smoothness and responsiveness is a day and night difference,especially when good and hot. Cold startups are smooth as silk.
After many years of running back spec'd 5w-20 in my Ranger I moved up to 5w-30 which the engine was originally designed for in the late '80s. I've had the same results as you and fuel economy is ever-so-slightly better and I'm using a "heavy" 5w-30.
I just started reading the article and I don't know if I can continue. He states that the bearing clearances in the 3.8L engine can be as low as .0007. Ridiculous! Crank bearing clearances are traditionally referenced in relation to cylinder bore diameter (roughly) for a production engine. For a 4 inch bore engine the minimum crank bearing diameter would be .004. The talk of bearing clearances becoming tighter is hogwash. Bearing tolerances (and machining practices) have become tighter.
Interesting because that isn't what it says here under the oil tolerance column:
https://www.autozone.com/repairguid...-Rod-Specifications/_/P-0996b43f80cb3d04
There is also this from an engine bearing manufacturer: https://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/m...ca/pdfs-&-thumbnails/cl77-1-205r.pdf
https://www.autozone.com/repairguid...-Rod-Specifications/_/P-0996b43f80cb3d04
There is also this from an engine bearing manufacturer: https://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/m...ca/pdfs-&-thumbnails/cl77-1-205r.pdf
Last edited:
I stand corrected. It's .001" to bearing diameter. 2" bearing diameter = .002 bearing clearance. I was referring to ring end gap clearance! Trying to get Thanksgiving dinner ready and do this...
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
The talk of bearing clearances becoming tighter is hogwash. Bearing tolerances (and machining practices) have become tighter.
Somehow this keeps coming up.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4876997
The talk of bearing clearances becoming tighter is hogwash. Bearing tolerances (and machining practices) have become tighter.
Somehow this keeps coming up.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4876997
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
I stand corrected. It's .001" to bearing diameter. 2" bearing diameter = .002 bearing clearance. I was referring to ring end gap clearance! Trying to get Thanksgiving dinner ready and do this...
It lists the maximum bearing clearance as being 0.0022". The range presented is 0.0008 - 0.0022" on a journal with a size range from 2.4988 - 2.4998". This is pretty similar to the Ford bearings I noted earlier in the thread FWIW.
I stand corrected. It's .001" to bearing diameter. 2" bearing diameter = .002 bearing clearance. I was referring to ring end gap clearance! Trying to get Thanksgiving dinner ready and do this...
It lists the maximum bearing clearance as being 0.0022". The range presented is 0.0008 - 0.0022" on a journal with a size range from 2.4988 - 2.4998". This is pretty similar to the Ford bearings I noted earlier in the thread FWIW.
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
After many years of running back spec'd 5w-20 in my Ranger I moved up to 5w-30 which the engine was originally designed for in the late '80s. I've had the same results as you and fuel economy is ever-so-slightly better and I'm using a "heavy" 5w-30.
I have similar results by going up a grade or two. The more miles spent with the fluids warmed up the more this effect shows.
Viscosity is a "quality" or characteristic worth looking into.
After many years of running back spec'd 5w-20 in my Ranger I moved up to 5w-30 which the engine was originally designed for in the late '80s. I've had the same results as you and fuel economy is ever-so-slightly better and I'm using a "heavy" 5w-30.
I have similar results by going up a grade or two. The more miles spent with the fluids warmed up the more this effect shows.
Viscosity is a "quality" or characteristic worth looking into.
I tore down a Ford 4.6L 2v from a 2002 Mustang GT. It had less than 30,000 miles on it. The owner thought it would be a good idea to spray it with nitrous without a tune and put a hole in the #2 piston.
From my notes on that engine where I mic'd it, the rod bearings were all .0009-.0012" and main bearings were .0010-.0014".
From my notes on that engine where I mic'd it, the rod bearings were all .0009-.0012" and main bearings were .0010-.0014".
I always love reading the claims about tighter clearances, even better, tighter tolerances when it comes to oil viscosity choice. These two seem to always get tighter and tighter, but nobody ever bothers to mention just hom much tighter they are from the previous engines. It's just always "tighter", as if tighter was always better.
All one can do is pretty much laugh at most of that nonsense and let the ignorant stay ignorant.
All one can do is pretty much laugh at most of that nonsense and let the ignorant stay ignorant.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't write it, they did. And after seeing the numbers on my UOA in the Journey and Santa Fe I think they know what they are talking about.
I'm aware you didn't write it, I simply pulled the quote from your post.
No need to get defensive, however that statement is false. If you go back and look up the main bearing clearances for engines over the years, they really haven't changed much.
Ignoring for the moment that UOA's aren't a tear-down with measurements so we avoid that detour for the time being, architectural changes have been made to engines to accommodate the use of thinner lubricants. These changes are myriad, but a few of the major ones are:
- Deep skirted rigid blocks
- Multi-bolt (often pinned) main caps
- High volume crank-driven oil pumps
Rigidity of the structure housing the rotating assembly is a key thing here. You eliminate the ability for things to flex, distort and move around you can get away with having less oil between the surfaces.
Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it.
It is hard enough to get people to understand why engine wear is greater when the engine is warming up as compared to when the engine is operating at its stabilized operating temps.
Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't write it, they did. And after seeing the numbers on my UOA in the Journey and Santa Fe I think they know what they are talking about.
I'm aware you didn't write it, I simply pulled the quote from your post.
No need to get defensive, however that statement is false. If you go back and look up the main bearing clearances for engines over the years, they really haven't changed much.
Ignoring for the moment that UOA's aren't a tear-down with measurements so we avoid that detour for the time being, architectural changes have been made to engines to accommodate the use of thinner lubricants. These changes are myriad, but a few of the major ones are:
- Deep skirted rigid blocks
- Multi-bolt (often pinned) main caps
- High volume crank-driven oil pumps
Rigidity of the structure housing the rotating assembly is a key thing here. You eliminate the ability for things to flex, distort and move around you can get away with having less oil between the surfaces.
Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it.
It is hard enough to get people to understand why engine wear is greater when the engine is warming up as compared to when the engine is operating at its stabilized operating temps.
Either lube is thick enough to keep parts separated or not. If a 16 grade is thick enough under the maximum stress and heat to stay thick enough going to a thicker grade accomplishes not a thing. Now some enlightened posters feel this is not the case. If there is verified data showing the need to go higher go ahead. If you feel the want go ahead. The false pretense thier is a need to go thicker because you feel thicker is better is not factual.
- Status
Similar threads
