Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components

Thanks, very interesting, but dropping from XW-40 to 10W-30 is not terribly radical. Good 10W-30's may be approaching SAE 30 HD straight grades for performance ...
 
from reading it seems that the ONLY way thinner oils work is with newer coatings + metallurgy + although 500 hrs is a good test the "real world" coulh have different results! like drug manufactures that test their own drugs that always work i am skeptical of what oil manufacturers are "trying" to make us believe!!
 
Exactly, a 0W oil increases liner wear by 100%, but, but, but, we have newly developed components that will live a long time with that thin oil. Of course they do. We've had very long life components for decades now. Good luck getting manufacturers to employ such expensive technology. One interesting example includes Nikasil cylinder liners plated on to steel. It's a very robust combo (as long as there is no sulfur in the fuel) , and with the use of moly faced rings and moly coated or anodized piston skirts and other DLC coated parts, will outlast a "conventional" cast iron bore with chrome rings, about 2 to 1. For double or triple the cost.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BrocLuno
Thanks, very interesting, but dropping from XW-40 to 10W-30 is not terribly radical. Good 10W-30's may be approaching SAE 30 HD straight grades for performance ...
They were using a 10w-30 with an HTHS of 2.9, though, not a traditional HDEO 10w-30 of 3.5. I was confused until I saw that.
 
Originally Posted by Kamele0N
I am waiting for StevieC to chime in smile
This isn't a smoking gun either because it's not all engines under all applications tested with every oil formulation possible. I think that if the engineer that designed the engine properly with the use of a thinner viscosity in mind for normal operating conditions then it should serve the user quite well to far past expectations as I said previously. Are there going to be occasions where a thicker would perform better? Sure. Should we run a thicker oil all the time out of fear because we think we know better? Nope. That is what I was arguing in the other threads. The answer at the end of the day is there is too many variables and we have missing information from the engineers that made said engine and said oil in use and what their take would be and reading world wide owners manuals is not the smoking gun folks think it is. cheers
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you stated in the other thread(s) that as the studies aren't all engines and all circumstances, that they were equivalent to wild suppositions based on imagined engines, and imagined operational circumstances. I disagree.
 
Originally Posted by JAG
It's like not accepting Newton's laws of motion because testing hasn't been done on every mass and every net force.
And the completely ridiculous to the posted topic "not the smoking gun" "all engines all circumstances" "world wide owners manuals" "too many variables" Is akin the "protesteth too much" from Hamlet....
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, you stated in the other thread(s) that as the studies aren't all engines and all circumstances, that they were equivalent to wild suppositions based on imagined engines, and imagined operational circumstances. I disagree.
As I said in the other thread. Does it warrant more investigation sure, is it a smoking gun for all situation absolutely not.
 
Smoking gun for what ? The paper is about..."the effects of Viscosity on Heavy Duty Engine Components"...it IS the investigation on the stated topic, not the subject of investigation. By qualified people, not zealots whose understanding of science, engineering, and the scientific method asymptotically approaches zero.
 
Last edited:
I'll re-iterate....smoking gun for what...? The paper is about..."the effects of Viscosity on Heavy Duty Engine Components".
 
Here's a different one https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709 that may have the effect of rejoicing the thin camp. The thicker oil produced less iron but sensibly more lead in the UOA.

B4654F36-CBDE-462F-960A-D6566CE7477E.jpeg
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, you stated in the other thread(s) that as the studies aren't all engines and all circumstances, that they were equivalent to wild suppositions based on imagined engines, and imagined operational circumstances. I disagree.
As I said in the other thread. Does it warrant more investigation sure, is it a smoking gun for all situation absolutely not.
It doesn't need "more investigation" ... it's been studied and tested for decades and the conclusion is still pretty much the same - higher viscosity/higher HTHS typically gives better wear protection. Saying that the studies and their conclusions don't have any merit because it hasnt been "tested in every engine in every circumstances" known to exist in the world is another strawman argument.
 
Originally Posted by nap
Here's a different one https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709 that may have the effect of rejoicing the thin camp. The thicker oil produced less iron but sensibly more lead in the UOA.
Lots of miles (km) on those oil runs - and the wear deviation starts showing up after 10 km. Did they take KV100 and HTHS readings as the miles piled up to see if the 10W-40 sheared down below the 5W-30? Lead wear would be journal bearings I would assume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ZeeOSix
Engine Wear Study - Included Oil Filtration
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
caprice_2nv
wwillson
Pennzoil GF-6 and Low Viscosity Engine Oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
15
Views
19K
4WD
N
  • Locked
Effect of Oil Viscosity on Oil Film Thickness
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
Silk
Shannow
  • Locked
Low viscosity oils impact on Heavy Duty Diesel eng
Replies
10
Views
3K
dustyroads
wwillson
  • Locked
Shell Rotella Gas Truck synthetic engine oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
18
Views
54K
SlavaB
Top