Need some amunition for argument that 0W20 is

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: cp3
What does a manual trans have to do with engine oil temps?

..
Shock loading of plain bearings puts a higher demand on "adequate" viscosity than a fluid coupled AT would. Visc is more important than "high" oil pressure. Clap your hands as hard as you can in air (HTHSv 2.7) and next, underwater (HTHSv 3.5) tell me in which hurts the most after 20 hard claps.


Cool. Would never have thought that there would be that much extra stress at the bearings. Interesting.

As for the new question....I agree, possibly not. Would help to know the oil temps and pressures though!

 

[JOD]

Where is this "hotter" climate than the US? We're a big country, and we see some of the hottest temperatures in the world, certainly hotter than anywhere in Europe or Australia (the second-hottest place in the world is in the US).

So again, ambient temperatures aren't the only considerations at play when other countries spec different viscosity, or even the primary one.

As to the super-charged oil specs, I don't really see what you're getting at? Ford specs a 5W50 for some of its engines--in this country. So what? Does that mean it's somehow a "better" oil? It the oil suitable for the application. I'm not seeing how being suitable for one application makes it "better" for another?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Trav

If you like it you run it, just because you jumped on the band wagon doesn't make it your opinion any more correct than someone using different weight oil.



My decision to run a thinner oil has more to do with an understanding of some basic physics more than anything else. Thinner oils have less resistance to flow, have less friction and in many instances provide for greater/thicker films in actual use (such as at the top of the piston crown). If you want to characterize that as "hopping on the bandwagon", so be it...

 

[Cujet]

I'm running M1 (the EP flavor) 5W-20 in my 09 F150 4x4 5.4L V8 here in South Florida.

That truck gets tortured. It tows, hauls, blazes down the highway with the foot to the floor during some of the hottest and most humid weather possible. Yet, the UOA results are fairly good. Not perfect, but good enough to be called satisfactory. And good enough to expect a very long engine life.

I suspect a change to 10-30 M1 would reduce wear metals measurably. That's what I eventually chose to do with my previous truck. It's still going, and pushing 260,000 trouble free and oil consumption free miles.

We shall see. So far, I'm not convinced I need to switch.

However, if you need "ammo", consider that local production based road race "track cars" don't do well on the thin oils. While the thinner oils were all the rage for a while... In an attempt at getting every little bit of competitive advantage, engine failures and engine related expenses related to thin oils put a stop to that "fad".

You won't see many folks doing track days with 0-20 anymore around here.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Where is this "hotter" climate than the US? We're a big country, and we see some of the hottest temperatures in the world, certainly hotter than anywhere in Europe or Australia (the second-hottest place in the world is in the US).

So again, ambient temperatures aren't the only considerations at play when other countries spec different viscosity, or even the primary one.

As to the super-charged oil specs, I don't really see what you're getting at? Ford specs a 5W50 for some of its engines--in this country. So what? Does that mean it's somehow a "better" oil? It the oil suitable for the application. I'm not seeing how being suitable for one application makes it "better" for another?


It is ALL relative to oil temperature, which is in turn, often directly related to power density. Ford spec's 5w50 in the high power density engines due to elevated oil temperatures.

In turn, Euro cars are spec'd for heavier oils because there is the potential for them to spend time at double the speed limit of the roads in the USA. This elevates oil temperature, and in turn, requires a heavier oil to provide the same protection.

If somebody auto-crosses a car that spec's 0w40 in Europe and 5w20 in the USA, which do you think is likely going to offer better protection under these specific circumstances?

Ford put enough weight on this to spec 5w50 for the BOSS 302 but 5w20 for the regular Mustang GT, despite them having essentially the same engine. And this was due to exactly what I just mentioned above.

Your broad brush regarding thin oil is no more valid than Trav's regarding thick oil. It is ALL relative to application, not simply geographic location and compromises ARE made. Whether you are affected by those compromises or not is determined by your usage profile.

 

[Trav]

I don't want to paint all thin oils with a broad brush i didn't mean it to sound like that. They have their place but i just don't feel comfortable running thin oils in high RPM, high temp or high speed applications.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I don't want to paint all thin oils with a broad brush i didn't mean it to sound like that. They have their place but i just don't feel comfortable running thin oils in high RPM, high temp or high speed applications.



And neither does Ford, hence what I mentioned above. I mean sweeping generalizations regarding this topic appear to be par for the course, and the auto manufacturers are guilty of supporting this. CATERHAM's more granular approach with using oil pressure and oil temperature as guides to determine what is ACTUALLY the appropriate viscosity for a given application certainly isn't everybody's cup of tea due to the time and extra equipment involved, but is really what is necessary to answer the question posed.

That being said, because of this your stance here is no less valid than JOD's.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Your broad brush regarding thin oil is no more valid than Trav's regarding thick oil. It is ALL relative to application, not simply geographic location and compromises ARE made. Whether you are affected by those compromises or not is determined by your usage profile.


Actually, it's a lot more valid, since 99.99% of owners fall into that category! It's perfectly fine to paint with a "broad brush" excepting for autocross or driving at speeds which aren't even close to legal anywhere in North America.

Sure, if you're engaged in either of the above, or towing 5,000 lb loads over mountain passes in your Camry (which I'm sure is way over the Camry's towing capacity), you should investigate a thicker oil... Those exceptions are, I imagine, called out in the owner's manual. But the fact is, the average Camry owner (the subject of this thread) isn't going to find themselves out at the track by accident, or driving @ 120mph for extended periods of time. That's why the OEM's themselves make "sweeping generalizations" by spec'ing a single oil weight.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Your broad brush regarding thin oil is no more valid than Trav's regarding thick oil. It is ALL relative to application, not simply geographic location and compromises ARE made. Whether you are affected by those compromises or not is determined by your usage profile.


Actually, it's a lot more valid, since 99.99% of owners fall into that category! It's perfectly fine to paint with a "broad brush" excepting for autocross or driving at speeds which aren't even close to legal anywhere in North America.


You make that statistic up on the spot? Awesome.

Perhaps the vast majority in North America fall into that category (not autocrossing and not driving at 120Mph), but Trav specifically mentioned Europe, in which case your percentage there would be inverted.

Regardless, without a set of oil pressure and oil temperature gauges, you are just guessing that the compromises made for CAFE don't have any effect in the generic usage profile you are referencing.

Quote:
Sure, if you're engaged in either of the above, or towing 5,000 lb loads over mountain passes in your Camry (which I'm sure is way over the Camry's towing capacity), you should investigate a thicker oil... Those exceptions are, I imagine, called out in the owner's manual. But the fact is, the average Camry owner (the subject of this thread) isn't going to find themselves out at the track by accident, or driving @ 120mph for extended periods of time. That's why the OEM's themselves make "sweeping generalizations" by spec'ing a single oil weight.


They make those sweeping generalizations with CAFE in the mix.... Keep that in mind.

Do you not think the guy with the Mustang GT running 5w20 isn't going to be able to get the oil temps as high as can be done in a BOSS 302 that spec's 5w50?...... Think about it for a second. Compromises ARE made.

 

[tig1]

Last summer we had at least 20 days over 100F and countless days 95-100 and the M1 0-20 I use in my Duratech 4s performed very well, even with 10K OCIs. Also 20wt oils will reduce oil temps a tab compared to 40wt oils in the same climate. Also M1 0-20 has an outstanding base stock and is more than capable of holding up in a Toyota in Charlotte.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: teddyboy
Now he's posed a different question. Suppose you were going to drive a 4 cylinder Camry 120 MPH on the autobahn. Would 0W20 stand up to that service demand?

Offhandedly, it seems that he will change the conditions to garner the answer that he is seeking. However, out of curiosity, how does idling in high temperatures (and he should define those; is it >90, >100, >110?) in stop/go traffic equate to 120MPH on the autobahn and on what highway/street in Charlotte will he drive this Camry at 120 MPH?

These two conditions are mutually exclusive of one another. CAFE regulations notwithstanding, OEMs typically specify the oil that will serve the majority of the conditions under which the engine will operate while giving adequate protection. I doubt that Toyota intended for the Camry to be operated at 120MPH for any length of time, but they did intend for it to be operated in stop/go traffic and sustained legal (or even slightly above) highway speeds under a wide range of temperatures and so 0/5W-20 is more than adequate for that.

Not that it is important, because you will likely not "win" the argument, but ask him if he has verifiable data that proves the Camry will fail using 0W-20 on the autobahn. The problem with many of these arguments is there is not an abundance of data to support either position adequately (short of anecdotal information) and so the default response is the oil is too "thin" and will cause engine failure.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: teddyboy
He is arguing that I should really be running M1 0W40 in the wife's 07 Camry (which calls for 5W20 or 0W20) because if she is stuck in traffic on a hot Charlotte day that the 0W20 won't stand up to the heat.


I'm pretty sure the Toyota engineers took that into consideration, as did Ford and Honda engineers. Google some of the tests Ford put their engines through that call for 20 grade oil and see. I bet Toyota and Honda did some testing too, plenty. JMO

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: teddyboy
is really too thin and that you should be running M10W40 in every car.


Complete and utter nonsense!

 

[buster]

The last 10 years have proven there are no wear issues at all in engines that call for 20 grade oils. Period. In fact, engines are lasting longer than they ever have and this has all coincided with a trend in lower viscosity oils.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
ask him if he has verifiable data that proves the Camry will fail using 0W-20 on the autobahn.


Strawmen make you feel like you won the argument, when you aren't arguing at all.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Your broad brush regarding thin oil is no more valid than Trav's regarding thick oil. It is ALL relative to application, not simply geographic location and compromises ARE made. Whether you are affected by those compromises or not is determined by your usage profile.


Actually, it's a lot more valid, since 99.99% of owners fall into that category! It's perfectly fine to paint with a "broad brush" excepting for autocross or driving at speeds which aren't even close to legal anywhere in North America.

Sure, if you're engaged in either of the above, or towing 5,000 lb loads over mountain passes in your Camry (which I'm sure is way over the Camry's towing capacity), you should investigate a thicker oil... Those exceptions are, I imagine, called out in the owner's manual. But the fact is, the average Camry owner (the subject of this thread) isn't going to find themselves out at the track by accident, or driving @ 120mph for extended periods of time. That's why the OEM's themselves make "sweeping generalizations" by spec'ing a single oil weight.


No, it isn't OK to broad brush. By making these assumptions, one assumes that a vehicle is used for a demographic.

This is why I often didn't like US cars in the past, they assume an awful lot about a person. Only a driving enthusiast buys a Corvette, otherwise a buyer wants a soft, comfy car. That’s nonsense. You don’t need a ton of power to go fast, you need handling. You don’t need a 5000 lb truck tow a pop up camper. You just need to know what you are doing and how to take care of it.

To me, an oil spec should include the full use of the power band and in wqhat temps, not some assumptions about what kind of owner I am.

My old ’95 Ford Ranger with the 2wd got lots of revving, hard cornering, and hard braking, once I put grippier tires and firmer shocks when they wore out. It also hauled logs and towed a race car. I can’t always be driving my car to not have fun. So the truck it is for fun. I ran Mobil 1 in it for sustained revving. Engine ran like new at 200k.

Also, a manual transmission shouldn’t shock the engine more than an automatic, if one match revs correctly on the downshifts smoothly. In fact, it should have less shock. If you are abrupt or don’t match revs, well that’s the driver, applies to an automatic too.

I now have 2011 Ranger with the 2.3L and it specs 5W-20. I also plan to rev it hard past 10k miles. On the fence what to run.

5W-20 runs great for cold weather and in town, but does it have what it takes for sustained revving and heavy loading? That’s question that has not been answered with any basis here yet. I know 0W-30 worked great in other vehicles.

 

[Propflux01]

Tell him that mil 23699 oil (which is synthetic) and only has a viscosity (@100C) of 5.0, is even thinner than a 0w-20 (also synthetic) which has a viscosity of 8.7, (@100C) and this oil is used in bearings of turbines that withstand 1800F temps every start and use cycle. Also keep in mind this same oil is used in the reduction gear boxes of these engines so they are subjected to shearing stresses as well. That being said, the 0w-20 oil is MORE than adequate in the use of an automobile engine.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

You make that statistic up on the spot? Awesome.


I have a crack research team computing those percentages!

Come on--this is the "passenger car motor oil forum". Is really necessary to put a disclaimer about auto racing or felony speeding into an oil recommendation? There's a specific forum for auto racing oils, and honestly it just obfuscates the issue, since a lot of people will take it to mean "oh, well, I want BETTER protection, like they have in auto racing", and not make a distinction between suitability and performance.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Perhaps the vast majority in North America fall into that category (not autocrossing and not driving at 120Mph), but Trav specifically mentioned Europe, in which case your percentage there would be inverted.


Sorry, but you're missing the point (or his point). The implication is that the oil specifications in another country somehow implied that the thinner US spec is somehow less-than-optimal for cars in the US. We aren't talking about cars in Europe, we're talking about an '07 Camry operated in the US. As I already said in response to the question asked earlier in this thread, 0W20 probably isn't suitable for extended 120mph driving. That doesn't have any relevance in the US.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Regardless, without a set of oil pressure and oil temperature gauges, you are just guessing that the compromises made for CAFE don't have any effect in the generic usage profile you are referencing.


That's really not true. I've monitored oil temperature and pressure in enough different engines and in enough different conditions to feel pretty confident in saying that an '07 Camry operated in normal conditions will not be seeing a lack of oil pressure while using the specified viscosity. No, I haven't owned this specific engine (though I've owned a variant of it if it's the 4 cylinder). Secondly, the proof is in the pudding; 20W oils have protected adequately, by pretty much any objective or subjective measure, in the engines in which they're spec'd.

As far as "compromised" WRT viscosity, sure--there are always compromises. But the oil in almost all cars which are driven in normal duty cycles spends more time being too thick, not too thin. The mountains of data on average trip times support this fact. And cars are pretty tolerant. For Americans not tracking their cars or engaged in felony speeding, the thinnest oil spec'd is generally the best compromise.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Tell him that mil 23699 oil (which is synthetic) and only has a viscosity (@100C) of 5.0, is even thinner than a 0w-20 (also synthetic) which has a viscosity of 8.7, (@100C) and this oil is used in bearings of turbines that withstand 1800F temps every start and use cycle. Also keep in mind this same oil is used in the reduction gear boxes of these engines so they are subjected to shearing stresses as well. That being said, the 0w-20 oil is MORE than adequate in the use of an automobile engine.


I challenge you to buy an E46 M3, put 0w20 in it, and then take it lapping. If you have rod bearings left after that event, I'll buy you several beers

One cannot compare the lubrication of a turbine, which has no reciprocating loads put on it, to a passenger car engine. Not only are the oils themselves completely different (think ester bases for high heat handling for your turbine application) but the operation of the engine itself is completely different as well.

So while I see the correlation you are trying to draw here, it is one that simply can't be made.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

You make that statistic up on the spot? Awesome.


I have a crack research team computing those percentages!

Come on--this is the "passenger car motor oil forum". Is really necessary to put a disclaimer about auto racing or felony speeding into an oil recommendation? There's a specific forum for auto racing oils, and honestly it just obfuscates the issue, since a lot of people will take it to mean "oh, well, I want BETTER protection, like they have in auto racing", and not make a distinction between suitability and performance.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Perhaps the vast majority in North America fall into that category (not autocrossing and not driving at 120Mph), but Trav specifically mentioned Europe, in which case your percentage there would be inverted.


Sorry, but you're missing the point (or his point). The implication is that the oil specifications in another country somehow implied that the thinner US spec is somehow less-than-optimal for cars in the US. We aren't talking about cars in Europe, we're talking about an '07 Camry operated in the US. As I already said in response to the question asked earlier in this thread, 0W20 probably isn't suitable for extended 120mph driving. That doesn't have any relevance in the US.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Regardless, without a set of oil pressure and oil temperature gauges, you are just guessing that the compromises made for CAFE don't have any effect in the generic usage profile you are referencing.


That's really not true. I've monitored oil temperature and pressure in enough different engines and in enough different conditions to feel pretty confident in saying that an '07 Camry operated in normal conditions will not be seeing a lack of oil pressure while using the specified viscosity. No, I haven't owned this specific engine (though I've owned a variant of it if it's the 4 cylinder). Secondly, the proof is in the pudding; 20W oils have protected adequately, by pretty much any objective or subjective measure, in the engines in which they're spec'd.

As far as "compromised" WRT viscosity, sure--there are always compromises. But the oil in almost all cars which are driven in normal duty cycles spends more time being too thick, not too thin. The mountains of data on average trip times support this fact. And cars are pretty tolerant. For Americans not tracking their cars or engaged in felony speeding, the thinnest oil spec'd is generally the best compromise.


Having an oil temp gauge on the M5, I've noticed that I spend the vast majority of my time with oil temps around 90C. It gets there very quickly and then stays there. Pounding the tar out of it, I can get it up to a whopping 95C. But keep in mind, it has a huge oil cooler too.

I was speaking in general regarding the compromises and not specifically regarding the Camry. I think Trav's point is that if you have the exact same car in Europe spec'ing 5w40 and it spec's 5w20 here, there was obviously some form of compromise being made. Whether that compromise presents itself during regular US driving? Well I'm sure that's something the manufacturer explored and weighed their recommendation against it.

I hark back to the Mustang GT versus BOSS 302 example again here for you to ponder

It is OK to think a little outside of the specific frame of reference made in the OP when it remains in the same vein as the discussion.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with having a different point of view, which is the case between yourself and Trav.

And to answer your question, no I don't think a disclaimer about racing or speeding needs to be made, but there is nothing wrong with exploring the implications of that driving style within the context of this thread either