Done for the evening brutha.
To be continued.
To be continued.
New Ravenol Ultra Fuel Economy 0W-8
- Thread starter Shel_B
- Start date
- Status
So this car gets a lot of long steady highway cruising ... and you went with 0W-8 to "hypermile" for max gas mileage? If so, that's a pretty benign driving environment and will help the engine tolerate thinner than specified oil. You might consider cutting the viscosity down a bit more with some kerosene or gasoline.
Which is crazy but understandable- in the old days with thicker oils, the trend was chasing smaller bearings. You’d think there would be a point where a thicker oil and less-wide bearing would be equal friction to a wide bearing and thin oil… but in both cases you’d hit a wall. On the skinny bearing and thick oil, at some point you won’t have enough surface to support the load and will damage the bearing from pressure, and on the wide bearing and thin oil at some point the oil won’t be able to avoid metal-to-metal contact. It’s pressure in both instances but at least in my mind they’re a different mode of failure.
I’ve asked HPL if they can share their fleet UOA data on silicon only (as a full-fleet average) to maintain privacy for their 3.5 EcoBoosts, since nearly all UOAs here show elevated silicon compared to other engine types. Even mine was elevated some when running Ravenol- if the fleet data and my HPL UOA show reduced silicon, we would be able to infer that bearing wear was likely reduced, correct?
Even with all the bickering there is some good food for thought in this thread!
Even with all the bickering there is some good food for thought in this thread!
I think the main purpose of wider journal bearings as the oil becomes thinner and the MOFT gets smaller from less viscosity is for more even load bearing ability. There might not be much shear friction reduction, but it has to be done to keep the bearing from too much increased wear [1]. Especially when the piston/rod comes slamming down on the combustion power stroke which is where the MOFT becomes the smallest. Putting the engine under high loads at low RPM makes the condition even worse - like in that article Bill linked where they tested the different bearing designs on the dyno. They purposely used thin oil and loaded the engine in a way that put lots of stress on the bearings and made the MOFT go to zero.
If the bearing was not wide enough, and the viscosity and resulting MOFT not high enough for the max loading conditions (not enough MOFT headroom), then the MOFT will have much more possibility of going to zero at that high load area. If you look at rod bearings that have visible wear, most of it is on the top half of the rod bearing where this higher load is always going on.
[1] There are lots of other areas in the engine that would benefit from less shear drag, like the piston/rings. One reason designers went with "low tension" piston rings was to reduce the friction to save some fuel, and/or pick up a bit more power to the wheels.
Last edited:
Exactly my point. You need a given combination of MOFT and bearing area for any given load on the conrod. The only real way to go thinner on oil is to reduce the force on the upper bearing shell, and that means less power.
You could probably run a 0w4 on a 600cc 3 cyl that makes about 57HP, but who would buy it? In a way, CAFE requirements are becoming excessive, I believe, to artificially push EVs. Once a mfr can’t hit the EPA req’s what option is left? That’s right, start making EVs or buy Al Gore’s carbon credits from Tesla.
Or keep making journal bearings as wide as feasible. The wider they become, the wider the rod big end needs to be also, which increases the mass of the rod with makes the internal forces on the rotating assembly higher - so higher RPM power production becomes another issue. It's all a balancing act with mechanical and physics limits at some point.
Like I mentioned earlier, the car companies might just pay the CAFE fines and pass the cost onto the price of the vehicles if they still want to make a decent profit on the cars (like the "gas guzzler tax"). Or ICE cars will all become 600 cc 3-cylinders and it will be illegal to own any ICE that's more than 50 HP and has to use 0W-2 oil, and all speed limited to 60 MPH, lol. Shouldn't laugh ... it could basically go in that direction at some point.You could probably run a 0w4 on a 600cc 3 cyl that makes about 57HP, but who would buy it? In a way, CAFE requirements are becoming excessive, I believe, to artificially push EVs. Once a mfr can’t hit the EPA req’s what option is left? That’s right, start making EVs or buy Al Gore’s carbon credits from Tesla.
To clarify, I first started using HPL PP 0W8 in a brand new 2022 Honda Insight. There was mild hypermiling.So this car gets a lot of long steady highway cruising ... and you went with 0W-8 to "hypermile" for max gas mileage? If so, that's a pretty benign driving environment and will help the engine tolerate thinner than specified oil. You might consider cutting the viscosity down a bit more with some kerosene or gasoline.
("Why I Switched to 0W8")
After observing satisfactory results while breaking in and gradually extending OCI, I pivoted to using this oil in a brand new Corolla Cross. The driving is much more spirited. The Stop-Start is not used. OCIs have gradually been extended out to ~ 20k miles.
All my driving over the years has proven to be easy on oil.
There is supreme confidence in High Performance Lubricants. Zero issues with bearings or rings, or valve seats is anticipated, but of course, we shall see.
Alas, Ravenol seems to have run out of Antimony.
Again you show you are in way over your head here.To clarify, I first started using HPL PP 0W8 in a brand new 2022 Honda Insight. There was mild hypermiling.
("Why I Switched to 0W8")
After observing satisfactory results while breaking in and gradually extending OCI, I pivoted to using this oil in a brand new Corolla Cross. The driving is much more spirited. The Stop-Start is not used. OCIs have gradually been extended out to ~ 20k miles.
All my driving over the years has proven to be easy on oil.
There is supreme confidence in High Performance Lubricants. Zero issues with bearings or rings, or valve seats is anticipated, but of course, we shall see.
Alas, Ravenol seems to have run out of Antimony.
The design of this engine series and the fact that indeed 0W8 is used in Yaris was something I looked at before selecting HPL PP 0W8 for my Corolla Cross.
Putting the oil aside for a moment, that engine has a lot of Mazda SkyActiv technology built into it. Should be a great motor.
Agreed. I had previous driven a 2019 Lexus UX 250h, with a hybridized version of the same engine. Stop-Start. Atkinson Cycle. slightly higher compression ratio. 180k miles accrued.
Mazda CX-3, and now Mazda CX-30 would have to be given serious consideration in my world. Beautiful cars. Great design from the folks in Hiroshima.
Hi Direct_Rejection: I was just wanting to understand your motivation for considering a switch 0W-8. The gas mileage gains should be very minimal if noticable at all, but potential engine damage is honestly unknown, and probably will remain unknown for the next 5 to 10 years until the long term impact of 0W-16 and 0W-8 on engine wear will fully be known. My humble opinion is that the high risk and small reward might not be worth it, but wanted to understand why people are getting so enthusiastic to push the limits on thin fluids.
Thanks for asking. I have several threads on this subject. That would be a good place to start.
My personnel experience with hundreds of thousands of miles using lower than spec'd oils has led to a level of confidence.
It was gradual, and chiefly involves High Performance Lubricants, as I now choose to invest in highest quality and expertise of oil design.
My personnel experience with hundreds of thousands of miles using lower than spec'd oils has led to a level of confidence.
It was gradual, and chiefly involves High Performance Lubricants, as I now choose to invest in highest quality and expertise of oil design.
Porsche, of all people, now specs a particular 0W20 for Cayman.
C20 .
Things are hoppin' in Stuttgart.
C20 .
Things are hoppin' in Stuttgart.
That is no answer to the question. I asked the same thing a while back too.
But this is just to gain CAFE credits here in the US and to be able to advertise higher economy figures to prospective buyers. Since there are no beneficial technical reasons for lower viscosity oils, then the marginal fuel economy increase and CAFE credit are the only reasons “Porsche of all people” are hoppin’ in Stuttgart. There is zero other benefit or advantage and it’s disingenuous to use this reasoning to imply that it is somehow a technical improvement or advancement.
Besides slightly increased fuel economy lower HT/HS oils are not mechanically better. Again is this your sole and only reason for using them?
At the recent HPL Open House, it all became VIVID.
--Quality Control.
--Industry Leading Experts.
--Passion.
Mobil 1 FS 0W40 is generally recognized as impeccable oil.
Red Line HP 5W20
and
Amsoil SS 0W30
are oils I like.
I personally consider HPL to be one notch above.
There is nothing of technical substance in this response.
I’m likely on ignore (either functionally or factually) because this is what generally happens when posters cannot make substantive responses to posts.
- Status
Similar threads
