The focus is what does 1.5% mean. 1.5% of X will always mean 1.5% of X, regardless of X. Everyone's "real world" is open to interpretation, but mathematics isn't.
New Ravenol Ultra Fuel Economy 0W-8
- Thread starter Shel_B
- Start date
- Status
my manual says 2,2bar tyrepressure.
i had 1,9 it was not visible; but could be felt... (~14%, mpg lost >2%)
how many people check tyres at least biweekly ?
i had 1,9 it was not visible; but could be felt... (~14%, mpg lost >2%)
how many people check tyres at least biweekly ?
Which one are you dumping in? There are about 9 different Ravenols SAE 5W-40.I have a 5 liter jug of Ravenol 5W-40 just waiting to be dumped into the Abarth……
just saying!
It takes awhile for bearings to wear in a case like running too thin oil. What wipes them out fast is lack of adequate lubrication. But if MOFT becomes too small that could lead to over heating in a track event type use and wipe them out pretty fast too.
The top surface of journal bearings are somewhat "sacrificial". The bearings will start to wear most on the top side of the rod big end because of the added reduction of MOFT due to the massive force of combustion on the piston, especially in high HP engines ran hard.
I agree with the various changes you mentioned, but are we incapable of focusing on all gains rather than just the larger ones?
Here is a interesting test using 5w-20 on a 440 HP engine.
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-t...earings-a-test-of-bearing-and-oil-wear-rates/
Notice the connecting rod bearing damage picture while ran for what they say for a very short time.
Last edited:
Interesting article and test. Their main goal was to test the robustness of the bearing design, so they used thin oil and put the engine at high load at low RPM to get the MOFT to zero to see how the different bearings wore. It would have been interesting if they did more testing with xW-30 and xW-40 oils, but then it would have turned into an oil test and not a focused bearing design test.
Like mentioned in other threads discussing journal bearings, the worse thing for them is high loads at low RPM (ie, engine "lugging" while towing, etc). One reason bearings survive better at high RPM with thinner oil (like in a NASCAR engine) is because the MOFT is increased with highr RPM which makes the journal center itself better in the bearing.
Last edited:
Yeah, journal bearings can have a rough life. Why accentuate that by feeding them boarderline oil viscosity ... MOFT matters.
MOFT matters a lot but past a certain point it doesn’t. At some point you get negative results. Trust your Operator’s Manual. Modern engines are a lot different than my High School auto shop class.
More like trust engineering and science, not CAFE driven oil recomedations that may result in borderline MOFT in some use conditions. Why live on the edge when one grade up gives added MOFT headroom and added wear protection.
Holy crap, you just argued against your entire premise. So the X doesn't matter? You see no difference between 1.5% of $1 and 1.5% of $1,000,000,000? It's all just 1.5%? Can you not see the X is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART because any difference in the value of X is the SOLE REASON THE ANSWER IS DIFFERENT? Literally, 1.5% HAS NO MEANING WITHOUT THE VALUE OF X???The focus is what does 1.5% mean. 1.5% of X will always mean 1.5% of X, regardless of X. Everyone's "real world" is open to interpretation, but mathematics isn't.
Yes, and what DOES 1.5% of 25mpg MEAN? It MEANS in the REAL WORLD the cold hard numbers show an improvement of 0.375mpg. That's not mathematical trickery or slight of hand that's NOT open to interpretation.
This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone where we live in a universe absent ANY logic.
Science is observed results after testing, engineering is the maximum output with the minimum input. CAFE drives the electric and hybrid car market. But saying the car manufacturers are applying oil recommendation on the edge of damage is your mind reality, not mine. There is plenty of viscosity at recommended viscosity for the car to work without wear.More like trust engineering and science, not CAFE driven oil recomedations that may result in borderline MOFT in some use conditions. Why live on the edge when one grade up gives added MOFT headroom and added wear protection.
Last edited:
LoL ... I never said there was "no difference" between 1.5% of $1 and 1.5% of $1M" ... that's something you're fabricating in your head on off in the weeds with some tangent argument which I didn't even address. You're missing the whole point here. It's amazing how some people just cant' grasp simple concepts. My comment is simple and will always be true. 1.5% of X will always be 1.5% of X and be an exact number, regardless of what someone thinks it means in the "real world". That's all just someone's "feelings". Math doesn't care about "feelings".
Last edited:
But you are trying to interpret it as being something different than 1.5% of X and putting some kind of "importance" or not based on your own "real world feelings". Math doesn't care about feelings. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth - it is, and always will be 1.5% of X no matter how much "real world" spin is put on it.
And you fail to see the simple logic of my comments. You can not change the fact that 1.5% of X will always be 1.5% of X. Mathematics doesn't put some kind of "importance' or "real world" factor on it. That's a whole different subject matter.
"Without wear" ?? Where do you come up with that after your comments on the bearing test link you posted earlier, and all the studies of engine wear vs oil HTHS? All engines wear and eventually wear out ... regardless of the oil used. But many studies show that thinner oil does increase the wear rates, and that HTHS of
"CAFE drives the electric and hybrid car market." - What?
CAFE definitely drives what oils are specified in the OM for ICE.
- Status
Similar threads
