I made a general statement about sampling.Yeah, well their final figure may very well take that into account. Now you're questioning there testing without even knowing exactly how the test was done?
Last edited:
New Ravenol Ultra Fuel Economy 0W-8
- Thread starter Shel_B
- Start date
- Status
You know absolutely nothing on how the test was done, so you're just blowing smoke from your own dumpster fire like you have for the last 4 pages.
You can call it what you want...1.5% is still meaningless and a waste of time.
You'll never get it ... but nice job on not grasping the simplest of concepts.You can call it what you want...1.5% is still meaningless and a waste of time.
Right herehow many people check tyres at least biweekly ?
The point of CAFE is each year the mandate continues to go up. 20 weight oil happened a long time ago and 1.5% of 25 MPG happened just once. (24.625 MPG) If cars were breaking down due to that someone would get voted out. But new cars last longer than ever.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Yup - on the dashboard these days …Right here
Are you less angry if we play along and say 0.375mpg x 1,000,000 vehicles? Is that a significant enough 1.5% to make everyone happy?
I was thinking the same thing on the mpg gap, but somebody reminded me that CAFE is now calculated by the amount of ground that a vehicle “shades”… that’s why vehicles are getting ever bigger, even the tiny crapboxes like Camrys now touch both lines in a parking spot, and chick-up trucks like Rangers & Mavericks are now 90% the size of a half-ton.
They’re not playing logical nor fair with the rules these days; they simply skew the rules to make their playing field tilted in their favor.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
5W-20 happened for the same reason we are now seeing 0W-8, it's easy to chase low viscosity for incremental gains in fuel economy to reduce CAFE fines as long as adequate durability is maintained.
Data posted previously on minimum HTHS was that this was around 2.5cP before wear started to go up. That didn't stop the Japanese marques from pursuing it. There were excerpts from a Honda paper posted on here years back by Shannow that got into the "acceptable" wear verbiage regarding 0W-12 IIRC at the time. I've posted material on how special coatings and AW chemistry have been pursued to try and control wear in mixed/boundary, as the reduction in HTHS below that ~2.5cP threshold meant a shift for some surfaces from hydrodynamic (no wear) to mixed/boundary, where wear needs to be controlled to ensure durability.
One of the things Honda discovered was that once they got down into that realm, they had to make engine design changes (they didn't have to change anything with xW-20). One of those things was wider bearings, which increased friction, but this was still outweighed by the benefit elsewhere by the thinner oil.
Another issue was of course that the light bases needed to make a 0W-8 and 0W-12 meant that the oils had much higher volatility than allowed by API regulations, and so they were exempt. Some of the Japanese OE oils had appallingly high Noack.
²
imperial units are obsolete. it's not linear like metric. Therefore it adds to confusion when calculating %.
AFAIK US army uses metric, so why public is stuck with this nonsense? Body parts size of long ago deceased king and what not. Even the UK vs US units are different !
imperial units are obsolete. it's not linear like metric. Therefore it adds to confusion when calculating %.
AFAIK US army uses metric, so why public is stuck with this nonsense? Body parts size of long ago deceased king and what not. Even the UK vs US units are different !
CleanSump
Site Donor 2022
It's easy. A liter is a little more than a real quart. A Brit quart is a little more than a real quart. A meter is a little more than a real yard and a kilometer is about 6/10 of a mile.² imperial units are obsolete. it's not linear like metric. Therefore it adds to confusion when calculating %.
AFAIK US army uses metric, so why public is stuck with this nonsense? Body parts size of long ago deceased king and what not. Even the UK vs US units are different !
Do we need to esplain weights too?
Well, it works for me!
Attachments
It’s early and I haven’t had my coffee and just spitballing here but…Are you less angry if we play along and say 0.375mpg x 1,000,000 vehicles? Is that a significant enough 1.5% to make everyone happy?
0.375mpg x 1,000,000 vehicles = 375,000 vehicle miles/gallon. So this change applied to 1,000,000 vehicles is essentially equivalent to propelling 2.5 additional vehicles through an average 150,000 mile life span using the same total gallons of fuel for that 1,000,000 vehicle fleet.
Still seems insignificant.
Last edited:
FTR, I’m in your camp, but I also get Zee’s point on its face. The lunacy to me is twofold: how much money did it take to achieve 1.5% (and will an equivalent amount of $ ever truly be saved compared to the R&D), and like you pointed out- this example negatively impacts 1 million people so that two individuals get the equivalent of lifetime free gas. But it doesn’t work like that!
Hope your coffee is swell; the loons are not really on this board, they’re in our statehouses and D.C.
Last edited:
In that case, close down the forum. If the answer is always "follow the manual" and never deviate from the OEM engineers, then why are we here?
When I was in the Army from 2006 to 2011, the only metric measurement we used was 5.56 mm.
I see a need to inform. To understand how things work. In between all the saber rattling there is information that I value but the quality of modern oil is at a high level. I respect your view as I have learned a lot from you. Other people it seems just like stir the pot. Oil is a passionate conversation. The goal we all seek is to the best for our needs. If the OM allows any API approved 0w-20 oil but suggests you use their oil but a BITOG poster says a higher viscosity will be better I have to question that without the engineering or science behind it. Japanese car manufacturers are on the fore front of reliable engine designs. They designed the engine to run by the OM. Personally I see upping the viscosity above the OM causes trouble with a engine designed to run oil hydraulics and the cooling. Add a turbocharger on the same engine and the OM changes the viscosity up one step from the non-turbocharger. My view is that the turbocharger has a higher temperature oil bearing that needs the higher viscosity. It is a change in the same design engine and the oil viscosity to match. Specific need.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ts-most-reliable-cars-trucks-suvs/6385214001/
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
