Noak and wear

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
I've usually avoided the thicker Euro-spec oils because of concerns about cold-weather start-up wear being a little excessive. And fuel economy is nice. And just assumed I don't really need a high HTHS oil anyway without track racing.


READ THIS


That post of yours mentions "oil pressure", which doesn't address the problems a thicker oil has in properly lubricating the rings and valve stems (hard to reach thick) when cold. Viscosity is generally thought to be too high when cold, and using a 0w-20 or maybe 0w-30 helps. .... All that said, you could assume a very-high-spec Euro oil 0w-40 would work in Michigan winters. I'm just saying your engine will want lower viscosity when warming up. ... I do like the toughness of the better euro-spec oils though!


I've run both PU 5w-40 and M1 0w-40 in our Canadian winters without issue. The older M1 0w-40 formula had a spectacular MRV for the grade.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
...which doesn't address the problems a thicker oil has in properly lubricating the rings and valve stems (hard to reach thick) when cold. Viscosity is generally thought to be too high when cold, and using a 0w-20 or maybe 0w-30 helps.


To avoid getting too far from the topic, could you start another thread demonstrating the "problems" that a thicker oil has getting to these hard to reach places...

and cite some evidence that 20s do that job better ?


This thread makes us think we want low-NOACK, which may point to Euro-spec oils. The fact that they are too thick for some comes up. Anyway, I did read an SAE paper a few years ago which mentioned how 20 oils lubricated the rings better, a situation made worse by cold thicker oil such as a 40. Maybe later I'll google that for you. The valve stem thing is more intuitively obvious, as they are notorious for that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
...which doesn't address the problems a thicker oil has in properly lubricating the rings and valve stems (hard to reach thick) when cold. Viscosity is generally thought to be too high when cold, and using a 0w-20 or maybe 0w-30 helps.


To avoid getting too far from the topic, could you start another thread demonstrating the "problems" that a thicker oil has getting to these hard to reach places...

and cite some evidence that 20s do that job better ?


This thread makes us think we want low-NOACK, which may point to Euro-spec oils. The fact that they are too thick for some comes up. Anyway, I did read an SAE paper a few years ago which mentioned how 20 oils lubricated the rings better, a situation made worse by cold thicker oil such as a 40. Maybe later I'll google that for you. The valve stem thing is more intuitively obvious, as they are notorious for that.


So, do you have data that shows diesel engines and Euro-spec engines running these heavier weights are wearing out prematurely? Because Doug Hillary posted Delvac 1 tear-down pictures with 1.3 Million Kilometers of a Detroit diesel who's components (liner, piston, rings, bearings) still measured "as new".

Ultimately, a more rigorous testing protocol for wear control is a more rigorous testing protocol for wear control. Ford's testing regiment for the Ecoboost for example had the engine frozen solid then run WOT (on a 5w-30). I am quite certain, since Germany gets winter, that most of these Euro specs also include cold temp testing. And it is probably also why 0w-xx and 5w-xx oils are specified in many of certifications/approvals.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

So, do you have data that shows diesel engines and Euro-spec engines running these heavier weights are wearing out prematurely? Because Doug Hillary posted Delvac 1 tear-down pictures with 1.3 Million Kilometers of a Detroit diesel who's components (liner, piston, rings, bearings) still measured "as new".

Ultimately, a more rigorous testing protocol for wear control is a more rigorous testing protocol for wear control. Ford's testing regiment for the Ecoboost for example had the engine frozen solid then run WOT (on a 5w-30). I am quite certain, since Germany gets winter, that most of these Euro specs also include cold temp testing. And it is probably also why 0w-xx and 5w-xx oils are specified in many of certifications/approvals.


Are Euro winters really that bad in general, compared to Colorado northward? Don't think so. (Also, your Delvac example was for an engine with few cold starts, highway miles, and probably a block heater, so bad example there.) The old SAE paper did basically prove the obvious, that thicker oil takes longer to lubricate tighter spaces that don't get direct oil pressure. Some of this is just too easy to understand.

Note that we are talking about optimizing (reducing) wear, not whether an engine such as Ecoboost can merely not blow up.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar


Are Euro winters really that bad in general, compared to Colorado northward? Don't think so.


Russia gets pretty bloody cold

Or are you under the impression that the German marques only cater to temperatures seen 'round the Bavaria region?

Quote:
(Also, your Delvac example was for an engine with few cold starts, highway miles, and probably a block heater, so bad example there.)


No block heater, outback miles, a wide range of temperatures but yes, probably few cold starts relative to a regular car. However transport trucks are used all over the place running 40-weight oils, including Alberta. I have not heard of people mentioning premature engine wear due to oil choice and I know quite a few guys working out there.

Quote:
The old SAE paper did basically prove the obvious, that thicker oil takes longer to lubricate tighter spaces that don't get direct oil pressure. Some of this is just too easy to understand.


Well obviously the rest of us dolts just don't get it. Did you author the SAE paper yourself? I'm amazed you can wear pants with those big boys swinging between your legs.

Quote:
Note that we are talking about optimizing (reducing) wear, not whether an engine such as Ecoboost can merely not blow up.


Luckily Ford's test wasn't just about it not blowing up. After repeated "furnace to freezer" tests they took the same engine, ran the Baja with it, then put it in a truck and put 150,000 miles on it. Then they tore it down at SEMA. Apparently all they had to do was operate it in Colorado and they would have wore the bores right out of the block and the lobes straight off the cams.

 

[Shannow]

Problem with intuitive/obvious "science" is that there's often a Copernican Revelation at the end.

 

[OVERKILL]

Well obviously Shannow, we are too simple to get the fact that the SAE test cited must cover all visc spreads including specific synthetic oils designed with a wide spread (like 0w-40) where cold performance is one of the design criteria

Or does it?

That's the thing, that while in general, an oil of lower viscosity is going to "flow" to places that a heavier oil will be slower to reach when not in a pressure-fed situation, one must consider the design of the oil, the additives used to deal with that specific situation, and of course whether the actual visc characteristics of an oil like GC 0w-30, M1 0w-40...etc are significantly inferior to a lighter oil that meets less stringent approvals for wear and is subsequently lighter on additives.

For a simple topic it actually has the potential to be quite complex. As how does an oil's performance in these enhanced testing regiments translate over to cold-start wear? And if there are specific cold performance tests, what are the parameters and limits? The Euro testing protocols are quite extensive in nature so it would be interesting to see how a non-approved "basic" oil would hold up to them.

 

[fdcg27]

I think you have a good point.
Many, maybe most of us ran multiple vehicles past 200K with engines that were still clean and healthy long before we'd ever heard of NOACK or BITOG.
Most of us still use the same oil selection practices we did in the days before we found BITOG.
I know I do, in that I look for deals and stash them.
That these oils often end up being synthetics is a happy accident.
We have another member who's been using M1 on 10K drains since long before BITOG and yet another from Cali who has an ancient Lexus V-8 pushing 400K who's done one year drains on whatever syns he can get cheap since he bought the car new, or six months on dino, without regard to mileage.
BITOG has changed the way in which I view viscosity and drain intervals, but hasn't had as much impact on the ways in which I select an oil, and my point was that it didn't for the other two members either.
I agree with you in that any oil complying with the requirements of the engine it's run in on drain intervals reasonable for the engine and the way it's used will allow that engine to run well beyond the life of the entire assembly we call a car.
OTOH, this is an enthusiast site, so we have to be OCD about something.
We otherwise might as well be reading Consumer Reports.

 

[FetchFar]

Even with all of overkill's weird ramblings, its hard to escape the simple physical fact thinner oil lubricates tighter tolerances faster on cold starts. Yet, he will get a mirror and argue away...

 

[zrxkawboy]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
So you 'll have to forgive me if I find your line of thinking illogical.


Yeah, guys, let's stick to logical statements only, like this:

"I HATE Valvoline/MaxLife/Ashland everything."

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
....and of course whether the actual visc characteristics of an oil like GC 0w-30, M1 0w-40...etc are significantly inferior to a lighter oil that meets less stringent approvals for wear and is subsequently lighter on additives.
.


Not true, as Mazda Moly 0w-20 has 600 ppm moly, and TGMO 0w-20 has 116 ppm trimer moly, along with the SN limits of ZDDP. Light on additives? Nope.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Even with all of overkill's weird ramblings, its hard to escape the simple physical fact thinner oil lubricates tighter tolerances faster on cold starts. Yet, he will get a mirror and argue away...


This simple physical fact that you assert would apply only to those mainly eighteenth century engines that used a drip fed total loss lubrication system that depended (mostly) on gravity feed.
You may also have a point with regard to splash lubed engines, which are found today mainly in low end lawnmowers.
For any pressure lubrication system I've ever heard of, all of the important bits are fed by a positive displacement pump.
This means that the same amount of oil is delivered at any give number of revs without regard to its viscosity.
But what if pressure is so high that the pump goes into bypass?
In practice, this makes no difference, since the oil filter will already be in bypass and the bearings will not be squeezing oil out as quickly as the oil pump can push it out to them, which is what causes excessively high oil pressure and bypass events, so they have plenty of oil for lubrication.
What about the rest of the engine?
There's not that much else subject to high wear caused by any oil not yet at operating temperature, and that's also why oils have additives that provide boundry layer protection.
Thought I'd save Overkill the trouble of finding a mirror, although I've had a number of debates here with him myself and it's always a competition to see who can get the last word in.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Even with all of overkill's weird ramblings, its hard to escape the simple physical fact thinner oil lubricates tighter tolerances faster on cold starts. Yet, he will get a mirror and argue away...


If true, then Sequence IV wear tests would be blitzed by thinner lubes...are they ?

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This simple physical fact that you assert would apply only to those mainly eighteenth century engines that used a drip fed total loss lubrication system that depended (mostly) on gravity feed.
You may also have a point with regard to splash lubed engines, which are found today mainly in low end lawnmowers.


Wrong, remember piston squirters for cylinder walls/rings, on modern car engines? Needs thinner oil to coat walls. Also, the valve stems are not pressure fed, neither are the roller bearings in the valvetrain. ... Also, positive displacement pumps turn over slower when cold starting a thicker oil.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Even with all of overkill's weird ramblings, its hard to escape the simple physical fact thinner oil lubricates tighter tolerances faster on cold starts. Yet, he will get a mirror and argue away...


If true, then Sequence IV wear tests would be blitzed by thinner lubes...are they ?


You mean the SN Sequence IVA, right? Those results are hard to get. Wish we had those, that'd be fun. Castrol Synblend 5w-20 and 5w-30 claims a less than 18 micron score for both oils in marketing. Still, the IVA test doesn't cool things down that much IIRC, so not a real test of wear at/near start-up.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
....and of course whether the actual visc characteristics of an oil like GC 0w-30, M1 0w-40...etc are significantly inferior to a lighter oil that meets less stringent approvals for wear and is subsequently lighter on additives.
.


Not true, as Mazda Moly 0w-20 has 600 ppm moly, and TGMO 0w-20 has 116 ppm trimer moly, along with the SN limits of ZDDP. Light on additives? Nope.


Cherry picking a particular additive I see. How about ZDDP content? There are restrictions in place on your basic SN PCMO's that don't apply to the Euro lubricants.

 

[fdcg27]

Umm, no piston squirters aren't used for lubrication.
They're used for piston cooling, mainly in turbocharged engines.
They are of no real importance at cold start and are pressure fed in any event, just like the bearings.
What modern car has roller bearings in the valve train?
If you mean the rollers on rocker arms and lifters, the whole point is that they survive very well on less lubrication and allow, not require, the use of thinner oils. Try starting an engine with the valve cover removed and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Anyway, these aren't what are known as roller bearings.
Roller crank bearings were at one time somewhat common in some Euro high performance engines, notable the four cam four cylinder Porsches, but you don't find them in any car engine built after the mid 'sixties. Back in the day "Carerra" meant a standard Porsche model equipped with this complicated and expensive roller bearing crank engine. Even the cheapo US-only Speedster could be equipped with this engine. You could check Wiki while you're looking up other things.
Finally, a postive displacement oil pump is mechanically driven by the engine. It turns neither slower nor faster at any given engine speed at any temperature with any oil.
Take an engine or two apart and you'll understand all of this a little better.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Even with all of overkill's weird ramblings, its hard to escape the simple physical fact thinner oil lubricates tighter tolerances faster on cold starts. Yet, he will get a mirror and argue away...


Awww, I love you too! We should start a bromance!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Umm, no piston squirters aren't used for lubrication.
They're used for piston cooling, mainly in turbocharged engines.
They are of no real importance at cold start and are pressure fed in any event, just like the bearings.
What modern car has roller bearings in the valve train?
If you mean the rollers on rocker arms and lifters, the whole point is that they survive very well on less lubrication and allow, not require, the use of thinner oils. Try starting an engine with the valve cover removed and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Anyway, these aren't what are known as roller bearings.
Roller crank bearings were at one time somewhat common in some Euro high performance engines, notable the four cam four cylinder Porsches, but you don't find them in any car engine built after the mid 'sixties. Back in the day "Carerra" meant a standard Porsche model equipped with this complicated and expensive roller bearing crank engine. Even the cheapo US-only Speedster could be equipped with this engine. You could check Wiki while you're looking up other things.
Finally, a postive displacement oil pump is mechanically driven by the engine. It turn neither slower nor faster at any given engine speed at any temperature with any oil.
Take an engine or two apart and you'll understand all of this a little better.

Well stated sir. And certain engines have had squirters added/deleted during their production run like the Ford Coyote engine for example as certain design parameters for the engine changed.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Even with all of overkill's weird ramblings, its hard to escape the simple physical fact thinner oil lubricates tighter tolerances faster on cold starts. Yet, he will get a mirror and argue away...


Awww, I love you too! We should start a bromance!

Since you think you're never wrong, go ahead with that mirror you've got. Knock yourself out.