Noria Publications Implications to Me on Thin Oils

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
It seems really simplistic. I mean a one size fits all recommendation to use 10-30 or 15-40 in most passenger cars shouldn't need to be a long paper or cost any money to read.

Realistically oil temperature and it's range during operating conditions should be used to determine the appropriate viscosity, I'd be shocked if the paper didn't go into that in depth.
As H.L. Mencken once said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Again, I'd like to see the research to back up the claim of this article.

 

[kschachn]

"The best protection against wear is probably a product that is a little thicker (such as SAE 10W30 or 15W40)"

You still think so after that statement? Apart from the blanket recommendation that includes a 40-weight, why chose a 10W or 15W at all? Why not 5W? That right there is suspect.

Originally Posted By: paulswagelock
In the industrial world, Noria folks are the gods in lubrication. They are recognized as the true experts. I do not know if that is the same for the automotive world.

If you are a tribologist, reliability engineer, maintenance engineer, etc in an industrial plant - you likely know and trust Noria.

 

[kschachn]

And that means what?

Originally Posted By: Eddie
Thanks spudislander for the information. An interesting note: The 0w20 is used only in the US & Canada for the 2013/2014 Mazda SkyActiv engines. 5w30 is the recomendation elsewhere as stated in the owners manual for my CX5.

 

[Shannow]

It means that your auto-makers are making compromises that are different to what they do in other markets...simple concept.

(Note: "compromises" isn't "Piles of failed engines", or "Class Actions", simply compromises, that both the manufacturer, and teh oil manufacturers point to the requirement for either increased economy, or reduced greenhouse emissions).

 

[kschachn]

Well, I agree those may be the reasons. But to extrapolate that into thinking engine longevity will be increased by using a heaver oil - as the article apparently states - is not valid. No one can show that it is, can they? Has anyone?

Remember, I am using a lighter oil because I want to. But this article flat out states that in engines that specify a 20-weight oil, you should use a heavier one once your warranty is finished for "best protection" for your engine.


Originally Posted By: Shannow
It means that your auto-makers are making compromises that are different to what they do in other markets...simple concept.

(Note: "compromises" isn't "Piles of failed engines", or "Class Actions", simply compromises, that both the manufacturer, and teh oil manufacturers point to the requirement for either increased economy, or reduced greenhouse emissions).

 

[Shannow]

http://papers.sae.org/811224/

But you have to pay $24 to see it...

 

[kschachn]

Well that's a big help.

See it to learn what? And it was published in 1981? 1981?? I was just starting to use Mobil 1 5W-20 in 1981, instead of the 10W-40 I had previously been using.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://papers.sae.org/811224/

But you have to pay $24 to see it...

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I believe it. Manufacturers stand to gain millions through CAFE, and all they really care is that the engine won't grenade until it's out of warranty.


So what's your answer for all the engines that have 200-400K all on 20wt oils? I don't recall hearing of any engines that self destructed from these oils.

 

[Shannow]

Stop talking "self destructed", when like anything automotive, compromises are made in one direction or another....and as per the timing chain discussion, major design elements are different between designs.

 

[kschachn]

Why does he have to stop? I think it is a valid observation.

And that paper you posted - what was your point on that? You didn't answer.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Stop talking "self destructed", when like anything automotive, compromises are made in one direction or another....and as per the timing chain discussion, major design elements are different between designs.

 

[Shannow]

"piles of failed engines" is a strawman, and is in no way counter to engines going 400m miles (show me a "pile" of 400k mile engines on TGMO for example)

The article was posted in response to "But to extrapolate that into thinking engine longevity will be increased by using a heaver oil - as the article apparently states - is not valid. No one can show that it is, can they? Has anyone?"

People can, and have collected data...you just have to pay that source to get it...the SAE...who know these things.

 

[kschachn]

That article from 1981 shows it? Seeing how much oil technology has changed in 30 years, I doubt it. Funny how the collected data you claim is "hidden" or otherwise not available - or how you have to pay to see it.

So are the automobile manufacturers and/or the oil companies oblivious to this SAE data? Honda and Toyota and everyone else keeps pushing lighter oil despite SAE evidence it is detrimental to their product?

Originally Posted By: Shannow
"piles of failed engines" is a strawman, and is in no way counter to engines going 400m miles (show me a "pile" of 400k mile engines on TGMO for example)

The article was posted in response to "But to extrapolate that into thinking engine longevity will be increased by using a heaver oil - as the article apparently states - is not valid. No one can show that it is, can they? Has anyone?"

People can, and have collected data...you just have to pay that source to get it...the SAE...who know these things.

 

[kschachn]

Isn't a heavier oil a compromise in the other direction, at least in your view? That increased start-up wear is acceptable to obtain improved performance at operating temperature?

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Stop talking "self destructed", when like anything automotive, compromises are made in one direction or another....and as per the timing chain discussion, major design elements are different between designs.

 

[Shannow]

If you read the xW-16 papers, they are talking "economy" or "greenhaouse emissions" with "acceptable longevity"...it's an engineering trade-off, which as you've pointed out, doesn't need engines to last longer than the car/emissions system.

Edit
Free stuff...although it's 2003...

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils

 

[kschachn]

I didn't point that out, someone else did.

That term "acceptable longevity" can mean a lot. Are you making a claim that use of 20-weight oil results in a longevity that would be unacceptable to you? I'm just asking.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you read the xW-16 papers, they are talking "economy" or "greenhaouse emissions" with "acceptable longevity"...it's an engineering trade-off, which as you've pointed out, doesn't need engines to last longer than the car/emissions system.

 

[kschachn]

That's a nice article that actually gives no proof that lighter oils are harmful to today's engines. And look at that last paragraph - sound familiar? How odd that it is virtually identical to the paragraphs cited by the OP.

Maybe Blaine Ballentine is a pen name for Jim Fitch, who is reportedly a very reputable engineer who has even been used by major oil companies as an expert witness on lubrication issues.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you read the xW-16 papers, they are talking "economy" or "greenhaouse emissions" with "acceptable longevity"...it's an engineering trade-off, which as you've pointed out, doesn't need engines to last longer than the car/emissions system.

Edit
Free stuff...although it's 2003...

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils

 

[Rolla07]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I believe it. Manufacturers stand to gain millions through CAFE, and all they really care is that the engine won't grenade until it's out of warranty.


Always a conspiracy theory. At the end of the day very few people ditch their cars because of oil related engine damage. How about looking at automatic transmission issues? I think the focuses are misguided. Did Noria provide multiple examples of engine failures because of 0w20 use? No. I think this forum has debunked many engine oil myths and this being one of them.

 

[kschachn]

How do they stand to gain millions by meeting CAFE standards? I realize they stand to lose millions in lost sales (due to penalties) if they don't, but how do they stand to gain?

If anything I think they are losing money due to CAFE. Or more accurately, the customers are losing money.

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I believe it. Manufacturers stand to gain millions through CAFE, and all they really care is that the engine won't grenade until it's out of warranty.

 

[fdcg27]

Let's assume that this publication for which you've spent some hard earned is totally on the level.
Let's assume that using a twenty grade oil really does result in more engine wear than using a thirty grade.
Let's ignore the part about 100K durability, since any volume produced engine on any oil will easily exceed that, and let's also stipulate that if you truly have a stuck themostat, no grade of oil can help you if you don't figure it out quickly enough, since no oil will prevent either a blown head gasket or a cracked head or both.
Now, even assuming the above, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter since engine life hasn't been the weak point in car life for a number of decades.
The entire assembly wears out with years and miles of use and more cars are scrapped due to transmission failure than engine failure.
Use the recommended grade with the confidence that it will give you at least 200K of engine life.
The engine will run long after the rest of the car is suitable only for the yard.
If you live in a location where salt is used as though those applying it owned shares in a salt mine, car longevity is even less dependent upon the longevity of any mechanical assembly.
In short, while a thicker grade might extend engine life, a thinner grade will still allow the engine to outlive the rest of the vehicle in which it's installed and your wallet gets to enjoy real fuel savings along the way.

 

[gpshumway]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It means that your auto-makers are making compromises that are different to what they do in other markets...simple concept.

(Note: "compromises" isn't "Piles of failed engines", or "Class Actions", simply compromises, that both the manufacturer, and teh oil manufacturers point to the requirement for either increased economy, or reduced greenhouse emissions).


Exactly, and one of the things that strikes me as very different between the US and other markets is trailer towing. For instance, in Europe the 1.8l Honda Civic is rated to tow 1,400 kg (3048 lb!) in the US that weight is 450 kg. Europeans tend to actually tow things with cars too. The European manual allows any oil from 0w20 to 5w40 at any temperature, with 10w40 allowed above -20*C. Guess what people tend to use. The combination of CAFE incentives in the US with generally easier usage leads to 0w20 being the only oil recommended in the US Civic manual. For US drivers who are generally easier on their cars, 0w20 probably works fine.

As to the recommendations regarding oils with increased additives, I'm not convinced I buy that. Oils with reduced levels of traditional Zinc/Phosphorous/Moly anti-wear additives still meet the most stringent OEM and industry specifications for wear. Low-SAPS oils like M1 ESP 5w30 meet MB 229.51 and VW 504/507, they can't do that with sub-par wear protection, that protection is now provided by non-traditional additives.