oils change

[lewk]

You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on.
Ben Franklin

How readily the masses resist the new paradigm thinking of thinner, lower TBN oils that lubricate, clean, cool, seal, and reduce friction as well or better than their thicker HTHS counterparts. On this board we have Emperical evidence to support this claim, yet the resistance to change motors on. Why is this so? I'm not opening an argument to dispute a thin/thick war, I'm just observing with concern!

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
lewk - I for one am approaching 70yo and I have been involved with the developments of/in lubricants for over 50 years!

I was an early user of 10w-30 oils in the 1950s and a great believer in SAE20w-20 lubricants in certain aircooled engine applications

I have worked with certain Oil Companies in using "thin" oils in heavy high speed diesels. I used GC SLX 0w-30 when it was first brought to OZ about 1995. This lubricant had some real issues in some engines (HTHS, cleanliness/high temp durability) and it was later withdrawn from sale here after many formulation changes

I have always been a "thinnest" lubricant is best fan - within reason. Having worked alongside many of the Worlds best engine manufacturer's I very strongly believe that they know best regarding lubricants for general use in their engines!

The minimum HTHS vis. set by the engine's manufacturer is the
correct one - and IMHO the only one to be used by "joe public"
A higher HTHS is NOT always better and a lower HTHS can indeed lead to significant wear and other issues

The minimum (maker's specification) incl. HTHS vis. requirement and the lowest cold start (and ambient operating spread) viscosity recommended by the engine's manufacturer are IMHO the best criteria for most people to use in selecting an engine lubricant

Regards

 

[lewk]

Hi doug,
Engineers have made great strides in the last decade that use to take centuries.I'm not advocating disregarding the OEM spec, but accepting the rationale of those better qualified to permit change. Jeopardy had a contestant recently who worked in industry.He used mathematical formulas to determine how metals cooled! Some newer "world" engines rotate castings to promote uniformity.The behind the scenes efforts matter. We cannot simply dismiss an oil because it looks thin. Subjective/Objective battles is a war better waged with reason and intellect not hearsay, conjecture or speculation.Thanks for the intelligent response!

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
lewk - As an example the most common lubricant recommended for 1941 US cars was an SAE30 closely followed by SAE20w-20

The 20w-50 viscosity lubricant was beveloped by Duckhams in 1957-8 for use in the BMC (Austin-Morris) MINI. It was required in that application due to the integrated engine/gear train and the shared lubrication system & lubricant. Extensive shearing and deposit control requirements sidelined all other lubricants of the time

It was later used as a simple "fill in" by some engine makers, service providers and Oil Companies and to hide or mask their inability (in some cases) to keep up with technological developments

I have used synthetic engine lubricants continually since around 1978. The continuing use on mineral gear oils amazes me as over around 40 years I have seen the enormous benefits of synthetics in gear and autotrans applications

Those best qualified to drive change are the design Engineers who in the end are accountable in the real world of Warranty performance and component durability that promotes vehicle Brand loyalty

Engineers are driven from above by profits and significant changes must be cost effective from day one if the organisation is to remain profitable. (See GM & Ford)
I was involved with a German Company in the development of disc brakes for heavy trucks. They did the work but waited some years until it was cost effective to release them into the market place! This Company is extremely profitable and always has been!!!

As a matter of interest perhaps there are reasons for instance why I use a non-approved lubricant in my Boxster. The M96 engines did have some issues (not lubricant related) and I prefer a HTHS vis. of around 4cSt in this engine. I believe a SAE30 lubricant would present real risks if used in this engine!
I also live in the Tropics - a "cold" start today for instance was at 28C (82f)and a typical high speed run will be at 35-40C with a bulk oil temperature averaging 105C.
I also have had extensive experience with the lubricant used!

Regards

 

[lewk]

Economies of scale at work regarding the brakes with the German Co. you "mentioned". This works in the realm of oil choices for consumers too. group ll/lll blends and/or PAO oils are better base oils compared to there industry standard counterparts.

Benefit cost analysis is the reason some use synthetics and why some don't.


I owned a 74 VW bug that used OTC straight 30w oil and no filter to speak of. In 40,000 miles of driving I changed the oil 4 or 5 times. It also had a carb upgrade that did not permit the use of an air filter.No mechanical issues to speak of. This 1970's design and mfgr capability with I believe SE motor oils.

Fast foward to the 21st century and we have new mfgr methods, computer aided design and mfgr added to the capability of modern motor oils. Add in an Amsoil Eao oil filter and synthetic lubricants and the pot only sweetens. Supertech and Frams could pull this off to 300,000 miles if I chose to bottom feed.Where is my logic if my ignorance only allows the past to be my guide.

Trust the mfgr I say, the approval is the proof we see all around us everyday.Just how many tows are from an engine oil related failure?

long live the 5w20!!!!!!!!!!!!!