One Dodge running 5W20 rewrites all the engineering texts in history ?
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
... What happens when 5W-20 shears down? ... seems it would be an even worse situation. ...
That's a hypothetical possibility. Realistically, do you really believe shearing is a serious issue with modern synthetic 5W-20s? That should be more likely with 0W-20 or 5W-30 (which to oversimplify slightly, is kinda like 5W-20 with extra VII added).
... What happens when 5W-20 shears down? ... seems it would be an even worse situation. ...
That's a hypothetical possibility. Realistically, do you really believe shearing is a serious issue with modern synthetic 5W-20s? That should be more likely with 0W-20 or 5W-30 (which to oversimplify slightly, is kinda like 5W-20 with extra VII added).
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I will add that fuel dilution isn't poor engineering. Excessive enrichment is used to prevent knock in high compression engines and to ward off detonation in ones using forced induction. With forced induction, you WILL get fuel dilution, because ring seal isn't perfect, it's simply the nature of the beast.
Pretty much every high performance engine runs a factory-rich tune, and you'll see that in your UOA's. My M5 had wicked fuel dilution due to WOT enrichment to deal with its high compression and specific output. This is even worse on a boosted engine where the tune is even richer and there is more blow-by due to the increased cylinder pressures.
Now, typically high performance engines spec heavier oils. Forced induction engines also have as well. However, we are seeing that the latest crop of low displacement turbocharged engines spec'ing lighter oils are, as expected, ending up with fuel in the oil. This has the potential to be problematic.
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
What I was getting at is something like my Toyota compared to say a Direct Injected Hyundai which has fuel dilution issues. Both normally aspirated. One better controlled than the other. Proper engineering that allows longer OCI's instead of the other that recommended shorter OCI's as their fix.
I will add that fuel dilution isn't poor engineering. Excessive enrichment is used to prevent knock in high compression engines and to ward off detonation in ones using forced induction. With forced induction, you WILL get fuel dilution, because ring seal isn't perfect, it's simply the nature of the beast.
Pretty much every high performance engine runs a factory-rich tune, and you'll see that in your UOA's. My M5 had wicked fuel dilution due to WOT enrichment to deal with its high compression and specific output. This is even worse on a boosted engine where the tune is even richer and there is more blow-by due to the increased cylinder pressures.
Now, typically high performance engines spec heavier oils. Forced induction engines also have as well. However, we are seeing that the latest crop of low displacement turbocharged engines spec'ing lighter oils are, as expected, ending up with fuel in the oil. This has the potential to be problematic.
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
What I was getting at is something like my Toyota compared to say a Direct Injected Hyundai which has fuel dilution issues. Both normally aspirated. One better controlled than the other. Proper engineering that allows longer OCI's instead of the other that recommended shorter OCI's as their fix.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
That's what I was getting at. I could care less what people try to use but to say that you should run a 30wt because a research paper says it might be optimal under conditions that didn't test every situation or a huge sample size is nonsense especially when most will junk the car long before that will be apparent even if it is the case.
I guess I don't consider any of my vehicles "disposable", and hence a valid reason to run a certain oil viscosity. And there have been plenty of tests done and documented over the years that show higher HTHS (which is generally obtained with higher viscosity oils) does give better MOFT and wear protection. That fact is hard to debunk with non-strawman arguments.
Anything over HTHS of 2.3 (typically 20 weights) was proven to have the same effect as something in the 3's (typically 30 weights).
As for longevity unless you are going for the million mile mark the benefit if it does exist won't be realized IMO.
Originally Posted by StevieC
That's what I was getting at. I could care less what people try to use but to say that you should run a 30wt because a research paper says it might be optimal under conditions that didn't test every situation or a huge sample size is nonsense especially when most will junk the car long before that will be apparent even if it is the case.
I guess I don't consider any of my vehicles "disposable", and hence a valid reason to run a certain oil viscosity. And there have been plenty of tests done and documented over the years that show higher HTHS (which is generally obtained with higher viscosity oils) does give better MOFT and wear protection. That fact is hard to debunk with non-strawman arguments.
Anything over HTHS of 2.3 (typically 20 weights) was proven to have the same effect as something in the 3's (typically 30 weights).
As for longevity unless you are going for the million mile mark the benefit if it does exist won't be realized IMO.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
The message of that guide however should not be dismissed. There is no single perfect grade of oil.
I would call it "optimal" instead of "perfect"... And mention that I wasn't able to convey that message to the thin camp even after four threads...
There's no single oil that would be optimal both in Alaska and Texas, under both light use and heavy towing, high speed and low speed, long trips and short trips etc. and when I see oil recommandation charts showing only one oil... I strongly suspect they're fake...
The message of that guide however should not be dismissed. There is no single perfect grade of oil.
I would call it "optimal" instead of "perfect"... And mention that I wasn't able to convey that message to the thin camp even after four threads...
There's no single oil that would be optimal both in Alaska and Texas, under both light use and heavy towing, high speed and low speed, long trips and short trips etc. and when I see oil recommandation charts showing only one oil... I strongly suspect they're fake...
.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
Not to highlight Toyota and Pick on GM specifically but this is two examples of where engineering an engine around a 20wt succeeded and failed. Toyota can seem to go long OCI's in direct injected engines on GF-5 oils with no special specifications and GM had to come out with Dexos to help remedy / prevent problems in their engines. Ford got it right in some engines and didn't in others and had to back peddle would be another example.
In Ford's defence, we are talking about a high specific output DI turbocharged V6 in a pickup truck. That's a 5w-30 minimum application; it has to be, because it WILL dilute to control cylinder temperatures under periods of high boost and high load. As far as I recall, Ford only made this mistake once. The 2.7L Ecoboost engine also spec's 5w-30, the N/A engine spec's 5w-20.
GM's issue with the HF V6 go beyond fuel dilution. It took a couple of generations to get the timing chain issues sorted, that was a design issue. While Dexos is GM's attempt at controlling oil quality and collecting royalties in the process, the reduced length OCI that still didn't fix the problem points to it just being an Engineering/testing issue rather than anything pertaining to lubricant selection.
Toyota apparently couldn't design oil return holes at one point, so they don't get a free pass here
Not to highlight Toyota and Pick on GM specifically but this is two examples of where engineering an engine around a 20wt succeeded and failed. Toyota can seem to go long OCI's in direct injected engines on GF-5 oils with no special specifications and GM had to come out with Dexos to help remedy / prevent problems in their engines. Ford got it right in some engines and didn't in others and had to back peddle would be another example.
In Ford's defence, we are talking about a high specific output DI turbocharged V6 in a pickup truck. That's a 5w-30 minimum application; it has to be, because it WILL dilute to control cylinder temperatures under periods of high boost and high load. As far as I recall, Ford only made this mistake once. The 2.7L Ecoboost engine also spec's 5w-30, the N/A engine spec's 5w-20.
GM's issue with the HF V6 go beyond fuel dilution. It took a couple of generations to get the timing chain issues sorted, that was a design issue. While Dexos is GM's attempt at controlling oil quality and collecting royalties in the process, the reduced length OCI that still didn't fix the problem points to it just being an Engineering/testing issue rather than anything pertaining to lubricant selection.
Toyota apparently couldn't design oil return holes at one point, so they don't get a free pass here
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
... What happens when 5W-20 shears down? ... seems it would be an even worse situation. ...
That's a hypothetical possibility. Realistically, do you really believe shearing is a serious issue with modern synthetic 5W-20s? That should be more likely with 0W-20 or 5W-30 (which to oversimplify slightly, is kinda like 5W-20 with extra VII added).
Look at some of the shear down in this collection of UOAs on modular Mustang V8s. There are some 5W-20 FS that shear down by 20% with 5K miles on the oil.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
... What happens when 5W-20 shears down? ... seems it would be an even worse situation. ...
That's a hypothetical possibility. Realistically, do you really believe shearing is a serious issue with modern synthetic 5W-20s? That should be more likely with 0W-20 or 5W-30 (which to oversimplify slightly, is kinda like 5W-20 with extra VII added).
Look at some of the shear down in this collection of UOAs on modular Mustang V8s. There are some 5W-20 FS that shear down by 20% with 5K miles on the oil.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Not to highlight Toyota and Pick on GM specifically but this is two examples of where engineering an engine around a 20wt succeeded and failed. Toyota can seem to go long OCI's in direct injected engines on GF-5 oils with no special specifications and GM had to come out with Dexos to help remedy / prevent problems in their engines. Ford got it right in some engines and didn't in others and had to back peddle would be another example.
In Ford's defence, we are talking about a high specific output DI turbocharged V6 in a pickup truck. That's a 5w-30 minimum application; it has to be, because it WILL dilute to control cylinder temperatures under periods of high boost and high load. As far as I recall, Ford only made this mistake once. The 2.7L Ecoboost engine also spec's 5w-30, the N/A engine spec's 5w-20.
GM's issue with the HF V6 go beyond fuel dilution. It took a couple of generations to get the timing chain issues sorted, that was a design issue. While Dexos is GM's attempt at controlling oil quality and collecting royalties in the process, the reduced length OCI that still didn't fix the problem points to it just being an Engineering/testing issue rather than anything pertaining to lubricant selection.
Toyota apparently couldn't design oil return holes at one point, so they don't get a free pass here
No OE isn't without their faults at times. YES TOYOTA, I was picking 2 examples to better illustrate my point. I didn't point to specifics, that's something you did.
Again what I was getting at is one OE (Toyota) seems to do their research before the run with something and the others let the market work out the bugs it would seem continually. Cough Cough GM.
Look more at the history of these two companies with regards to oil requirements and engineering issues requiring oil changes to remedy the problem.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Not to highlight Toyota and Pick on GM specifically but this is two examples of where engineering an engine around a 20wt succeeded and failed. Toyota can seem to go long OCI's in direct injected engines on GF-5 oils with no special specifications and GM had to come out with Dexos to help remedy / prevent problems in their engines. Ford got it right in some engines and didn't in others and had to back peddle would be another example.
In Ford's defence, we are talking about a high specific output DI turbocharged V6 in a pickup truck. That's a 5w-30 minimum application; it has to be, because it WILL dilute to control cylinder temperatures under periods of high boost and high load. As far as I recall, Ford only made this mistake once. The 2.7L Ecoboost engine also spec's 5w-30, the N/A engine spec's 5w-20.
GM's issue with the HF V6 go beyond fuel dilution. It took a couple of generations to get the timing chain issues sorted, that was a design issue. While Dexos is GM's attempt at controlling oil quality and collecting royalties in the process, the reduced length OCI that still didn't fix the problem points to it just being an Engineering/testing issue rather than anything pertaining to lubricant selection.
Toyota apparently couldn't design oil return holes at one point, so they don't get a free pass here
No OE isn't without their faults at times. YES TOYOTA, I was picking 2 examples to better illustrate my point. I didn't point to specifics, that's something you did.
Again what I was getting at is one OE (Toyota) seems to do their research before the run with something and the others let the market work out the bugs it would seem continually. Cough Cough GM.
Look more at the history of these two companies with regards to oil requirements and engineering issues requiring oil changes to remedy the problem.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
I think it wasn't much of an issue to begin with because these cars spec'd a relatively high (>3.5cP HTHS) viscosity oil. So while the large sump also helped, it wasn't like they were running on the ragged edge viscosity wise in the first place, so it losing some reserve due to fuel dilution wasn't a primary area of concern IMHO. I'm sure it was expected of course, but I doubt it factored much into the design side of things IMHO.
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
I think it wasn't much of an issue to begin with because these cars spec'd a relatively high (>3.5cP HTHS) viscosity oil. So while the large sump also helped, it wasn't like they were running on the ragged edge viscosity wise in the first place, so it losing some reserve due to fuel dilution wasn't a primary area of concern IMHO. I'm sure it was expected of course, but I doubt it factored much into the design side of things IMHO.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
That's what I was getting at. I could care less what people try to use but to say that you should run a 30wt because a research paper says it might be optimal under conditions that didn't test every situation or a huge sample size is nonsense especially when most will junk the car long before that will be apparent even if it is the case.
I guess I don't consider any of my vehicles "disposable", and hence a valid reason to run a certain oil viscosity. And there have been plenty of tests done and documented over the years that show higher HTHS (which is generally obtained with higher viscosity oils) does give better MOFT and wear protection. That fact is hard to debunk with non-strawman arguments.
Anything over HTHS of 2.3 (typically 20 weights) was proven to have the same effect as something in the 3's (typically 30 weights).
As for longevity unless you are going for the million mile mark the benefit if it does exist won't be realized IMO.
I'm not going to run my stuff on the "ragged edge" of good enough, especially when I run them hard sometimes. Others can if they want, but based on all the data I've seen I want some wear protection headroom.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
That's what I was getting at. I could care less what people try to use but to say that you should run a 30wt because a research paper says it might be optimal under conditions that didn't test every situation or a huge sample size is nonsense especially when most will junk the car long before that will be apparent even if it is the case.
I guess I don't consider any of my vehicles "disposable", and hence a valid reason to run a certain oil viscosity. And there have been plenty of tests done and documented over the years that show higher HTHS (which is generally obtained with higher viscosity oils) does give better MOFT and wear protection. That fact is hard to debunk with non-strawman arguments.
Anything over HTHS of 2.3 (typically 20 weights) was proven to have the same effect as something in the 3's (typically 30 weights).
As for longevity unless you are going for the million mile mark the benefit if it does exist won't be realized IMO.
I'm not going to run my stuff on the "ragged edge" of good enough, especially when I run them hard sometimes. Others can if they want, but based on all the data I've seen I want some wear protection headroom.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
I think it wasn't much of an issue to begin with because these cars spec'd a relatively high (>3.5cP HTHS) viscosity oil. So while the large sump also helped, it wasn't like they were running on the ragged edge viscosity wise in the first place, so it losing some reserve due to fuel dilution wasn't a primary area of concern IMHO. I'm sure it was expected of course, but I doubt it factored much into the design side of things IMHO.
I'm sure they look at these things. I know my brother when he was doing engine research for domestic OE's in the U.S. at MiT's engine research lab they looked at insane amounts of things and took it all into consideration. They would even capture all exhaust coming out of an engine into a special bag and have it analyzed. Just to give you some idea.
Their engine testing setup was super complex with what seemed like miles of wires attached to various sensors, cameras etc. and they could modify computer control on the fly to test things in the moment. It was pretty insane. They make you sign an NDA just to have a tour. Also have to turn in your phones. I didn't even get to see everything even under those restrictions.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
I think it wasn't much of an issue to begin with because these cars spec'd a relatively high (>3.5cP HTHS) viscosity oil. So while the large sump also helped, it wasn't like they were running on the ragged edge viscosity wise in the first place, so it losing some reserve due to fuel dilution wasn't a primary area of concern IMHO. I'm sure it was expected of course, but I doubt it factored much into the design side of things IMHO.
I'm sure they look at these things. I know my brother when he was doing engine research for domestic OE's in the U.S. at MiT's engine research lab they looked at insane amounts of things and took it all into consideration. They would even capture all exhaust coming out of an engine into a special bag and have it analyzed. Just to give you some idea.
Their engine testing setup was super complex with what seemed like miles of wires attached to various sensors, cameras etc. and they could modify computer control on the fly to test things in the moment. It was pretty insane. They make you sign an NDA just to have a tour. Also have to turn in your phones. I didn't even get to see everything even under those restrictions.
Last edited:
I noticed my Yaris calls for 5w-30. A TSB says to now use 5w-20. I will stick with the 5w-30. I have a jug of Chevron 10w-40 for my next oil change in my truck. My dad told me that Indy cars used 5w. Oil is like arguing what beer is best or brand of truck.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
No OE isn't without their faults at times. YES TOYOTA, I was picking 2 examples to better illustrate my point. I didn't point to specifics, that's something you did.
Right, but we all know that the HF V6 is the example, so why not mention it? There's no virtue in beating around the bush, we all know what GM screwed up. Their LSx series engines on the other hand, seem to be generally excellent.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Again what I was getting at is one OE (Toyota) seems to do their research before the run with something and the others let the market work out the bugs it would seem continually. Cough Cough GM.
Look more at the history of these two companies with regards to oil requirements and engineering issues requiring oil changes to remedy the problem.
As much as I am not a GM fan, I think that's unfair. While GM does have a history of goofs that's perhaps longer than Toyota's, it ignores the generally excellent track record many of their products have had. Toyota has had both oil control ring return hole problems, resulting in consumption and burning, as well as significant sludge issues which resulted in a class-action lawsuit when they denied it. Yes, they stepped up to the plate on the frame replacement for the Tacoma and Tundra, but again, there was a class-action lawsuit about that too IIRC. Then there was the saga of the unintended acceleration.
Specifically, GM's "oil change remedy" was for the HF V6, and it didn't fix anything because it was a design issue with the engine. It was an attempt to bandaid an issue I'm sure they were well aware of at that point. Prior to the Dexos revenue racket, GM's oil specs were primarily for the Corvette, which I don't think is unusual
No OE isn't without their faults at times. YES TOYOTA, I was picking 2 examples to better illustrate my point. I didn't point to specifics, that's something you did.
Right, but we all know that the HF V6 is the example, so why not mention it? There's no virtue in beating around the bush, we all know what GM screwed up. Their LSx series engines on the other hand, seem to be generally excellent.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Again what I was getting at is one OE (Toyota) seems to do their research before the run with something and the others let the market work out the bugs it would seem continually. Cough Cough GM.
Look more at the history of these two companies with regards to oil requirements and engineering issues requiring oil changes to remedy the problem.
As much as I am not a GM fan, I think that's unfair. While GM does have a history of goofs that's perhaps longer than Toyota's, it ignores the generally excellent track record many of their products have had. Toyota has had both oil control ring return hole problems, resulting in consumption and burning, as well as significant sludge issues which resulted in a class-action lawsuit when they denied it. Yes, they stepped up to the plate on the frame replacement for the Tacoma and Tundra, but again, there was a class-action lawsuit about that too IIRC. Then there was the saga of the unintended acceleration.
Specifically, GM's "oil change remedy" was for the HF V6, and it didn't fix anything because it was a design issue with the engine. It was an attempt to bandaid an issue I'm sure they were well aware of at that point. Prior to the Dexos revenue racket, GM's oil specs were primarily for the Corvette, which I don't think is unusual
GM has had a long history of screw-ups and making their customers foot the bill. Both mentioned in the media, here and from personal experiences with my dad fixing their nightmares. They still can't seem to keep their fluids where they belong both from burning and leaking depending on the model so yes I will pick on them because they just don't seem to care and then when things get messy point their fingers at the customer or at the oil. And when customers turn away take money from the government because we can't let them fail because it would be dire for the economy. BAD BUSINESS all around.
Yes Toyota had rings problems and yes they didn't handle it well, and yes they had the sludge monsters but when you consider the volume of cars they sell and all the models of engines they have had it's small in comparison to the GM blunders of issues over the decades and now. Again no OE is perfect and will have it's issues but then there are patterns that emerge and GM has problem child written all over itself. Albeit they are much better than the junk they were turning out before.
Yes Toyota had rings problems and yes they didn't handle it well, and yes they had the sludge monsters but when you consider the volume of cars they sell and all the models of engines they have had it's small in comparison to the GM blunders of issues over the decades and now. Again no OE is perfect and will have it's issues but then there are patterns that emerge and GM has problem child written all over itself. Albeit they are much better than the junk they were turning out before.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
I think it wasn't much of an issue to begin with because these cars spec'd a relatively high (>3.5cP HTHS) viscosity oil. So while the large sump also helped, it wasn't like they were running on the ragged edge viscosity wise in the first place, so it losing some reserve due to fuel dilution wasn't a primary area of concern IMHO. I'm sure it was expected of course, but I doubt it factored much into the design side of things IMHO.
I'm sure they look at these things. I know my brother when he was doing engine research for domestic OE's in the U.S. at MiT's engine research lab they looked at insane amounts of things and took it all into consideration. They would even capture all exhaust coming out of an engine into a special bag and have it analyzed. Just to give you some idea.
Their engine testing setup was super complex with what seemed like miles of wires attached to various sensors, cameras etc. and they could modify computer control on the fly to test things in the moment. It was pretty insane. They make you sign an NDA just to have a tour. Also have to turn in your phones. I didn't even get to see everything even under those restrictions.
I'm sure they do as well, I'm simply stating that I don't believe it was an area of high concern, given the amount of viscosity reserve in play.
Speaking of that rig, I saw one when we were doing some work for a lab in Windsor, it was financially supported by Ford, GM, Chrysler and I think a couple of others. Pretty amazing stuff, they had some wild non-production engines there too.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Right so in the case of your M5 they have taken steps to alleviate the Fuel Dilution concern because it's not avoidable. Increased sump capacity, heavier spec oil.
I think it wasn't much of an issue to begin with because these cars spec'd a relatively high (>3.5cP HTHS) viscosity oil. So while the large sump also helped, it wasn't like they were running on the ragged edge viscosity wise in the first place, so it losing some reserve due to fuel dilution wasn't a primary area of concern IMHO. I'm sure it was expected of course, but I doubt it factored much into the design side of things IMHO.
I'm sure they look at these things. I know my brother when he was doing engine research for domestic OE's in the U.S. at MiT's engine research lab they looked at insane amounts of things and took it all into consideration. They would even capture all exhaust coming out of an engine into a special bag and have it analyzed. Just to give you some idea.
Their engine testing setup was super complex with what seemed like miles of wires attached to various sensors, cameras etc. and they could modify computer control on the fly to test things in the moment. It was pretty insane. They make you sign an NDA just to have a tour. Also have to turn in your phones. I didn't even get to see everything even under those restrictions.
I'm sure they do as well, I'm simply stating that I don't believe it was an area of high concern, given the amount of viscosity reserve in play.
Speaking of that rig, I saw one when we were doing some work for a lab in Windsor, it was financially supported by Ford, GM, Chrysler and I think a couple of others. Pretty amazing stuff, they had some wild non-production engines there too.
Last edited:
I think there is a disconnect between the scientific types and the non-scientific types. I think we need more tribology understanding.
Question for anyone: Reducing viscosity by 10%, affects the minimum oil film thickness in a journal bearing by approximately how much?
Question for anyone: Reducing viscosity by 10%, affects the minimum oil film thickness in a journal bearing by approximately how much?
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Speaking of that rig, I saw one when we were doing some work for a lab in Windsor, it was financially supported by Ford, GM, Chrysler and I think a couple of others. Pretty amazing stuff, they had some wild non-production engines there too.
Yeah it was pretty crazy the stuff I saw that I can't talk about. The one thing I can talk about is a lab engine they had producing something like 100mpg. Now it won't translate to that when it hits the vehicle but it should be in the 60mpg and that was straight gasoline. That was really neat. Things like weight, real world conditions etc. are why it will never get the bench 100mpg.
Alot of the projects were shared by the 3 major domestic OE's and then they had specific OE stuff that wasn't shared and really secret. It was neat to see different approaches each OE was taking on certain things.
Speaking of that rig, I saw one when we were doing some work for a lab in Windsor, it was financially supported by Ford, GM, Chrysler and I think a couple of others. Pretty amazing stuff, they had some wild non-production engines there too.
Yeah it was pretty crazy the stuff I saw that I can't talk about. The one thing I can talk about is a lab engine they had producing something like 100mpg. Now it won't translate to that when it hits the vehicle but it should be in the 60mpg and that was straight gasoline. That was really neat. Things like weight, real world conditions etc. are why it will never get the bench 100mpg.
Alot of the projects were shared by the 3 major domestic OE's and then they had specific OE stuff that wasn't shared and really secret. It was neat to see different approaches each OE was taking on certain things.
Last edited:
- Status
