^^ SRR: OK, sorry if I misunderstood. The high viscosity of cold oil is of course one of several major factors in the typical winter decrease for short trippers---but via bearing losses, mostly.
One Dodge running 5W20 rewrites all the engineering texts in history ?
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
*Might be MORE important to check your dipstick to ensure oil level is full than whether one uses 20W or 30W ?
Originally Posted by StevieC
My point is there is a place for 30wt's etc. but that the majority of street vehicles that spec a 20wt will be just fine and will see no difference in life using it over a 30wt.
Again this isn't for beating on a Turbo, towing, hauling, or extreme heat or where the OE called for a thicker weight.
Cruising around town, down the highway in a typical street vehicle where a 20 was spec'ed will be just fine it's entire life and will see no less life than a 30wt.
Originally Posted by StevieC
My point is there is a place for 30wt's etc. but that the majority of street vehicles that spec a 20wt will be just fine and will see no difference in life using it over a 30wt.
Again this isn't for beating on a Turbo, towing, hauling, or extreme heat or where the OE called for a thicker weight.
Cruising around town, down the highway in a typical street vehicle where a 20 was spec'ed will be just fine it's entire life and will see no less life than a 30wt.
What we can speculate is that 20wt's are perfectly fine where called for in most situations and that there is no real-world benefit running a thicker oil even out well past the junk points of most vehicles or we would have this proof in the form of early death engines right after junk points of 200K miles and we don't see that. Even from the high mileage engines well beyond 200K miles here that have run 20wt's their whole life.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
Could a "thin" 5W30 such as Pennzoil Platinum D1 Gen 2 be the Holy Grail ? ... A 5W30 on the lower side of a 30 grade specification with a D1 Gen 2 rating that doesn't shear offering good gas mileage AND protection ?
There is no holy grail because no two situations are the same. Engine/operating conditions.
Could a "thin" 5W30 such as Pennzoil Platinum D1 Gen 2 be the Holy Grail ? ... A 5W30 on the lower side of a 30 grade specification with a D1 Gen 2 rating that doesn't shear offering good gas mileage AND protection ?
There is no holy grail because no two situations are the same. Engine/operating conditions.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
What we can speculate is that 20wt's are perfectly fine where called for in most situations and that there is no real-world benefit running a thicker oil even out well past the junk points of most vehicles or we would have this proof in the form of early death engines right after junk points of 200K miles and we don't see that. Even from the high mileage engines well beyond 200K miles here that have run 20wt's their whole life.
No you wouldn't. Wear isn't a cliff, it's a progressive phenomenon. Say the "junk point" is 400,000Km and you run two groups of identical engines in your test lab:
Group 1 - 0w-40
Group 2 - 0w-20
Periodic inspection would show slightly more wear occurring in Group 2 in the areas JAG described due to the conditions there. By 400,000Km Group 2 may have significantly more nose and ramp wear on the cam lobes than Group 1, but that's not going to have much impact on how the engine runs for example.
At some point, there may be an event, like wearing through the hardening, that results in a significant increase in wear rate that would eventually lead to failure, but this will not occur at some specific pre-determined mileage. An engine short tripped and fuel diluted will be more prone to this sort of event than a commuter with daily long drives, even if both are in the same climate using the same oil at the same interval.
What we can speculate is that 20wt's are perfectly fine where called for in most situations and that there is no real-world benefit running a thicker oil even out well past the junk points of most vehicles or we would have this proof in the form of early death engines right after junk points of 200K miles and we don't see that. Even from the high mileage engines well beyond 200K miles here that have run 20wt's their whole life.
No you wouldn't. Wear isn't a cliff, it's a progressive phenomenon. Say the "junk point" is 400,000Km and you run two groups of identical engines in your test lab:
Group 1 - 0w-40
Group 2 - 0w-20
Periodic inspection would show slightly more wear occurring in Group 2 in the areas JAG described due to the conditions there. By 400,000Km Group 2 may have significantly more nose and ramp wear on the cam lobes than Group 1, but that's not going to have much impact on how the engine runs for example.
At some point, there may be an event, like wearing through the hardening, that results in a significant increase in wear rate that would eventually lead to failure, but this will not occur at some specific pre-determined mileage. An engine short tripped and fuel diluted will be more prone to this sort of event than a commuter with daily long drives, even if both are in the same climate using the same oil at the same interval.
It doesn't matter what the measured differences are because those amount to no change in actual engine longevity unless you intend to operate the vehicle well past 200K miles to say 1 million miles so to change to a 30wt based on the papers over a 20wt spec'ed oil when most likely the engine will be in the junk yard well before the crazy mileage is ridiculous. 99% of the population and the vast majority here on BITOG will never realize these benefits so why stress over it and go to great lengths to read world wide owners manuals to see what they call for in non CAFE regulated type countries?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
It doesn't matter what the measured differences are because those amount to no change in actual engine longevity unless you intend to operate the vehicle well past 200K miles to say 1 million miles so to change to a 30wt based on the papers over a 20wt spec'ed oil when most likely the engine will be in the junk yard well before the crazy mileage is ridiculous. 99% of the population and the vast majority here on BITOG will never realize these benefits so why stress over it and go to great lengths to read world wide owners manuals to see what they call for in non CAFE regulated type countries?
It matters what the measured differences are if you are interested in knowing. That's wholly independent from that factoring into lubricant selection for your daily driver which, for most, should reflect what's indicated in the owner's manual as you've noted. I was pointing out that there's no cliff that wear falls off once the "junk point" is reached and that the results of an increased wear rate are progressive and likely will be entirely invisible to your average driver, even if they operate the vehicle well past the the manufacturer's target mileage.
It doesn't matter what the measured differences are because those amount to no change in actual engine longevity unless you intend to operate the vehicle well past 200K miles to say 1 million miles so to change to a 30wt based on the papers over a 20wt spec'ed oil when most likely the engine will be in the junk yard well before the crazy mileage is ridiculous. 99% of the population and the vast majority here on BITOG will never realize these benefits so why stress over it and go to great lengths to read world wide owners manuals to see what they call for in non CAFE regulated type countries?
It matters what the measured differences are if you are interested in knowing. That's wholly independent from that factoring into lubricant selection for your daily driver which, for most, should reflect what's indicated in the owner's manual as you've noted. I was pointing out that there's no cliff that wear falls off once the "junk point" is reached and that the results of an increased wear rate are progressive and likely will be entirely invisible to your average driver, even if they operate the vehicle well past the the manufacturer's target mileage.
As for engines imploding just past the junk points what I meant by this is that if the 20wt's were such wear causing oils the wear would make sure that the engines died shortly after the typical 200K mile junk point and that we just don't see that even well past 200K miles where 20's were used and that it would take a heck of a long time for this extra wear to be apparent making it essentially moot for the vast majority of users including the high mileage folks here on BITOG.
As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.
I know you understand what I'm saying but I don't think Shannow does or he wouldn't be pushing his papers so hard when it's meaningless for the 99%
As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.
I know you understand what I'm saying but I don't think Shannow does or he wouldn't be pushing his papers so hard when it's meaningless for the 99%
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
As for engines imploding just past the junk points what I meant by this is that if the 20wt's were such wear causing oils the wear would make sure that the engines died shortly after the typical 200K mile junk point and that we just don't see that even well past 200K miles where 20's were used and that it would take a heck of a long time for this extra wear to be apparent making it essentially moot for the vast majority of users including the high mileage folks here on BITOG.
As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.
I know you understand what I'm saying but I don't think Shannow does or he wouldn't be pushing his papers so hard when it's meaningless for the 99%
Shannow is an Engineer, and so his approach often assumes some fundamental understanding of science, math and perhaps basic engineering principles. If one wants to discuss the detail of these topics, then that approach is quite valid. If one is only interested in some cliff notes "run oil A" then a technical discussion shouldn't be where they decide to park themselves.
Per your introductory point, that's doing pretty much exactly what you are claiming Shannow is doing
Using hyperbole; exaggerating the phenomena to neutralize what one believes is being presented by the other side instead of discussing what's really being brought to the table. Acknowledging that an xW-20 allows for more wear doesn't mean that this wear is orders of magnitude more than an xW-30, to address your example specifically. We are dealing with progressive phenomena here which only present in certain conditions.
Engines wear, specifically, anything that is in boundary and mixed, you are simply trying to control the rate at which this occurs. In mixed, increased viscosity will reduce the amount of time that is spent in boundary. Just to toss out some hypothetical numbers, if you are experiencing say 20um of wear in 100,000 miles on the ramp area of cam-over-bucket setup with 5w-30 and that number becomes 25um of wear with 5w-20, making those our constants, you are at 40um/50um at 200,000, 60/75 at 300,000, 80/100 at 400,000 miles...etc. So as the mileage racks up the differential between the two, based on rate, grows. But this is small growth. Ergo, passing some mileage threshold established by the OEM isn't going to result in the engine dying. If the OEM's wear limit is 75um before replacement, we've reached it at 300,000 miles with the 5w-20. If it is 100um, we've reached it at 400,00 miles with 5w-20 but it would take to 500,000 to reach it with the 5w-30. Both could still be serviceable at that juncture, but we've crossed the OEM's wear limit, follow?
As for engines imploding just past the junk points what I meant by this is that if the 20wt's were such wear causing oils the wear would make sure that the engines died shortly after the typical 200K mile junk point and that we just don't see that even well past 200K miles where 20's were used and that it would take a heck of a long time for this extra wear to be apparent making it essentially moot for the vast majority of users including the high mileage folks here on BITOG.
As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.
I know you understand what I'm saying but I don't think Shannow does or he wouldn't be pushing his papers so hard when it's meaningless for the 99%
Shannow is an Engineer, and so his approach often assumes some fundamental understanding of science, math and perhaps basic engineering principles. If one wants to discuss the detail of these topics, then that approach is quite valid. If one is only interested in some cliff notes "run oil A" then a technical discussion shouldn't be where they decide to park themselves.
Per your introductory point, that's doing pretty much exactly what you are claiming Shannow is doing
Engines wear, specifically, anything that is in boundary and mixed, you are simply trying to control the rate at which this occurs. In mixed, increased viscosity will reduce the amount of time that is spent in boundary. Just to toss out some hypothetical numbers, if you are experiencing say 20um of wear in 100,000 miles on the ramp area of cam-over-bucket setup with 5w-30 and that number becomes 25um of wear with 5w-20, making those our constants, you are at 40um/50um at 200,000, 60/75 at 300,000, 80/100 at 400,000 miles...etc. So as the mileage racks up the differential between the two, based on rate, grows. But this is small growth. Ergo, passing some mileage threshold established by the OEM isn't going to result in the engine dying. If the OEM's wear limit is 75um before replacement, we've reached it at 300,000 miles with the 5w-20. If it is 100um, we've reached it at 400,00 miles with 5w-20 but it would take to 500,000 to reach it with the 5w-30. Both could still be serviceable at that juncture, but we've crossed the OEM's wear limit, follow?
Last I checked this wasn't a engineer grade board. Sure some engineer grade advanced level discussions take place here but it needs to be discussed in a manner that all users understand the full picture. I would argue that a lot of users here are not looking for that type of discussion, information or advice as the threads posted in majority are nowhere near this level.
Furthermore I stand that presenting as Shannow did which makes it appear that bad things will happen not using a thicker weight will instill fear in a board of folks looking for general oil advice so it should be called out that way understanding the audience.
While the science says 30wt's offer better protection than 20's as per the papers, this doesn't translate well into the real world for the 99% that frequent this board so they WILL get the wrong idea and then rehash this as general advice to other users and keep the fear going that bad things will happen unless thicker oil is used when it's simply not the case, again for the 99%
I'm not arguing that 30wt's on paper and scientifically as proven by the papers don't offer better protection over the 20's but what I am arguing is that making it appear to the 99% of this board that bad things will happen not doing so it moot because this same 99% will never realize these benefits.
Furthermore I stand that presenting as Shannow did which makes it appear that bad things will happen not using a thicker weight will instill fear in a board of folks looking for general oil advice so it should be called out that way understanding the audience.
While the science says 30wt's offer better protection than 20's as per the papers, this doesn't translate well into the real world for the 99% that frequent this board so they WILL get the wrong idea and then rehash this as general advice to other users and keep the fear going that bad things will happen unless thicker oil is used when it's simply not the case, again for the 99%
I'm not arguing that 30wt's on paper and scientifically as proven by the papers don't offer better protection over the 20's but what I am arguing is that making it appear to the 99% of this board that bad things will happen not doing so it moot because this same 99% will never realize these benefits.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There are quite a few of us that really enjoy the more complex discussions, this includes many regular members including myself, Shannow, Garak, JAG, Doug Hillary (who doesn't post much anymore), Molakule, UncleDave, nap, oil_film_movies, BrocLuno...etc. The list is pretty long. So the fact that quite a few of these discussions take place and may involve material that isn't properly digested or leads to spurious interpretation by a non-technical who decides to read it really isn't our problem to solve. Molakule has put significant effort into providing vast amounts of technical data that is presented in a way that, if adequate time is taken to read and process, will result in somebody knowing significantly more about the subject than when they started.That's what the articles section is for.
This IS a technical board. That of course doesn't mean it's an Engineering board, but it does bring with it the expectation that topics are going to be discussed at depths beyond the surface level. If somebody wants to understand, they will refrain from jumping to half-baked conclusions from the get-go and instead try to process the subject manner.
The real issue isn't people like Shannow and JAG presenting technical data, including charts and graphics that illustrate their points. The real issue is somebody not quite getting what is being tabled or discussed and reframing it as an absolute with no caveats or quantification in another thread in a response to a query, which I think is what you are perhaps really taking issue with, and I agree, that's a legitimate problem.
Ultimately, this board is big enough, and has a membership broad enough, that any sort of discussion can take place and have plenty of participation. The moment we try and control the depth and scope of that content, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot, because it makes it a far less attractive place to be.
And yes, because of the wildly varying levels of background, education and comprehension, we will end up with conflicts and frustration, but that doesn't mean that it is in our best interest to curtail the technical dialogue in an effort to reduce the frequency. If anything, we've lost valuable members who have provided amazing technical input because of attempts to cater to a more basic content structure.
This IS a technical board. That of course doesn't mean it's an Engineering board, but it does bring with it the expectation that topics are going to be discussed at depths beyond the surface level. If somebody wants to understand, they will refrain from jumping to half-baked conclusions from the get-go and instead try to process the subject manner.
The real issue isn't people like Shannow and JAG presenting technical data, including charts and graphics that illustrate their points. The real issue is somebody not quite getting what is being tabled or discussed and reframing it as an absolute with no caveats or quantification in another thread in a response to a query, which I think is what you are perhaps really taking issue with, and I agree, that's a legitimate problem.
Ultimately, this board is big enough, and has a membership broad enough, that any sort of discussion can take place and have plenty of participation. The moment we try and control the depth and scope of that content, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot, because it makes it a far less attractive place to be.
And yes, because of the wildly varying levels of background, education and comprehension, we will end up with conflicts and frustration, but that doesn't mean that it is in our best interest to curtail the technical dialogue in an effort to reduce the frequency. If anything, we've lost valuable members who have provided amazing technical input because of attempts to cater to a more basic content structure.
I never said there weren't ANY advanced users on here as the folks you mentioned, I said that it wasn't the majority of users here and that it wasn't the majority of discussions that take place here or the advice people are looking for. A daily scroll through the threads for as long as we have been users here proves that.
It is supposed to be a technical board with really high level discussion and information but isn't in the majority of cases. It's full of hyperbole feel good biased advice in most cases. As such care is needed when discussing this stuff because we already have folks running around based on this information calling themselves Thickie's and saying that using 20wt's will prematurely wear engines out. Which scientifically is the case but not until some obscene mileage 99% of folks will never see this materialize and I would even argue there is more to go wrong with the vehicle that makes it junkable long before the minuscule wear increase that add's up over a really long time that will condemn the engine. Again way way past 200K miles.
Furthermore it wasn't me that was making it appear that bad things would happen if 30wt's weren't used. It was Shannow. I stated this MANY times. I didn't even argue with the data in the papers I merely said that the majority of folks (the 99%) would see no benefit from it and that we should be careful before instilling fear based on papers that are meaningless to the 99% seeking advice that ARE NOT at the advanced level of discussion because it WILL lead to further "Thickies" as we had over a decade ago using 20w50 when 30wt's were evil.
It is supposed to be a technical board with really high level discussion and information but isn't in the majority of cases. It's full of hyperbole feel good biased advice in most cases. As such care is needed when discussing this stuff because we already have folks running around based on this information calling themselves Thickie's and saying that using 20wt's will prematurely wear engines out. Which scientifically is the case but not until some obscene mileage 99% of folks will never see this materialize and I would even argue there is more to go wrong with the vehicle that makes it junkable long before the minuscule wear increase that add's up over a really long time that will condemn the engine. Again way way past 200K miles.
Furthermore it wasn't me that was making it appear that bad things would happen if 30wt's weren't used. It was Shannow. I stated this MANY times. I didn't even argue with the data in the papers I merely said that the majority of folks (the 99%) would see no benefit from it and that we should be careful before instilling fear based on papers that are meaningless to the 99% seeking advice that ARE NOT at the advanced level of discussion because it WILL lead to further "Thickies" as we had over a decade ago using 20w50 when 30wt's were evil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
See the hyperbole that you people bring to any discussion is the childish part...
Says the guy that started this thread.
See the hyperbole that you people bring to any discussion is the childish part...
Says the guy that started this thread.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I don't think Shannow has ever framed it in a manner that would indicate that "bad things would happen", simply that a lower grade allows for more wear in certain areas. If one can digest that point without jumping to the conclusion that he's not implying (pile of failed engines) then all is well. It's that fundamental misinterpretation that results in these sort of engagements.
Regarding the majority of users posit, I would argue that the most active users do indeed participate in the more technical discussions and furthermore, the longest running threads on this site are all of that nature. Look at the length of this thread for a prime example, where we are arguing over it, then compare it to "what oil should I run in my new minivan" threads for number of participants and length. There is value in that.
Also, I'm quite aware of what you said, I was simply countering your point to bring attention to probably the most active group of posters on this board who also happen to align with the subject matter you feel to be less appropriate than what the majority of registered users might be drawn to as discussion material.
And BTW, you'll never eliminate the fanboys, regardless of how we dumb down the subject matter, it's simply part and parcel with having a diverse membership that varies in knowledge and cognition. It's nice to think that by making the site more layman friendly that we'll reduce those occurrences but I believe you'll find we'll just shed more knowledgable members and end up with lower-grade discourse of lower technical merit and still the same level of trolling and shoot-from-the-hip posit.
Regarding the majority of users posit, I would argue that the most active users do indeed participate in the more technical discussions and furthermore, the longest running threads on this site are all of that nature. Look at the length of this thread for a prime example, where we are arguing over it, then compare it to "what oil should I run in my new minivan" threads for number of participants and length. There is value in that.
Also, I'm quite aware of what you said, I was simply countering your point to bring attention to probably the most active group of posters on this board who also happen to align with the subject matter you feel to be less appropriate than what the majority of registered users might be drawn to as discussion material.
And BTW, you'll never eliminate the fanboys, regardless of how we dumb down the subject matter, it's simply part and parcel with having a diverse membership that varies in knowledge and cognition. It's nice to think that by making the site more layman friendly that we'll reduce those occurrences but I believe you'll find we'll just shed more knowledgable members and end up with lower-grade discourse of lower technical merit and still the same level of trolling and shoot-from-the-hip posit.
He didn't say that exact phrase that was mine, but he sure as heck meant it in his responses when questioned and how he went about pushing that 30wt's are better even when I specified I was talking about the 99% of users who will see no benefit and explained why.
As for the threads these discussions are far out numbered by the "what oil to use in my mini-van threads". Which is fine because there isn't that much science to talk about on a regular basis but does give us insight into the general level of users on the board if such questions are being asked. Especially when a simple search on the board and some time spent reading could answer.
It's all about the audience and the discussion needs to be in a manner that all understand so that no wrong assumptions are made and bad information spread because of it. Again the 20w50 / 30wt arguments and bickering from years ago that are now the 20/30wt discussions of today. Otherwise it's going to turn into an anti-vaxxer type crowd if it hasn't already.
As for the threads these discussions are far out numbered by the "what oil to use in my mini-van threads". Which is fine because there isn't that much science to talk about on a regular basis but does give us insight into the general level of users on the board if such questions are being asked. Especially when a simple search on the board and some time spent reading could answer.
It's all about the audience and the discussion needs to be in a manner that all understand so that no wrong assumptions are made and bad information spread because of it. Again the 20w50 / 30wt arguments and bickering from years ago that are now the 20/30wt discussions of today. Otherwise it's going to turn into an anti-vaxxer type crowd if it hasn't already.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
He didn't say that exact phrase that was mine, but he sure as heck meant it in his responses when questioned and how he went about pushing that 30wt's are better even when I specified I was talking about the 99% of users who will see no benefit.
As for the threads these discussions are far outnumbered by the what oil to use in my mini-van threads.
Sure, but those threads are short with few participants. So while their overall number may be higher, their length and participation rate is a fraction of that of any of the ones with technical merit. Which would you rather have? I'm in the latter camp.
And no, I wouldn't expect him to phrase it in that manner, nor would I expect him to mean it that way either. I've been involved in discussions with him on this board for what must be close to a decade now and I am well aware of his stance on the subject. You can choose to be offended by it, or you can acknowledge that his posting style is "brutally honest" and use that to further your knowledge. He's a great asset to this board, despite how he may come across and I know that personally, I have learned a ton from him.
He didn't say that exact phrase that was mine, but he sure as heck meant it in his responses when questioned and how he went about pushing that 30wt's are better even when I specified I was talking about the 99% of users who will see no benefit.
As for the threads these discussions are far outnumbered by the what oil to use in my mini-van threads.
Sure, but those threads are short with few participants. So while their overall number may be higher, their length and participation rate is a fraction of that of any of the ones with technical merit. Which would you rather have? I'm in the latter camp.
And no, I wouldn't expect him to phrase it in that manner, nor would I expect him to mean it that way either. I've been involved in discussions with him on this board for what must be close to a decade now and I am well aware of his stance on the subject. You can choose to be offended by it, or you can acknowledge that his posting style is "brutally honest" and use that to further your knowledge. He's a great asset to this board, despite how he may come across and I know that personally, I have learned a ton from him.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I don't think Shannow has ever framed it in a manner that would indicate that "bad things would happen", simply that a lower grade allows for more wear in certain areas. If one can digest that point without jumping to the conclusion that he's not implying (pile of failed engines) then all is well. It's that fundamental misinterpretation that results in these sort of engagements.
Please take this to PM if you feel the need to post incessantly. You've stated your points in the thread and now is the time to move on instead of wasting bandwidth. If you disagree then start your own site instead of filling this one up with posts. You're not supposed to post over and over and over in the same thread. State your point, maybe clarify a few things/answer a few questions then move on. Common courtesy which contradicts your username. Whew!
I don't think Shannow has ever framed it in a manner that would indicate that "bad things would happen", simply that a lower grade allows for more wear in certain areas. If one can digest that point without jumping to the conclusion that he's not implying (pile of failed engines) then all is well. It's that fundamental misinterpretation that results in these sort of engagements.
Please take this to PM if you feel the need to post incessantly. You've stated your points in the thread and now is the time to move on instead of wasting bandwidth. If you disagree then start your own site instead of filling this one up with posts. You're not supposed to post over and over and over in the same thread. State your point, maybe clarify a few things/answer a few questions then move on. Common courtesy which contradicts your username. Whew!
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
He didn't say that exact phrase that was mine, but he sure as heck meant it in his responses when questioned and how he went about pushing that 30wt's are better even when I specified I was talking about the 99% of users who will see no benefit.
As for the threads these discussions are far outnumbered by the what oil to use in my mini-van threads.
Sure, but those threads are short with few participants. So while their overall number may be higher, their length and participation rate is a fraction of that of any of the ones with technical merit. Which would you rather have? I'm in the latter camp.
And no, I wouldn't expect him to phrase it in that manner, nor would I expect him to mean it that way either. I've been involved in discussions with him on this board for what must be close to a decade now and I am well aware of his stance on the subject. You can choose to be offended by it, or you can acknowledge that his posting style is "brutally honest" and use that to further your knowledge. He's a great asset to this board, despite how he may come across and I know that personally, I have learned a ton from him.
If you look at the advanced threads it's mainly these few advanced folks going back and forth creating the length with some of the less advanced folks adding their $0.02 to the subject. I was trying to get at that there is far more of these $0.02 users than the advanced users in numbers or we would see a heck of a lot more advanced users making the threads far longer than the few folks that are currently.
I'm not offended by what Shannow said, I just dug me heels in on the subject because I stated my case and agreed with his papers but provided an argument as to why this doesn't translate well into the real world in terms of benefit to folks unless they want to run their engines for what is considered forever. He was the one that got all bent out of shape over it and then started this ridiculous thread to which I started my own to provide at least BITOG users experiences with 20wt's to further support my argument.
I don't doubt that he's an asset to the board. I just was having a lively discussion with him and he started to get bent out of shape over it because I wouldn't agree with his posts when I had a valid point. There is no need for that and it shouldn't be taken that way.
Originally Posted by StevieC
He didn't say that exact phrase that was mine, but he sure as heck meant it in his responses when questioned and how he went about pushing that 30wt's are better even when I specified I was talking about the 99% of users who will see no benefit.
As for the threads these discussions are far outnumbered by the what oil to use in my mini-van threads.
Sure, but those threads are short with few participants. So while their overall number may be higher, their length and participation rate is a fraction of that of any of the ones with technical merit. Which would you rather have? I'm in the latter camp.
And no, I wouldn't expect him to phrase it in that manner, nor would I expect him to mean it that way either. I've been involved in discussions with him on this board for what must be close to a decade now and I am well aware of his stance on the subject. You can choose to be offended by it, or you can acknowledge that his posting style is "brutally honest" and use that to further your knowledge. He's a great asset to this board, despite how he may come across and I know that personally, I have learned a ton from him.
If you look at the advanced threads it's mainly these few advanced folks going back and forth creating the length with some of the less advanced folks adding their $0.02 to the subject. I was trying to get at that there is far more of these $0.02 users than the advanced users in numbers or we would see a heck of a lot more advanced users making the threads far longer than the few folks that are currently.
I'm not offended by what Shannow said, I just dug me heels in on the subject because I stated my case and agreed with his papers but provided an argument as to why this doesn't translate well into the real world in terms of benefit to folks unless they want to run their engines for what is considered forever. He was the one that got all bent out of shape over it and then started this ridiculous thread to which I started my own to provide at least BITOG users experiences with 20wt's to further support my argument.
I don't doubt that he's an asset to the board. I just was having a lively discussion with him and he started to get bent out of shape over it because I wouldn't agree with his posts when I had a valid point. There is no need for that and it shouldn't be taken that way.
Last edited:
- Status
