Originally Posted By: peterdes
. . .
My father just purchased a Cessna 400 this month. He took me to the hanger tonight to show me the plane. I found 1 quart of oil in the "trunk" of the plane. Exxon 20w50. Then it hit me.
All of the high-performance and heavy-load engines I have seen or researched use a higher weight oil. I'm sure there is a reason for this.
This is the engine it has
"TCM TSIO-550-C six-cylinder, fuel-injected, twin turbocharged engine with dual intercoolers, the Cessna 400 boasts a max cruise speed of 235 knots (435 km/hr) and a range of 1,250 nautical miles (2,315 km) at economy cruise speeds. So you'll cruise higher in one of the world's fastest single-pistons in the sky."
Exxon 20w50
Peter: You can't deny the facts either, and you've overlooked several important ones. First, aviation piston engines are hardly comparable to car or light truck engines. First, the vast majority (apart from a few rare oddballs and experimentals) are air-cooled. Next, unlike automobile engines, aircraft engines are run at high throttle settings for extended periods of time. These facts alone make these engines much more akin to an air-cooled Porsche used only for racing. Different bearings, different clearances, different operational pattern. Not a good comparison on this basis alone.
Quote:
I know you thin oil guys will call me ignorant and not knowledgeable, But.
I don't see a reason to use a lightweight oil unless you live in rigid cold weather. Do you guys really think you know more than the top engineers who design and test these (heavy-duty/high-performance) engines?!
What reason is there NOT to use them? All the anti-thin "Chicken Littles" have been claiming that the sky is falling and our engines will soon be dying from 20 wt oils -- for well over eight years now. And still no mass destructions in sight.
And the counter-question for you is this: do you think you know more than the engineers at Honda, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, and so on. You don't think they all very carefully considered the move to 20 wt oils? Of course they did.
Quote:
Yeah, your toyota camry and ford focus say to use a 5w20. At the same time I turn my head to the tv and see a commercial of the camry boasting how it gets 1 mpg more than its competitor. Add in CAFE and it is obvious these low weight/low friction oils are just to squeeze out that extra MPG.
So??? Quite predictably, car makers are doing all they can to improve fuel economy, both for legal and sales reasons. It simply does not follow from that that the oils they recommend are not up to the task of protecting the engines for which they are recommended.
Quote:
Some will say, "yeah Ford/Toyota have top engineers too and they know what is best for the engine!" Yep, they sure do have good engineers. But do you honestly think their goal is to spec an engine oil for the protection of the engine? [censored] no. They just care about sales, and right now, MPG sells.
That's illogical too. OTR truckers have a lot more to gain and lose as the price of fuel swings back and forth. If selling fuel economy was the only thing engineers cared about, they'd be pushing 0w-10 oils for long-haul truckers. Buy they're not -- instead, they recommend the oils they feel are best for that application. And again, over eight years in to the 20 wt oil era, and still no sign of a general problem. If 20s weren't up to the task, we'd already be in the middle of a scandal, turbocharged by the internet, that would make the Toyota sludge thing look like child's play.
Quote:
I'm not saying your engine is going to [censored] out if you use 0w20. Because, well, they don't. They oil is "suitable." But, is it providing the best protection? I doubt it.
Well, allow me to address those doubts. Here is an array of links to 20 wt UOAs on our forum. Ten from the earliest days, and ten very recent ones. I posted this earlier, and will keep recycling it...
Shows a pattern of great protection. I invite one of you doubters to assemble a comparable array that shows 20s not living up to the task.
Ancient 20 wt UOAs from BITOG:
Old 20 UOA-1
Old 20 UOA-2
Old 20 UOA-3
Old 20 UOA-4
Old 20 UOA-5
Old 20 UOA-6
Old 20 UOA-7
Old 20 UOA-8
Old 20 UOA-9
Old 20 UOA-10
And the newest ten:
New 20 UOA-1
New 20 UOA-2
New 20 UOA-3
New 20 UOA-4
New 20 UOA-5
New 20 UOA-6
New 20 UOA-7
New 20 UOA-8
New 20 UOA-9
New 20 UOA-10
Quote:
Your car may not tell the difference between 0w20 and 15w50. But that isn't the point.
Isn't this exactly the point? If the engine can not "tell the difference", that is, it is protected just as well with the 20, then why not use the 20, and enjoy the lower fuel burn?
Quote:
If the 0w20 provided better protection and was a "better" oil, if temperature permits, then these high-load/high-performance engines would spec an oil on the thin side of the scale. They would spec 0w10 or 0w5. But they don't. They spec an oil on the heavy side of the scale, 15w50's and 20w50s. You can't deny the "facts."
Interesting and telling that you put "better" in quotes. This reflects the basic flaw in these "thick is better" arguments. Thick is not better. Thick is thick. And thin is thin. Period. The unstated assumption is that engines are really all the same, and it's up to the humans to use a "better" oil, not a "worse" one.
Newsflash: use the oil that's appropriate to your application, because they're not all the same. Using a 20 wt oil in an old worn air-cooled Porsche that's driven hard would be foolish. The same characteristic of the oil that provides a fuel economy benefit would cause other issues, such as consumption, and if the clearances are worn enough, perhaps an oil pressure issue as the pump would be unlikely to be able to keep pressure up. On the other hand, using a 20w-50 in a new Toyota or Honda engine that will simply never, ever create the conditions which might actually call for a thick oil wastes fuel, and invites problems with cold engine flow. BGN points out that OP rises quickly on start, but overlooks that there's more to that story (were there not, you could just run 20w-50 in North Dakota in the winter -- would you do that?)
. . .
My father just purchased a Cessna 400 this month. He took me to the hanger tonight to show me the plane. I found 1 quart of oil in the "trunk" of the plane. Exxon 20w50. Then it hit me.
All of the high-performance and heavy-load engines I have seen or researched use a higher weight oil. I'm sure there is a reason for this.
This is the engine it has
"TCM TSIO-550-C six-cylinder, fuel-injected, twin turbocharged engine with dual intercoolers, the Cessna 400 boasts a max cruise speed of 235 knots (435 km/hr) and a range of 1,250 nautical miles (2,315 km) at economy cruise speeds. So you'll cruise higher in one of the world's fastest single-pistons in the sky."
Exxon 20w50
Peter: You can't deny the facts either, and you've overlooked several important ones. First, aviation piston engines are hardly comparable to car or light truck engines. First, the vast majority (apart from a few rare oddballs and experimentals) are air-cooled. Next, unlike automobile engines, aircraft engines are run at high throttle settings for extended periods of time. These facts alone make these engines much more akin to an air-cooled Porsche used only for racing. Different bearings, different clearances, different operational pattern. Not a good comparison on this basis alone.
Quote:
I know you thin oil guys will call me ignorant and not knowledgeable, But.
I don't see a reason to use a lightweight oil unless you live in rigid cold weather. Do you guys really think you know more than the top engineers who design and test these (heavy-duty/high-performance) engines?!
What reason is there NOT to use them? All the anti-thin "Chicken Littles" have been claiming that the sky is falling and our engines will soon be dying from 20 wt oils -- for well over eight years now. And still no mass destructions in sight.
And the counter-question for you is this: do you think you know more than the engineers at Honda, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, and so on. You don't think they all very carefully considered the move to 20 wt oils? Of course they did.
Quote:
Yeah, your toyota camry and ford focus say to use a 5w20. At the same time I turn my head to the tv and see a commercial of the camry boasting how it gets 1 mpg more than its competitor. Add in CAFE and it is obvious these low weight/low friction oils are just to squeeze out that extra MPG.
So??? Quite predictably, car makers are doing all they can to improve fuel economy, both for legal and sales reasons. It simply does not follow from that that the oils they recommend are not up to the task of protecting the engines for which they are recommended.
Quote:
Some will say, "yeah Ford/Toyota have top engineers too and they know what is best for the engine!" Yep, they sure do have good engineers. But do you honestly think their goal is to spec an engine oil for the protection of the engine? [censored] no. They just care about sales, and right now, MPG sells.
That's illogical too. OTR truckers have a lot more to gain and lose as the price of fuel swings back and forth. If selling fuel economy was the only thing engineers cared about, they'd be pushing 0w-10 oils for long-haul truckers. Buy they're not -- instead, they recommend the oils they feel are best for that application. And again, over eight years in to the 20 wt oil era, and still no sign of a general problem. If 20s weren't up to the task, we'd already be in the middle of a scandal, turbocharged by the internet, that would make the Toyota sludge thing look like child's play.
Quote:
I'm not saying your engine is going to [censored] out if you use 0w20. Because, well, they don't. They oil is "suitable." But, is it providing the best protection? I doubt it.
Well, allow me to address those doubts. Here is an array of links to 20 wt UOAs on our forum. Ten from the earliest days, and ten very recent ones. I posted this earlier, and will keep recycling it...
Ancient 20 wt UOAs from BITOG:
Old 20 UOA-1
Old 20 UOA-2
Old 20 UOA-3
Old 20 UOA-4
Old 20 UOA-5
Old 20 UOA-6
Old 20 UOA-7
Old 20 UOA-8
Old 20 UOA-9
Old 20 UOA-10
And the newest ten:
New 20 UOA-1
New 20 UOA-2
New 20 UOA-3
New 20 UOA-4
New 20 UOA-5
New 20 UOA-6
New 20 UOA-7
New 20 UOA-8
New 20 UOA-9
New 20 UOA-10
Quote:
Your car may not tell the difference between 0w20 and 15w50. But that isn't the point.
Isn't this exactly the point? If the engine can not "tell the difference", that is, it is protected just as well with the 20, then why not use the 20, and enjoy the lower fuel burn?
Quote:
If the 0w20 provided better protection and was a "better" oil, if temperature permits, then these high-load/high-performance engines would spec an oil on the thin side of the scale. They would spec 0w10 or 0w5. But they don't. They spec an oil on the heavy side of the scale, 15w50's and 20w50s. You can't deny the "facts."
Interesting and telling that you put "better" in quotes. This reflects the basic flaw in these "thick is better" arguments. Thick is not better. Thick is thick. And thin is thin. Period. The unstated assumption is that engines are really all the same, and it's up to the humans to use a "better" oil, not a "worse" one.
Newsflash: use the oil that's appropriate to your application, because they're not all the same. Using a 20 wt oil in an old worn air-cooled Porsche that's driven hard would be foolish. The same characteristic of the oil that provides a fuel economy benefit would cause other issues, such as consumption, and if the clearances are worn enough, perhaps an oil pressure issue as the pump would be unlikely to be able to keep pressure up. On the other hand, using a 20w-50 in a new Toyota or Honda engine that will simply never, ever create the conditions which might actually call for a thick oil wastes fuel, and invites problems with cold engine flow. BGN points out that OP rises quickly on start, but overlooks that there's more to that story (were there not, you could just run 20w-50 in North Dakota in the winter -- would you do that?)
