Recommended Oil Differences

[Hamltnblue]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
... Yes, it would be 25% thicker.
Going from 16 to 20 is 4 points higher.
Divide 4 by the original 16 and you get .25 or 1/4.
Do you really seriously believe viscosity is directly proportional to the "points" of the grade designation? In that case 0W-x would have no viscosity at all when cold, huh?

Thickness is the common term when describing viscosity.
When you talk to any common person about oil, higher viscosity is typically described as thicker. Rarely will someone describe it as more free flowing at a specific temperature.
And whatever the scale being used. 16 to 20 on any scale would be 25% higher, unless the scale is curved.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
And whatever the scale being used. 16 to 20 on any scale would be 25% higher, unless the scale is curved.

Okay sure. What exactly do you know about the oil grading system however? Just the fact that you posted that picture as proof does say a lot.

You're getting maximum run out of this, aren't you?

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

lol

20 weight at 9.2 cSt @ 100C vs 30 weight 9.6 cSt @ 100C. The 30 weight is obviously 50% thicker!

 

[Hamltnblue]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
And whatever the scale being used. 16 to 20 on any scale would be 25% higher, unless the scale is curved.

Okay sure. What exactly do you know about the oil grading system however? Just the fact that you posted that picture as proof does say a lot.

You're getting maximum run out of this, aren't you?


Oil grading system? I know what I learned as a teen in the 70's and my time in the navy around steam turbines. The kind on Nuc subs. Higher viscosity is described as thicker, lower as thinner.

Picture only shows that increasing to 20 didn't drop the gas mileage in real life. At least not on the highway.
Maximum run? Not actually. I really do want to know why a manufacturer (and coolaid drinkers) will push incorrect information to it's customers and base their warranty on it.
Besides I'm not the one with 11,000+ posts.
Maybe a few people visiting the forum will learn something at the same time.

 

[kschachn]

Hey why don't you answer some of the other people in this thread, not just me. I'm not that special.

 

[Hamltnblue]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Hey why don't you answer some of the other people in this thread, not just me. I'm not that special.

Because you're the only one asking questions. I try to answer when asked. The others added to the discussion.
By the way, if you do a search with your name and Thick, you'll find plenty of times when you berate people and also times when you refer to oil as thick and thin.
Here's one.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...ead-of-recommended-5w20-5w30#Post5152921

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
Originally Posted by kschachn
Hey why don't you answer some of the other people in this thread, not just me. I'm not that special.

Because you're the only one asking questions. I try to answer when asked. The others added to the discussion.
By the way, if you do a search with your name and Thick, you'll find plenty of times when you berate people and also times when you refer to oil as thick and thin.
Here's one.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...ead-of-recommended-5w20-5w30#Post5152921

Oh no, heavens look back through this thread and you'll see that others berate you far more than I do. I mostly asked you questions. Maybe you missed some of those posts.

And that link, what I said was exactly true and I don't see a hint of berating in there. Would you rather have incorrect information promulgated on here than correct? I think you have me confused with someone else in this thread about the "thick" and "thin" terminology, I really do. Maybe you intended to respond to CR94? That kind of gets back to my suggestion that you reply to others and not just me.

 

[Hamltnblue]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
Originally Posted by kschachn
Hey why don't you answer some of the other people in this thread, not just me. I'm not that special.

Because you're the only one asking questions. I try to answer when asked. The others added to the discussion.
By the way, if you do a search with your name and Thick, you'll find plenty of times when you berate people and also times when you refer to oil as thick and thin.
Here's one.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...ead-of-recommended-5w20-5w30#Post5152921

Oh no, heavens look back through this thread and you'll see that others berate you far more than I do. I mostly asked you questions. Maybe you missed some of those posts.

And that link, what I said was exactly true and I don't see a hint of berating in there. Would you rather have incorrect information promulgated on here than correct? I think you have me confused with someone else in this thread about the "thick" and "thin" terminology, I really do. Maybe you intended to respond to CR94? That kind of gets back to my suggestion that you reply to others and not just me.


Anyhow, I read more of your posts. You obviously know the topic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the forums here, what I understand is:
Tighter tolerances in a motor allows it to use a lower viscosity oil. (I believe it would be the rings and oil pump specifically). It does not prevent it from using a higher viscosity oil, as long as that viscosity doesn't impede the needed flow to the internal parts.
This would explain the Australian chart.

Looser tolerances in a motor results in the requirement for a higher minimum in viscosity. It could prevent a lower viscosity oil from being used for the opposite reason above.

In the end, the better manufactured motor Allows the lower viscosity oil to be used and doesn't necessarily require it.

I haven't read it from a manufacturers perspective, but the requirement for the low viscosity Only is because political standards dictate.

The threat I see is that by holding to the absolute minimum, there is not as much room for error if/when the fuel shears or becomes diluted by fuel.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted by Hamltnblue



Looser tolerances in a motor results in the requirement for a higher minimum in viscosity. It could prevent a lower viscosity oil from being used for the opposite reason above.





First research the difference in tolerances, and clearances. which do you mean?

 

[Hamltnblue]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
... Yes, it would be 25% thicker.
Going from 16 to 20 is 4 points higher.
Divide 4 by the original 16 and you get .25 or 1/4.
Do you really seriously believe viscosity is directly proportional to the "points" of the grade designation? In that case 0W-x would have no viscosity at all when cold, huh?

Yes.
0W would have a viscosity. It's simply the baseline for oil. I'm sure if you mixed a percentage of fuel into the oil it would flow even easier than original.
I would assume that it would have a negative rating at that point.
The 0W baseline was set many moons ago. If it was created today they would probably have lowered the standard flow rate for 0 in oil..

 

[Hamltnblue]

Originally Posted by spasm3
Originally Posted by Hamltnblue



Looser tolerances in a motor results in the requirement for a higher minimum in viscosity. It could prevent a lower viscosity oil from being used for the opposite reason above.





First research the difference in tolerances, and clearances. which do you mean?

Probably both.
From reading on the topic, what I get out of it is that tolerances result in varied clearances.
If a piston, bearing, or other moving part has a tolerance value for being out of round, it means that at some point around the surface parts may be a little closer than others, however so tiny.
A part made with a tolerance of .001% would be tighter, with less potential gaps than one that was manufactured to a .01%.

I also get that some do not understand the difference and simply repeat what they see and/or hear. (present company excluded)

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by Hamltnblue
... Going from 16 to 20 is 4 points higher.
Divide 4 by the original 16 and you get .25 or 1/4.
In some ways, it's unfortunate and confusing that the oil viscosity grading system has evolved to use numbers to describe the grades, when those numbers are not measurements of physical properties, just category names.
Imagine if what we know as xW-30 was instead officially called "Medium" viscosity (at 100°C), and xW-20 was called "Medium-thin," xW-16 was called "Thin," xW-40 was called "medium-thick," and so on for other grades. Then nobody would try to perform math operations on the words "Medium" and "Medium-thin."

On another hand, if you want to calculate the ratio of HTHS values associated with the viscosity categories, go right ahead. That would have some rational basis.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by CR94
In some ways, it's unfortunate and confusing that the oil viscosity grading system has evolved to use numbers to describe the grades, when those numbers are not measurements of physical properties, just category names.
Imagine if what we know as xW-30 was instead officially called "Medium" viscosity (at 100°C), and xW-20 was called "Medium-thin," xW-16 was called "Thin," xW-40 was called "medium-thick," and so on for other grades. Then nobody would try to perform math operations on the words "Medium" and "Medium-thin."
Agreed, it is especially egregious with the winter rating as those would be much better served by anything other than a number. Something like a letter rating system would work as they use for tires.

People are continuously misunderstanding what that winter rating means and confusing it as a "0W oil" and thinking it is thin. Either that or thinking it starts out as a 0W oil and increases in viscosity up as it warms.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by tig1
It was a 150K car when sold. Never had any real problems with it, but the 15-50 did make a negative difference.

The most positive difference was when it was sold?

I know when my '83 LTD mid size got totalled, that was its most shining day.