Redline Oil Compromises Mileage & HP??
- Thread starter Ron AKA
- Start date
- Status
If the lower HT/HS the more HP, then I'd like to know how people that have used GC and other ACEA A3 rated oils felt more power than other synthetics with lower HT/HS? I think they most likely are full of ****.
How many posts have we seen where people use the GC over M1 and claim the engine has more power? Doesn't make sense.
How many posts have we seen where people use the GC over M1 and claim the engine has more power? Doesn't make sense.
I agree. That is why I have settled on a 0w20 oil. Many seem to think the Xw number is only important in cold weather. However, 40 deg. C is pretty dam hot at least where I live. The other benefit is reduced wear during warm up.
Spreading misinformation rubs me the wrong way, especially when the correct information is right here in this very forum.
A lot of people (like me) come here to learn. When you proclaim you can pick the best oil by looking for the absolute lowest HTHS; or that the W number in a multigrade oil determines the viscosity at 40C, it has to be corrected or the usefulness of this site goes out the window.
A lot of people (like me) come here to learn. When you proclaim you can pick the best oil by looking for the absolute lowest HTHS; or that the W number in a multigrade oil determines the viscosity at 40C, it has to be corrected or the usefulness of this site goes out the window.
Can you post a link to a credible paper which shows that HTHS is not the critical factor in determining fuel efficiency and HP loss in gasoline engines? Is it just coincidence that Redline has a high HTHS and haven't qualified their oil to the new GF-4 standards? I'm here to learn too, but I need to see something to learn from, not just sarcastic comments.
This is how you quote a long post.
Redline 10w30
Question: Are they saying in the above quote that their 10w30 protects an engine better than an SM petroleum 10W-40?
Question: If this oil provides a thicker film than a petroleum 10W-40, then that would account for the decrease in fuel mileage compared to an SM petroleum 10w30 right?
Question: Are they saying in the above quote that their 10w30 protects an engine better than an SM petroleum 10W-40?
reinforces my view that xW-20, xw-30 etc means nothing, when compared to HTHS.
Higher HTHS lower economy, power and wear.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004339#000017
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010517#000000
Higher HTHS lower economy, power and wear.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004339#000017
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010517#000000
How can you have a thicker film with a lower viscosity?
Which film you talking about? Hydrodynamic or elastohydrodynamic lubrication film? What about thee film created at the boundary layer by the additives?
Ask Redline...quote:
Originally posted by Clyde65:
How can you have a thicker film with a lower viscosity?
Their oil is 10w30 which is the Thickness otherwise known as viscosity
They say it protects better than 10w40..
The viscosity determines the pumping loss. not the hths. I personally think that the hths has alot
to do with how well protected your engine is.
If you want the ultimate in fuel efficiency
go put some 0weight shock oil in there.. You will
gain 5mpg until the engine blows.
Also the linked paper is pretty far out of date
They also say in that article that you can have
fuel efficient 0w40.....
Redline isnt necessary in a daily driver. However
that does not mean it ruins your gas mileage.
Anything under 5% is pretty much a margin for error anyway unless you are running it for over a year.. as you have seasonal variance in mpg etc.
Which leads me to question its credibility on modern oils and formulas ie redline.
They also say in that article that you can have
fuel efficient 0w40.....
Redline isnt necessary in a daily driver. However
that does not mean it ruins your gas mileage.
Anything under 5% is pretty much a margin for error anyway unless you are running it for over a year.. as you have seasonal variance in mpg etc.
If you measure oil viscosity and engine wear, there comes a point where decreasing viscosity will start increasing wear. The wear you see will be determined empirically, ie. "dang, there went the bearings". While driving a car there will always be the worst case situation where you could use a thicker oil for protection. If you drive gently, you may never have a problem when another driver has significant problems driving differently. This is the fundamental truth of viscosity, "sometimes you need it, usually you don't". A test of 5-20W engine oil is "SAE #810330 Engine Oil Bearing Wear". It was found that for the taxi engines tested that thinner oils incurred more wear. The thinnest 5-20W had a very significant increase in engine failures. I don't think is is possible to generalize about what the "best" oil viscosity should be without defining the compleat engine duty cycle. All you can do is define an "adequate" viscosity for an estimated duty cycle.
I agree the paper is a bit dated (appears to be written in 2000), and would be very happy if someone could point me to a newer one of similar technical quality. However, if you look at the introduction of the paper when the author sets the scene of where oil is going and why, I think he deserves the "crystal ball" award. Here we are in 2006 with Ford, Toyota, Honda, & Mazda recommending GF-4/SM 5w20 oil with an HTHS viscosity of 2.6.
How can you put any credence in a research paper published in Feb. of 1981? Virtually no engines spec'd 5w20 for such severe service back then. And most 5w20s from that era were formulated for arctic type conditions, not severe service in normal temps.
I see some discussion about pumping loss. That factor did not seem to even make the list of significant loss items. See this table of where losses were estimated in a Mercedes engine and how they were affected by the different viscosity oils. The big hitters are the valve train, main bearings, and the piston assembly. You will note that thinner oil reduces friction and I would presume wear potential in the bearings and piston assembly. However, friction and I presume wear potential increases in the valve train.
I agree it is real, but it just did not seem to make the list of where losses were identified. Some of the other tests had many other areas identified if you read the paper. However, HP lost to pumping didn't seem to make it as a signfificant item. Just a guess but I would think the oil pump may be in the fractional HP range, and you would be talking some relatively small % change in that fractional HP. These other losses depending on the RPM and load are in the 2 HP or so range.
- Status
Similar threads
