Short start/stop/sit trips, best protection?
- Thread starter mattri
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Higher operating viscosity may require more VII. After shear, the viscosity may be lower.
Sorry, my bad...
Was not talking about 5w20 vs 5w30.
More like conventional 5w30 with a higher viscosity vs a synthetic 5w30.
My comments were preceded by and in the context of saying purchasing oil that met spec.
Ford spec is typically met by dino, semi, and full synthetic.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Higher operating viscosity may require more VII. After shear, the viscosity may be lower.
Sorry, my bad...
Was not talking about 5w20 vs 5w30.
More like conventional 5w30 with a higher viscosity vs a synthetic 5w30.
My comments were preceded by and in the context of saying purchasing oil that met spec.
Ford spec is typically met by dino, semi, and full synthetic.
So the thinnest dino that meets the ford spec ???
the premise makes no sense then.
HTHS loss is typically about half the KV100 loss(*)...and HTHS looks after bearings...which is what needs looking after at low revs/high loads.
the premise makes no sense then.
HTHS loss is typically about half the KV100 loss(*)...and HTHS looks after bearings...which is what needs looking after at low revs/high loads.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So the thinnest dino that meets the ford spec ???
the premise makes no sense then.
HTHS loss is typically about half the KV100 loss(*)...and HTHS looks after bearings...which is what needs looking after at low revs/high loads.
Nope.
I'm saying a syn with a HTHS of 3.1 might be preferable to a dino with HTHS of 3.2.
Depends on how it's made right? So you can't assume the higher viscosity will provide more protection throughout service life.
So the thinnest dino that meets the ford spec ???
the premise makes no sense then.
HTHS loss is typically about half the KV100 loss(*)...and HTHS looks after bearings...which is what needs looking after at low revs/high loads.
Nope.
I'm saying a syn with a HTHS of 3.1 might be preferable to a dino with HTHS of 3.2.
Depends on how it's made right? So you can't assume the higher viscosity will provide more protection throughout service life.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, moving targets/statements...have a nice day.
You ever met some bloke CLAPTRAP ???
He like that way.
Wow!
It's like you have PTSD about thin oil.
Not my fault if you misread what I say to fit your presumptions. Right at the beginning I clearly said to buy an oil within specification.
No moving targets or statements mate.
And then, right above this you can see I said "a conventional with a higher viscosity", and your next statement was "So the thinnest dino that meets the ford spec ???".
Seriously mate. You have to improve your comprehension.
OK, moving targets/statements...have a nice day.
You ever met some bloke CLAPTRAP ???
He like that way.
Wow!
It's like you have PTSD about thin oil.
Not my fault if you misread what I say to fit your presumptions. Right at the beginning I clearly said to buy an oil within specification.
No moving targets or statements mate.
And then, right above this you can see I said "a conventional with a higher viscosity", and your next statement was "So the thinnest dino that meets the ford spec ???".
Seriously mate. You have to improve your comprehension.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: Ducked
The highest viscosity, all else being equal, does indeed guarantee the best protection, and the lowest viscosity, all else being equal, guarantees the worst protection.
Indeed. If all else is equal then that is correct.
But he cannot buy oil that is identically made apart from the viscosity.
So advising him to buy the highest viscosity oil does not guarantee the greatest protection.
Unless he is asking for a theoretical oil for a theoretical vehicle.
You skipped the first bit
"Viscosity was the only variable you specified, so its the variable I queried, and its the variable under consideration here. "
You advised him to get the lowest viscosity that meets the spec. You didn't say "It could be that some low viscosity oils are actually better than their viscosity would suggest"., nor did you make any specific recommendation of a superior low viscosity oil.
OK, I'm advising him to get the highest viscosity that meets the spec. Thats equally abstract but opposite. It might not guarantee the best possible protection, but I'd say its a better bet.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
The highest viscosity, all else being equal, does indeed guarantee the best protection, and the lowest viscosity, all else being equal, guarantees the worst protection.
Indeed. If all else is equal then that is correct.
But he cannot buy oil that is identically made apart from the viscosity.
So advising him to buy the highest viscosity oil does not guarantee the greatest protection.
Unless he is asking for a theoretical oil for a theoretical vehicle.
You skipped the first bit
"Viscosity was the only variable you specified, so its the variable I queried, and its the variable under consideration here. "
You advised him to get the lowest viscosity that meets the spec. You didn't say "It could be that some low viscosity oils are actually better than their viscosity would suggest"., nor did you make any specific recommendation of a superior low viscosity oil.
OK, I'm advising him to get the highest viscosity that meets the spec. Thats equally abstract but opposite. It might not guarantee the best possible protection, but I'd say its a better bet.
What would make one proper rated oil protect better that another proper rated oil? Maybe in arctic conditions a syn may do better or with a turbo maybe but the semis have turbos and run as hot temps as well and do fine coventionals running HDEOs.
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Shorter trips equals shorter OCI's if you want to protect your engine. Your UOA will tell you.
Yep, that's my view of oil changes as well. No need to lose sleep over which oil is best for this or that.
Despite what is being falsely regurgitated here, there is no oil type that deals better with fuel dilution over another. You either need to bump the starting viscosity, to account for the viscosity loss due to fuel dilution, or simply change the diluted oil.
Shorter trips equals shorter OCI's if you want to protect your engine. Your UOA will tell you.
Yep, that's my view of oil changes as well. No need to lose sleep over which oil is best for this or that.
Despite what is being falsely regurgitated here, there is no oil type that deals better with fuel dilution over another. You either need to bump the starting viscosity, to account for the viscosity loss due to fuel dilution, or simply change the diluted oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ducked
You skipped the first bit
"Viscosity was the only variable you specified, so its the variable I queried, and its the variable under consideration here. "
You advised him to get the lowest viscosity that meets the spec. You didn't say "It could be that some low viscosity oils are actually better than their viscosity would suggest"., nor did you make any specific recommendation of a superior low viscosity oil.
OK, I'm advising him to get the highest viscosity that meets the spec. Thats equally abstract but opposite. It might not guarantee the best possible protection, but I'd say its a better bet.
Let me ask you to recommend another oil then. Euro application requiring min HTHS of 3.5. Vehicle designed for autobahn but won't see over 80mph. Driven in a mild climate.
Do we choose the 0w40 solely because it has a HTHS of 3.9 or a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 with a lower HTHS?
You skipped the first bit
"Viscosity was the only variable you specified, so its the variable I queried, and its the variable under consideration here. "
You advised him to get the lowest viscosity that meets the spec. You didn't say "It could be that some low viscosity oils are actually better than their viscosity would suggest"., nor did you make any specific recommendation of a superior low viscosity oil.
OK, I'm advising him to get the highest viscosity that meets the spec. Thats equally abstract but opposite. It might not guarantee the best possible protection, but I'd say its a better bet.
Let me ask you to recommend another oil then. Euro application requiring min HTHS of 3.5. Vehicle designed for autobahn but won't see over 80mph. Driven in a mild climate.
Do we choose the 0w40 solely because it has a HTHS of 3.9 or a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 with a lower HTHS?
To the OP, I bet you’re sorry you asked your original question! Welcome to BITOG.
My suggestion: For LONG TERM reliability, sell the F-150 and buy a Tundra
My suggestion: For LONG TERM reliability, sell the F-150 and buy a Tundra
Originally Posted By: mtndew_dad
To the OP, I bet you’re sorry you asked your original question! Welcome to BITOG.
My suggestion: For LONG TERM reliability, sell the F-150 and buy a Tundra
LOL.
I'm also sorry for providing my opinion. But maybe that was the point.
To the OP, I bet you’re sorry you asked your original question! Welcome to BITOG.
My suggestion: For LONG TERM reliability, sell the F-150 and buy a Tundra
LOL.
I'm also sorry for providing my opinion. But maybe that was the point.
Originally Posted By: mattri
For example I could not drive it for a day or two, then start it up, drive maybe 2-3 miles to the grocery, shut it down, then 30 mins later start it up and drive back 2-3 miles home. Or on a weekend start up, drive 1-2 miles for coffee, hit the drive through and just go home. Or after basically sitting for a week I could take it on a 3hr highway drive to see family and then home.
3k or every 6 months
For example I could not drive it for a day or two, then start it up, drive maybe 2-3 miles to the grocery, shut it down, then 30 mins later start it up and drive back 2-3 miles home. Or on a weekend start up, drive 1-2 miles for coffee, hit the drive through and just go home. Or after basically sitting for a week I could take it on a 3hr highway drive to see family and then home.
3k or every 6 months
Thanks to all for the great replies.
Never sorry for asking a question here.
After reading through everything here and information from other places here's where I'm at:
Cold starts and short trips aren't the best things for engines. And yet that is the reality I am faced with.
Any number of work arounds become impractical and fail to address the reality of the situation. This truck does not get driven often and when it does it is usually a short drive of a few miles or occasionally an actual trip.
The truck before this was bought used and saw over 8 years of almost flawless service, would like to get at least 10 out of this new one.
Manual lists Motorcraft 5-20 semi syn, 5k OCIs.
Am considering using that oil and Motorcraft filter but going to a 3k/4mo OCI, make sure it gets changed 3x per year.
Perfect? No, but seems like a balanced approach while leaning toward more protection than less.
Thoughts?
Never sorry for asking a question here.
After reading through everything here and information from other places here's where I'm at:
Cold starts and short trips aren't the best things for engines. And yet that is the reality I am faced with.
Any number of work arounds become impractical and fail to address the reality of the situation. This truck does not get driven often and when it does it is usually a short drive of a few miles or occasionally an actual trip.
The truck before this was bought used and saw over 8 years of almost flawless service, would like to get at least 10 out of this new one.
Manual lists Motorcraft 5-20 semi syn, 5k OCIs.
Am considering using that oil and Motorcraft filter but going to a 3k/4mo OCI, make sure it gets changed 3x per year.
Perfect? No, but seems like a balanced approach while leaning toward more protection than less.
Thoughts?
Seems like a good plan
Short trips mostly impact oil longevity in winter months.
Your driving pattern wouldn't concern me in your warmer months and I'd go the full 5k miles then.
Our cars have a similar driving pattern to yours and run up to 18 months and between 5,000 and 9,000 miles on full synthetic, depending on how many longer trips took place within that. I ran semi syn once and stopped at 5,000 miles / 1 year.
UOAs have never shown any issues. No fuel, no water etc etc.
Your driving pattern wouldn't concern me in your warmer months and I'd go the full 5k miles then.
Our cars have a similar driving pattern to yours and run up to 18 months and between 5,000 and 9,000 miles on full synthetic, depending on how many longer trips took place within that. I ran semi syn once and stopped at 5,000 miles / 1 year.
UOAs have never shown any issues. No fuel, no water etc etc.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: Ducked
You skipped the first bit
"Viscosity was the only variable you specified, so its the variable I queried, and its the variable under consideration here. "
You advised him to get the lowest viscosity that meets the spec. You didn't say "It could be that some low viscosity oils are actually better than their viscosity would suggest"., nor did you make any specific recommendation of a superior low viscosity oil.
OK, I'm advising him to get the highest viscosity that meets the spec. Thats equally abstract but opposite. It might not guarantee the best possible protection, but I'd say its a better bet.
Let me ask you to recommend another oil then. Euro application requiring min HTHS of 3.5. Vehicle designed for autobahn but won't see over 80mph. Driven in a mild climate.
Do we choose the 0w40 solely because it has a HTHS of 3.9 or a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 with a lower HTHS?
Sorry, can't do that.
If I needed to use such skinny oils I'd try and find out about them, though that probably wouldn't be easy. For comparison, I've used SAE 40 and 15W40 in my current car, which, IIRC specs SAE 30 or 10W30.
What you suggest sounds reasonable, but in practice I'd be uncomfortable with anything starting with zero and might go for the 5w40. That's a predjudice and I have no technical defence for it.
Realising that my thick oil thing was largely intuitive, plus anecdotal accounts like this one
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils
Motor Oils - Fuel Economy vs. Wear
and opinions expressed by people on here who have a track record of seeming to know what they were talking about, I had a quick Google for easily accessible research on the relationship between viscosity and wear. As seems to be normal with basic oil-related questions, I didn't find much.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709
Low viscosity engine oils: Study of wear effects and oil key parameters in a heavy duty engine fleet test. Tribology International. Volume 94, February 2016, Pages 240-248
"Slight difference in wear was detected due to LVO, mainly dependent on engine design."
Low viscosity oil (LVO) was associated with more wear (though this was measured by emmission spectroscopy so is questionable) for the two types of diesel engines, especiially for the flat tappet design, but less wear for the CNG engine.
Macian, V., Tormos, B., Ruiz, S., Miró, G. et al., "Evaluation of Low Viscosity Engine Wear Effects and Oil Performance in Heavy Duty Engines Fleet Test," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-2797, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-2797.
From the online abstract (I don' pay for no steengkeeng SAE paper)
"Results indicate that oil performance and wear effects do not show abnormal patterns due to use of LVO."
Uh-huh. Interesting choice of words, rather suggestive of an agenda . This seems very likely to be the same study, so, since the LVO wear is higher, why not just say so? "do not show abnormal patterns due to use of LVO" obscures that fact, but in its context would imply that higher wear is normal for LVO.
http://pdf.blucher.com.br.s3-sa-east-1.amazonaws.com/engineeringproceedings/simea2016/PAP20.pdf
Low viscosity oils impact on Heavy Duty Diesel engine components
Edney Deschauer Rejowski, Dr. Eduardo Tomanik, Juliano Pallaoro Souza
MAHLE Metal Leve SA (Downloadable)
Compares "a SAE15W-40 (HTHS 3.7cP) currently used in Brazil and a 10W-30 (HTHS 2.9cP) candidate for the European next generation engine" but looks at some 0W/x oils as well. Lots of graphs showing greater wear on the lower viscosity oil, though the thicker oil showed more blowby, which I wouldn't have expected (see table 2)
There was some Google Books stuff as well but thats too bloody difficult to read.
So not a lot found, but for what its worth, it tends to support higher wear for lower viscosity oils
Originally Posted By: Ducked
You skipped the first bit
"Viscosity was the only variable you specified, so its the variable I queried, and its the variable under consideration here. "
You advised him to get the lowest viscosity that meets the spec. You didn't say "It could be that some low viscosity oils are actually better than their viscosity would suggest"., nor did you make any specific recommendation of a superior low viscosity oil.
OK, I'm advising him to get the highest viscosity that meets the spec. Thats equally abstract but opposite. It might not guarantee the best possible protection, but I'd say its a better bet.
Let me ask you to recommend another oil then. Euro application requiring min HTHS of 3.5. Vehicle designed for autobahn but won't see over 80mph. Driven in a mild climate.
Do we choose the 0w40 solely because it has a HTHS of 3.9 or a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 with a lower HTHS?
Sorry, can't do that.
If I needed to use such skinny oils I'd try and find out about them, though that probably wouldn't be easy. For comparison, I've used SAE 40 and 15W40 in my current car, which, IIRC specs SAE 30 or 10W30.
What you suggest sounds reasonable, but in practice I'd be uncomfortable with anything starting with zero and might go for the 5w40. That's a predjudice and I have no technical defence for it.
Realising that my thick oil thing was largely intuitive, plus anecdotal accounts like this one
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils
Motor Oils - Fuel Economy vs. Wear
and opinions expressed by people on here who have a track record of seeming to know what they were talking about, I had a quick Google for easily accessible research on the relationship between viscosity and wear. As seems to be normal with basic oil-related questions, I didn't find much.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709
Low viscosity engine oils: Study of wear effects and oil key parameters in a heavy duty engine fleet test. Tribology International. Volume 94, February 2016, Pages 240-248
"Slight difference in wear was detected due to LVO, mainly dependent on engine design."
Low viscosity oil (LVO) was associated with more wear (though this was measured by emmission spectroscopy so is questionable) for the two types of diesel engines, especiially for the flat tappet design, but less wear for the CNG engine.
Macian, V., Tormos, B., Ruiz, S., Miró, G. et al., "Evaluation of Low Viscosity Engine Wear Effects and Oil Performance in Heavy Duty Engines Fleet Test," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-2797, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-2797.
From the online abstract (I don' pay for no steengkeeng SAE paper)
"Results indicate that oil performance and wear effects do not show abnormal patterns due to use of LVO."
Uh-huh. Interesting choice of words, rather suggestive of an agenda . This seems very likely to be the same study, so, since the LVO wear is higher, why not just say so? "do not show abnormal patterns due to use of LVO" obscures that fact, but in its context would imply that higher wear is normal for LVO.
http://pdf.blucher.com.br.s3-sa-east-1.amazonaws.com/engineeringproceedings/simea2016/PAP20.pdf
Low viscosity oils impact on Heavy Duty Diesel engine components
Edney Deschauer Rejowski, Dr. Eduardo Tomanik, Juliano Pallaoro Souza
MAHLE Metal Leve SA (Downloadable)
Compares "a SAE15W-40 (HTHS 3.7cP) currently used in Brazil and a 10W-30 (HTHS 2.9cP) candidate for the European next generation engine" but looks at some 0W/x oils as well. Lots of graphs showing greater wear on the lower viscosity oil, though the thicker oil showed more blowby, which I wouldn't have expected (see table 2)
There was some Google Books stuff as well but thats too bloody difficult to read.
So not a lot found, but for what its worth, it tends to support higher wear for lower viscosity oils
OP, if winter cold starts are a concern, perhaps you could pre-heat?
Going further (and probably further than you'd want or need to go) you could install a pre-lube device. These contain oil pressurised while the engine is running, and release it on or just before startup to pressurise the oilways and bearings.
Going further (and probably further than you'd want or need to go) you could install a pre-lube device. These contain oil pressurised while the engine is running, and release it on or just before startup to pressurise the oilways and bearings.
In response to your research on thin vs thick oils, this thread was simply about choosing viscosity within his specification ie 5w20, not about differences between grades which I note you are researching after making your assertions.
You and your friend didn't seem to appreciate that this (choosing a 5w20 (or a non Euro 5w30 for certain Fords)) was the context within which making recommendations was taking place.
As such, his 5w20 choices are mostly between oils with HTHS of 2.6 or 2.7. How much more protection is he going to get if he chooses the 2.7 one instead of the 2.6 one?
If he chooses regular M1 with a HTHS of 2.75, is he getting more protection than M1 EP 0w20 which apparently has far more PAO but a HTHS of 2.7. Or than Mobil's most advanced oil, their AP with a HTHS of 2.6 which Mobil say offers their highest level of protection?
Differences in protection between these oils are not quantifiable nor will they result in any meaningful difference. So I said may as well choose the thinnest. Apparently, that was enough to make this into some sort of drama about thin vs thick oil.
You and your friend didn't seem to appreciate that this (choosing a 5w20 (or a non Euro 5w30 for certain Fords)) was the context within which making recommendations was taking place.
As such, his 5w20 choices are mostly between oils with HTHS of 2.6 or 2.7. How much more protection is he going to get if he chooses the 2.7 one instead of the 2.6 one?
If he chooses regular M1 with a HTHS of 2.75, is he getting more protection than M1 EP 0w20 which apparently has far more PAO but a HTHS of 2.7. Or than Mobil's most advanced oil, their AP with a HTHS of 2.6 which Mobil say offers their highest level of protection?
Differences in protection between these oils are not quantifiable nor will they result in any meaningful difference. So I said may as well choose the thinnest. Apparently, that was enough to make this into some sort of drama about thin vs thick oil.
- Status