The effects of 5W30 through small passages

[KEVINK0000]

Toyota

Ford

My non engineer mind finds this impressive. It looks strong to me, lol:

 

[KEVINK0000]

Found the pic, or close enough in my post above. It still seems short on metal to me, like a light duty hybrid engine. Call me crazy, but I still think there is something with it. The crank looks nice, the block doesn’t. But I’ve never seen one in person.

I personally think debris is likely to be the most significant contributor, but by no means the sole cause. There’s certainly a design aspect. Because you have to design something you can clean effectively. You have to design some robustness into the manufacturing process.

I think Toyota built the equivalent of an anti-anti-missile missile that shoots itself down sometimes.

You can’t draw from the well of tolerance indefinitely.

 

[Hohn]

Weird how back in the day small block engines with the 4 bolt main caps just hanging off the bottom of the block could handle up to a thousand horses and big blocks could handle up to 2,000.

Highly dubious.

 

[Hohn]

I found it interesting that the main bearing girdle has steel inserts. The top shell of the main bearing seats in the aluminum block. The bottom shell in steel. Aluminum has roughly twice the linear expansion coefficient of steel. It seems that would introduce an issue that would have to be engineered around, and maybe not a trivial one, given the close, critical clearances.

Is this a design that is being used successfully in other engines? This is the first I've seen of this. Engine design and anything other than very basic metallurgy are not in my wheelhouse.

Ed

It’s probably not steel, more likely to be ductile iron or cast iron. Better machinability and surface finishing.

And the way these are designed, the iron part is loaded in compression and has a pretty comparable thermal expansion coefficient. There is a good bit of engineering to make these work, but absolutely the design can be quite capable.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Highly dubious.

Yes the absolute number claim here I can’t agree with, but there was definitely more margin in those days. A 1000 hp FI small block is going to have some problems keeping together with stock block and 4 bolts. 600-700 maybe yes I can agree with. But I agree with the essential sentiment. Bottom ends generally were overbuilt in years past, now it’s like what had been learned in the last 50 years has been challenged, and the challenges don’t always yield the fruits intended.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Topside of Toyota. Again, compared to the Ford and the previous NA Toyota block posted by @ESP9935 it seems light duty oriented. I know appearances are not everything, but there's definitely a deliberate effort to reduce metal in this design. It may not be the issue at all, but it's worthy of note at least, I think.

 

[CJE]

Isn't the difference between 0W20 oil and 5W30 oil really just the viscosity difference between 0 weight oil and 5 weight oil?

 

[tired]

viscosity difference between 0 weight oil and 5 weight oil?

@kschachn gonna pop an aneurysm

There is no such thing as 0 or 5 weight oil. The winter rating refers to its suitability for use at different startup temperatures.

Please read the pinned thread on winter rating.

 

[Pablo]

@kschachn gonna pop an aneurysm

There is no such thing as 0 or 5 weight oil. The winter rating refers to its suitability for use at different startup temperatures.

Please read the pinned thread on winter rating.

I was going to just type "NO".

 

[Astro14]

Isn't the difference between 0W20 oil and 5W30 oil really just the viscosity difference between 0 weight oil and 5 weight oil?

No.

Just.

No.

 

[Astro14]

Time to read up. I’m fascinated by people who join the site, and start discussing motor oil without having read through all of the information on the site outside of the forums.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/category/viscosity/

https://bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/

 

[ltslimjim]

Time to read up. I’m fascinated by people who join the site, and start discussing motor oil without having read through all of the information on the site outside of the forums.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/category/viscosity/

https://bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-101/

To be fair, we’ve got a world conditioned to look for answers to a specific thing without challenging their prior understanding or assumptions before asking such a question. It’s why AI slop is just that. Critical thinking isn’t as fast, but it’s accuracy is so much more likely to eventually lead you to the answer.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Isn't the difference between 0W20 oil and 5W30 oil really just the viscosity difference between 0 weight oil and 5 weight oil?

The W ("Winter") rating of a multi-viscosity oil is based on totally different specifications/requirements per SAE J300 as the hot viscosity specs. The way the oil is tested is totally different for a W grade than the KV100 grade (KV100 means the Kinematic Viscosity at 100C).

You can compare W grades to W grades, and hot KV100 grades to each other. For instance, all 5W grade rated oils must meet all the specs of a 5W oil in SAE J300. And all hot grades must meet all the J300 specs for their rated KV100 viscosity grade. Here's what SAE J300 defines.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Isn't it funny how all of these engines built to these tight tolerances in other countries the user manuals say 30 weight is alright LOL.

 

[JimsGarageToys]

2.5 dynamic force is specd 0w-16 and 10k and there are tons of them out there now approaching 200k miles without issue. Personally I don’t but I don’t think this is the issue.

But this isn't a turbocharged engine, heat and oil temps are much lower.

 

[Hohn]

Yes the absolute number claim here I can’t agree with, but there was definitely more margin in those days. A 1000 hp FI small block is going to have some problems keeping together with stock block and 4 bolts. 600-700 maybe yes I can agree with. But I agree with the essential sentiment. Bottom ends generally were overbuilt in years past, now it’s like what had been learned in the last 50 years has been challenged, and the challenges don’t always yield the fruits intended.

Mopar big block were famous for cracking through the main webs, and that’s on 440s with a comparably short 3.75” stroke and nice long 6.76” rods.

There’s a reason they added crossbolts for the 426 hemi block. And still you’ll have evidence of main cap fretting in hard run Hemis at STOCK power levels.

Lots of old block designs were based on what they could pull off in casting. And because they didn’t really understand block stress flows as well as we do now, those old blocks often carried a lot of extra “beef” that did no good whatsoever because it contributed no useful strength.

So in one sense, there was more margin in some area. But generally. They had a more dead weight than actually useful strength.

I had an old “a” engine 318 in my 1967 coronet (two bolt valve covers, the pre-1967 318) and that thing was incredibly beefy. Could be bored 0.100 over easily. The later 318s were “Lightweight A engines”— hence the LA designation for all classic mopar small blocks from 1967 to the 1992 Magnum revision (which is still fundamentally an LA engine).

But the old 318, with all its “beef” wasn’t fundamentally capable of more power. It just just heavier.

I don’t know Ford or Chevy engines as well as Mopars, and I know that over the years the other guys made some famously robust bottom ends (ford Cleveland comes to mind). But that beef was often not intentional— it was reflective of the limitations of engineering at the time, and they just brute forced what they couldn’t get good data on.


I think engine engineers have finally figured out that bottom ends *stiffness*—not strength per se—is they key thing you need. You need to keep your clearances intact as the crank is trying its best to spin a bearing. That’s tough to do at high RPM and cylinder pressures where the crank journals and mains are no longer round or even parallel to each other.

 

[ARB1977]

That bottom end is about as stiff as you'll ever see. I doubt it.

In Dave’s video he mentions the engine could double its horsepower.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yes the absolute number claim here I can’t agree with, but there was definitely more margin in those days. A 1000 hp FI small block is going to have some problems keeping together with stock block and 4 bolts. 600-700 maybe yes I can agree with. But I agree with the essential sentiment. Bottom ends generally were overbuilt in years past, now it’s like what had been learned in the last 50 years has been challenged, and the challenges don’t always yield the fruits intended.

The stock 2-bolt 302 blocks were good for about 525-550 wheel HP with a crank-driven blower, more with a turbo, as long as you didn't try to spin them to the moon. Just using 15%, that's ~600-630HP in a 2-bolt block.

The Modular blocks were/are MUCH stronger, but the forged powder rods limited them in stock form. The '03/04 Cobra engine, which had much better internals, would easily go over 1,000HP with the stock guts. These were a deep-skirted block with 4 bolt + cross-bolted mains.

 

[KEVINK0000]

Not for long I think.
The 3.5 EB I can see that. The Toy…
Man, I’m not a believer in that. No way.

In Dave’s video he mentions the engine could double its horsepower.

 

[tired]

In Dave’s video he mentions the engine could double its horsepower.

Someone actually watched a video to the end. I’m impressed.