Better put than what I wrote. Thanks.
Last edited:
Thicker oil civilization is taking over
- Thread starter OilUzer
- Start date
- Status
Please...only blanket statements and one-dimensional thinking are allowed here with this thick vs. thin garbage. A '69 Barracuda and a 2019 hybrid have the exact same oil needs and application results. 0w-16 water will only reflect oil technology circa 1980 and never the engine technology and will only allow the engine to last 50K miles tops.....20w-50 forever.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
I don't think that HTHS is everything (in normal applications). I think it depends on how well the oil maintains a protective film and that we shouldn't be simply using an oil because it has more headroom / higher HTHS assuming it's offering better protection than an oil that has a lower HTHS number but a better additive package that is better at providing a protective film due to a tough add-pack over a thicker base oil. Case & Point, Amsoil just launched a 0w16 oil with a HTHS of 2.38 which would mean by the logic of the thicker crowd that these engines should see abnormally high wear rates because it's below the 2.6 minimum level and I don't think this will be the case because the add-pack in the oil does the required job of keeping a protective film in between parts to keep them separated along with the engineering ensuring that a 0w16 oil will provide what is needed while still being able to take advantage of the fuel economy benefits a thinner oil can provide.
Just my $0.02.
An engine designed for xW-16 will generally have wider bearings and other design considerations to allow for the lower HTHS visc. The additive package fortification is more to deal with the result of more surfaces running in mixed/boundary.
I would not expect to see abnormally high wear rates in an engine designed and tested on xW-16. Using it in an application that does not allow for such a grade and calls for something significantly heavier would potentially be problematic however.
Viscosity is still how oil prevents friction. Add packs don't have that much effect.
It's also incorrect to think engines designed for 0W-16 will have wider bearings. A far more appropriate course of action is to reduce reciprocating mass. The greatest bearing loads are due to RPM and inertia. Unless the engine has 33 pounds of boost, then con rod bearing loads can exceed inertial loads.
Designs won't change much, if at all.
What will happen is that excessive oil temperatures will be managed more carefully.
Off topic a bit. Aircraft engines, such as the 111,000 HP GE-90 use very thin oils. Interestingly, the GE-90 has better HP to weight than modern Formula 1 engines. The design AND management of the engine is key.
Originally Posted by StevieC
I don't think that HTHS is everything (in normal applications). I think it depends on how well the oil maintains a protective film and that we shouldn't be simply using an oil because it has more headroom / higher HTHS assuming it's offering better protection than an oil that has a lower HTHS number but a better additive package that is better at providing a protective film due to a tough add-pack over a thicker base oil. Case & Point, Amsoil just launched a 0w16 oil with a HTHS of 2.38 which would mean by the logic of the thicker crowd that these engines should see abnormally high wear rates because it's below the 2.6 minimum level and I don't think this will be the case because the add-pack in the oil does the required job of keeping a protective film in between parts to keep them separated along with the engineering ensuring that a 0w16 oil will provide what is needed while still being able to take advantage of the fuel economy benefits a thinner oil can provide.
Just my $0.02.
An engine designed for xW-16 will generally have wider bearings and other design considerations to allow for the lower HTHS visc. The additive package fortification is more to deal with the result of more surfaces running in mixed/boundary.
I would not expect to see abnormally high wear rates in an engine designed and tested on xW-16. Using it in an application that does not allow for such a grade and calls for something significantly heavier would potentially be problematic however.
Viscosity is still how oil prevents friction. Add packs don't have that much effect.
It's also incorrect to think engines designed for 0W-16 will have wider bearings. A far more appropriate course of action is to reduce reciprocating mass. The greatest bearing loads are due to RPM and inertia. Unless the engine has 33 pounds of boost, then con rod bearing loads can exceed inertial loads.
Designs won't change much, if at all.
What will happen is that excessive oil temperatures will be managed more carefully.
Off topic a bit. Aircraft engines, such as the 111,000 HP GE-90 use very thin oils. Interestingly, the GE-90 has better HP to weight than modern Formula 1 engines. The design AND management of the engine is key.
Last edited:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
Originally Posted by Cujet
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
So because they goofed on designing the engine to meet the spec of a 20wt and the answer in this case is a 30wt that makes all 20wt applications bad and everyone should run to the 30wt on the shelf? You need to spend some time in the UOA section and look at all the vehicles running just fine on 20wt's without heap loads of metal showing up in their UOA's Look up my Journey that's a great example in the spectrum UOA's can show. Also what about 0w16? Toyota and Honda must have it out for their customers.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
So because they goofed on designing the engine to meet the spec of a 20wt and the answer in this case is a 30wt that makes all 20wt applications bad and everyone should run to the 30wt on the shelf? You need to spend some time in the UOA section and look at all the vehicles running just fine on 20wt's without heap loads of metal showing up in their UOA's Look up my Journey that's a great example in the spectrum UOA's can show. Also what about 0w16? Toyota and Honda must have it out for their customers.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Cujet
It's also incorrect to think engines designed for 0W-16 will have wider bearings. A far more appropriate course of action is to reduce reciprocating mass. The greatest bearing loads are due to RPM and inertia. Unless the engine has 33 pounds of boost, then con rod bearing loads can exceed inertial loads.
Designs won't change much, if at all.
Honda's design for 0w-16 included wider bearings, Shannow has covered this in the past:
Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, if you look in interesting articles, there's a heap of stuff, including from Honda where they are testing lower.
Invariably, when looking lower, they are redesigning engines with greater bearing swept surface areas and lower radial clearances to make these new lubes work...not backspeccing on existing designs.
Originally Posted by Cujet
What will happen is that excessive oil temperatures will be managed more carefully.
Which is already happening on engines running xW-20 with the thermal castration mechanisms now in use.
Originally Posted by Cujet
Off topic a bit. Aircraft engines, such as the 111,000 HP GE-90 use very thin oils. Interestingly, the GE-90 has better HP to weight than modern Formula 1 engines. The design AND management of the engine is key.
Yes, jet engines have always used very thin oils, the operation of a turbine isn't really comparable to that of a piston engine, since there are no reciprocating components.
It's also incorrect to think engines designed for 0W-16 will have wider bearings. A far more appropriate course of action is to reduce reciprocating mass. The greatest bearing loads are due to RPM and inertia. Unless the engine has 33 pounds of boost, then con rod bearing loads can exceed inertial loads.
Designs won't change much, if at all.
Honda's design for 0w-16 included wider bearings, Shannow has covered this in the past:
Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, if you look in interesting articles, there's a heap of stuff, including from Honda where they are testing lower.
Invariably, when looking lower, they are redesigning engines with greater bearing swept surface areas and lower radial clearances to make these new lubes work...not backspeccing on existing designs.
Originally Posted by Cujet
What will happen is that excessive oil temperatures will be managed more carefully.
Which is already happening on engines running xW-20 with the thermal castration mechanisms now in use.
Originally Posted by Cujet
Off topic a bit. Aircraft engines, such as the 111,000 HP GE-90 use very thin oils. Interestingly, the GE-90 has better HP to weight than modern Formula 1 engines. The design AND management of the engine is key.
Yes, jet engines have always used very thin oils, the operation of a turbine isn't really comparable to that of a piston engine, since there are no reciprocating components.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Cujet
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
So because they goofed on designing the engine to meet the spec of a 20wt and the answer in this case is a 30wt that makes all 20wt applications bad and everyone should run to the 30wt on the shelf? You need to spend some time in the UOA section and look at all the vehicles running just fine on 20wt's without heap loads of metal showing up in their UOA's Look up my Journey that's a great example in the spectrum UOA's can show. Also what about 0w16? Toyota and Honda must have it out for their customers.
A little tale:
Me: Honey, you look nice today!
Her: So what you are saying is, I looked terrible yesterday.
I said nothing of the sort. And you know that UOA results often don't indicate actual engine wear rates or lifespan. They only indicate a trend and can point to problems when massive changes are evident.
What I indicated is that proper design is key, as is temperature management. I gave one example of many, where sufficient oil viscosity is the answer. GM balancer chains and Ford's cam phasers and timing chains also come to mind.
Originally Posted by Cujet
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
So because they goofed on designing the engine to meet the spec of a 20wt and the answer in this case is a 30wt that makes all 20wt applications bad and everyone should run to the 30wt on the shelf? You need to spend some time in the UOA section and look at all the vehicles running just fine on 20wt's without heap loads of metal showing up in their UOA's Look up my Journey that's a great example in the spectrum UOA's can show. Also what about 0w16? Toyota and Honda must have it out for their customers.
A little tale:
Me: Honey, you look nice today!
Her: So what you are saying is, I looked terrible yesterday.
I said nothing of the sort. And you know that UOA results often don't indicate actual engine wear rates or lifespan. They only indicate a trend and can point to problems when massive changes are evident.
What I indicated is that proper design is key, as is temperature management. I gave one example of many, where sufficient oil viscosity is the answer. GM balancer chains and Ford's cam phasers and timing chains also come to mind.
Last edited:
They do have an observable range but not the full range yes as I have stated before. But again if there was increased wear there would be in the observable range as well as the non-observable range of UOA's because wear doesn't discriminate.
Originally Posted by Cujet
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
Have any proof to back up that statement?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
Have any proof to back up that statement?
Originally Posted by turnbowm
Originally Posted by Cujet
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
Have any proof to back up that statement?
A possibility of 1.2 million cars with manufacturing metal savings left in the engine during 4 model years of production? I doubt any factory QA department is zombied out enough to let that many cars leave with messed up engines due to poor QA during manufacturing.
Originally Posted by Cujet
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/hyundai-and-kia-recall-1-2-million-cars-for-engine-failures
https://www.classlawgroup.com/hyundai-sonata-engine-failure/
They claim it's due to metal shavings. This has been debunked. It's due to improper lubrication and rapid wear. The solution is, unfortunately for you thin oil types, more viscosity.
Have any proof to back up that statement?
A possibility of 1.2 million cars with manufacturing metal savings left in the engine during 4 model years of production? I doubt any factory QA department is zombied out enough to let that many cars leave with messed up engines due to poor QA during manufacturing.
It wasn't metal shavings. If it were, the bearings would be trashed instantly. They wouldn't make it 30-70,000 miles before turning into a rattle box. The revised engines had a different balance shaft/oil pump assembly, different oil pan, and different oil dipstick. The ones that passed "the test" got a new dipstick with allowance for more oil in the sump. And they made (MADE) us, under penalty of not paying the claim, put the oil they supplied in after the recall. Which happens to have been 5w-30 Mobil conventional. It's an oil related problem, for sure. Not swarf in the galleries.
Originally Posted by StevieC
I don't think that HTHS is everything (in normal applications). I think it depends on how well the oil maintains a protective film and that we shouldn't be simply using an oil because it has more headroom / higher HTHS assuming it's offering better protection than an oil that has a lower HTHS number but a better additive package that is better at providing a protective film due to a tough add-pack over a thicker base oil.
I want to rely on more than bare minimum HTHS viscosity to keep parts separated and not rubbing on each other ... not additives that kind of help reduce wear when parts actually do touch each other because of lack of enough MOFT. Any time two parts rub on each other, there's going to be wear no matter how good the anti-wear additives are.
I don't think that HTHS is everything (in normal applications). I think it depends on how well the oil maintains a protective film and that we shouldn't be simply using an oil because it has more headroom / higher HTHS assuming it's offering better protection than an oil that has a lower HTHS number but a better additive package that is better at providing a protective film due to a tough add-pack over a thicker base oil.
I want to rely on more than bare minimum HTHS viscosity to keep parts separated and not rubbing on each other ... not additives that kind of help reduce wear when parts actually do touch each other because of lack of enough MOFT. Any time two parts rub on each other, there's going to be wear no matter how good the anti-wear additives are.
The mixed/boundary stuff has always been referred to as the "controlled wear" regime...sans additives, friction goes up and wear skyrockets.
Additives allow the contact to provide slightly lower friction than even the proper hydrodynamic, while "controlling" the wear to acceptable levels.
The next problem in the discussion is that the cars make it to the graveyard, so in spite of the statements quoted about "assuming better protection", we'll be accused of claiming a pile of failed engines, and no proof of "better"...that's the way they all play.
It IS better protection, but as per my arguments all along, for over a decade...if it gets to the graveyard intact, and saves the owner some fuel, then the TRADEOFF (and it is one) is worthwhile to the average consumer.
Your clearcoat will last to the graveyard also...some people like theirs prettier than others, and will spend more.
Your car will make it to the graveyard on OEM airfilters, and without underbody gunk...but some people feel better with the "added" protection over what's normally aacceptable
Additives allow the contact to provide slightly lower friction than even the proper hydrodynamic, while "controlling" the wear to acceptable levels.
The next problem in the discussion is that the cars make it to the graveyard, so in spite of the statements quoted about "assuming better protection", we'll be accused of claiming a pile of failed engines, and no proof of "better"...that's the way they all play.
It IS better protection, but as per my arguments all along, for over a decade...if it gets to the graveyard intact, and saves the owner some fuel, then the TRADEOFF (and it is one) is worthwhile to the average consumer.
Your clearcoat will last to the graveyard also...some people like theirs prettier than others, and will spend more.
Your car will make it to the graveyard on OEM airfilters, and without underbody gunk...but some people feel better with the "added" protection over what's normally aacceptable
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by Shannow
The mixed/boundary stuff has always been referred to as the "controlled wear" regime...sans additives, friction goes up and wear skyrockets.
Additives allow the contact to provide slightly lower friction than even the proper hydrodynamic, while "controlling" the wear to acceptable levels.
The next problem in the discussion is that the cars make it to the graveyard, so in spite of the statements quoted about "assuming better protection", we'll be accused of claiming a pile of failed engines, and no proof of "better"...that's the way they all play.
It IS better protection, but as per my arguments all along, for over a decade...if it gets to the graveyard intact, and saves the owner some fuel, then the TRADEOFF (and it is one) is worthwhile to the average consumer.
Your clearcoat will last to the graveyard also...some people like theirs prettier than others, and will spend more.
Your car will make it to the graveyard on OEM airfilters, and without underbody gunk...but some people feel better with the "added" protection over what's normally aacceptable
Fair and completely logical post. But in all fairness to the other side, i don't think anyone in our recent threads said thin protects "better".
The mixed/boundary stuff has always been referred to as the "controlled wear" regime...sans additives, friction goes up and wear skyrockets.
Additives allow the contact to provide slightly lower friction than even the proper hydrodynamic, while "controlling" the wear to acceptable levels.
The next problem in the discussion is that the cars make it to the graveyard, so in spite of the statements quoted about "assuming better protection", we'll be accused of claiming a pile of failed engines, and no proof of "better"...that's the way they all play.
It IS better protection, but as per my arguments all along, for over a decade...if it gets to the graveyard intact, and saves the owner some fuel, then the TRADEOFF (and it is one) is worthwhile to the average consumer.
Your clearcoat will last to the graveyard also...some people like theirs prettier than others, and will spend more.
Your car will make it to the graveyard on OEM airfilters, and without underbody gunk...but some people feel better with the "added" protection over what's normally aacceptable
Fair and completely logical post. But in all fairness to the other side, i don't think anyone in our recent threads said thin protects "better".
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wemay
Fair and completely logical post. But in all fairness to the other side, i don't think anyone in our recent threads said thin protects "better".
Thanks, but...
"just as well" or "no worse", or the alternative "thick no better"...and notice the diatribe that was introduced into this silly thread earlier on, and the jabs in all the other threads.
When I first found the thread I wanted to post an Offspring song as a video refutation LOL (Come out and play...good song)
Fair and completely logical post. But in all fairness to the other side, i don't think anyone in our recent threads said thin protects "better".
Thanks, but...
"just as well" or "no worse", or the alternative "thick no better"...and notice the diatribe that was introduced into this silly thread earlier on, and the jabs in all the other threads.
When I first found the thread I wanted to post an Offspring song as a video refutation LOL (Come out and play...good song)
Originally Posted by 69Torino
It wasn't metal shavings. If it were, the bearings would be trashed instantly. They wouldn't make it 30-70,000 miles before turning into a rattle box. The revised engines had a different balance shaft/oil pump assembly, different oil pan, and different oil dipstick. The ones that passed "the test" got a new dipstick with allowance for more oil in the sump. And they made (MADE) us, under penalty of not paying the claim, put the oil they supplied in after the recall. Which happens to have been 5w-30 Mobil conventional. It's an oil related problem, for sure. Not swarf in the galleries.
Can you explain what you mean by "oil related problem"?
For my 2015 Ka 2.4L GDI, viscosities of 5W20, 5W30 and 10W30 are recommended/required in the OM, which should provide adequate lubrication for all situations. I assume the engine changes you refer to were made in MY 2015.
It wasn't metal shavings. If it were, the bearings would be trashed instantly. They wouldn't make it 30-70,000 miles before turning into a rattle box. The revised engines had a different balance shaft/oil pump assembly, different oil pan, and different oil dipstick. The ones that passed "the test" got a new dipstick with allowance for more oil in the sump. And they made (MADE) us, under penalty of not paying the claim, put the oil they supplied in after the recall. Which happens to have been 5w-30 Mobil conventional. It's an oil related problem, for sure. Not swarf in the galleries.
Can you explain what you mean by "oil related problem"?
For my 2015 Ka 2.4L GDI, viscosities of 5W20, 5W30 and 10W30 are recommended/required in the OM, which should provide adequate lubrication for all situations. I assume the engine changes you refer to were made in MY 2015.
Originally Posted by Shannow
When I first found the thread I wanted to post an Offspring song as a video refutation LOL (Come out and play...good song)
Yah gotta keep 'em separated.
When I first found the thread I wanted to post an Offspring song as a video refutation LOL (Come out and play...good song)
Yah gotta keep 'em separated.
Originally Posted by turnbowm
Originally Posted by 69Torino
It wasn't metal shavings. If it were, the bearings would be trashed instantly. They wouldn't make it 30-70,000 miles before turning into a rattle box. The revised engines had a different balance shaft/oil pump assembly, different oil pan, and different oil dipstick. The ones that passed "the test" got a new dipstick with allowance for more oil in the sump. And they made (MADE) us, under penalty of not paying the claim, put the oil they supplied in after the recall. Which happens to have been 5w-30 Mobil conventional. It's an oil related problem, for sure. Not swarf in the galleries.
Can you explain what you mean by "oil related problem"?
For my 2015 Ka 2.4L GDI, viscosities of 5W20, 5W30 and 10W30 are recommended/required in the OM, which should provide adequate lubrication for all situations. I assume the engine changes you refer to were made in MY 2015.
Your second question is much easier to answer. Yes the 2015 model year was rolled out with the revised bottom end on 2.4 and 2.0T engines. No worries there, I even have a 2015 Optima 2.4 in my driveway.
The first question, I wish I knew the actual reason for the failures, to exactness, but I don't. I only have context clues from having dozens of them apart on engine stands, even before the recall. I have a time lapse video of myself building a Kia 2.4 in 6 hours, condensed to 30 seconds. It's an awesome video. Kia maintained a stiff upper lip on the issue.
It was almost always rod bearing number 2, and sometimes number 4. When it was number 4 that was locked up I had to blast through the aluminum bed plate with an air hammer to access the rod bolts to loosen them and rotate the engine to remove the torque converter bolts. Major pain. I digress... knowing what I've seen and been through, I believe a good Synthetic 5w-30 is the elixir on these engines. Hope this helps a little.
Originally Posted by 69Torino
It wasn't metal shavings. If it were, the bearings would be trashed instantly. They wouldn't make it 30-70,000 miles before turning into a rattle box. The revised engines had a different balance shaft/oil pump assembly, different oil pan, and different oil dipstick. The ones that passed "the test" got a new dipstick with allowance for more oil in the sump. And they made (MADE) us, under penalty of not paying the claim, put the oil they supplied in after the recall. Which happens to have been 5w-30 Mobil conventional. It's an oil related problem, for sure. Not swarf in the galleries.
Can you explain what you mean by "oil related problem"?
For my 2015 Ka 2.4L GDI, viscosities of 5W20, 5W30 and 10W30 are recommended/required in the OM, which should provide adequate lubrication for all situations. I assume the engine changes you refer to were made in MY 2015.
Your second question is much easier to answer. Yes the 2015 model year was rolled out with the revised bottom end on 2.4 and 2.0T engines. No worries there, I even have a 2015 Optima 2.4 in my driveway.
The first question, I wish I knew the actual reason for the failures, to exactness, but I don't. I only have context clues from having dozens of them apart on engine stands, even before the recall. I have a time lapse video of myself building a Kia 2.4 in 6 hours, condensed to 30 seconds. It's an awesome video. Kia maintained a stiff upper lip on the issue.
It was almost always rod bearing number 2, and sometimes number 4. When it was number 4 that was locked up I had to blast through the aluminum bed plate with an air hammer to access the rod bolts to loosen them and rotate the engine to remove the torque converter bolts. Major pain. I digress... knowing what I've seen and been through, I believe a good Synthetic 5w-30 is the elixir on these engines. Hope this helps a little.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked