Originally Posted By: JAG
il_signore97 said:
thin perhaps not as good as i thought
- Thread starter salgra
- Start date
- Status
JOD,
Now we are moving in the right direction. Let's now drill down on what you have presented with intelligence and mutual reasonableness.
_____________________
Unfortunately, all but one of your identified treatises are purchased abstracts. They are priced as follows:
Effects of Valve Train Design Evolution on Motor Oil Anti-Wear Requirements : Abstract Cost 34£
Engine Friction and Bearing Wear. III. The Role of Elasticity in Bearing Performance: Abstract Cost $43
The Viscoelastic Properties of Multigrade Oils and Their Effect on Journal-Bearing Characteristics: Abstract Cost $39
Piston Ring Oil Film Thickness - The Effect of Viscosity: Abstract Cost $23
Influence of Piston Ring Gaps on Lubricating Oil Flow into the Combustion Chamber: Abstract Cost $23
I presume that you have read each of these abstracts, and that you have copies available. I'm happy to read them all. Otherwise, it is impossible to gauge either their relevance or weight to your position.
______________________
However, your last abstract, Improved Fuel Efficiency by Lubricant Design : A Review, R.I. Taylor & R.C. Coy, is apparently available and in public domain. And I did take the time to read it. Appropriate credit is given to the authors as cited below.
It speaks principally to the use of 20 weight oils to achieve fuel economy savings. The principal discussion headings present the thesis that a 20 weight engine oil will afford significant efficiency and friction advantages over heavier oils:
Modelling of Engine Friction & Fuel Economy Engine Tests
Detailed Engine Friction Modelling
Empirical Fuel Economy Engine Test Modelling
Engine Test Results
The authors' prime argument for improved fuel efficiency and reduced friction with the use of such lubricants appears well-evidenced. It is not necessary to cite these sections at length. It is well-established that oils of lighter viscosity present a reduced friction footprint over a heavier weight alternative.
But as to durability and wear, this article states specifically the following:
Impact on Durability
Durability In Gasoline Engines
"The potential disadvantage of moving to lower viscosity lubricants is the thinner oil film that is expected to exist between lubricated contacts within the engine. However, it should be remembered that in Europe, current oils have a relatively high viscosity (>3.5 mPa.s)compared to those marketed in the US and Japan. The move from oils that have High Temperature High Shear Viscosities (HTHSV) of 3.5 mPa.s to oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s is not expected to have a major effect on engine durability for modern gasoline engines. Indeed, some of these engines may well be running on 2.9 mPa.s oils in the USA or Japan. Durability may well be of more concern when moving from oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s to lower values (e.g. to 2.6 mPa.s)."
As to supporting field test data, it further states the following:
"It must be pointed out, however, that despite the arguments outlined above, lower viscosity lubricants still have to be extensively field tested to ensure that durability is maintained."
(emphasis added).
Additionally noteworthy as to durability field testing, it states under "Durability In Heavy Duty Diesel Engines":
"OEMs such as Volvo and Scania prefer to qualify oils using long duration field trials. The trials typically take 2 years, which is becoming an issue since that is typically the timescale between new lubricant specifications! However, this approach does at least ensure that the lubricant performs adequately in the field, under realistic operating conditions, and the trials involve engine strip downs to ensure that component durability is acceptable."
_________________________
While this one article supports the use of 20 weight oils as a means to improve fuel efficiency, other than the Ford Mondeo engine specifically referenced, the study does not present meaningful quantifiable data confirming or denying the durability consequences resulting from the use of such oils generally.
However, it is a fair extrapolation from the study that where a manufacturer has conducted sufficient long duration field trials, the use of such oils may present acceptable durability.
But of greatest relevance to your instant issue, this study does not support the thesis that oils of lower viscosity than manufacturer recommended for any specific engine are appropriate or acceptable from a durability perspective. If you can point out where in any of these materials that position is supported, I would be interested.
In that regard, these materials do not evidence any support for the use of thinner oils in most applications as you opine.
Now we are moving in the right direction. Let's now drill down on what you have presented with intelligence and mutual reasonableness.
_____________________
Unfortunately, all but one of your identified treatises are purchased abstracts. They are priced as follows:
Effects of Valve Train Design Evolution on Motor Oil Anti-Wear Requirements : Abstract Cost 34£
Engine Friction and Bearing Wear. III. The Role of Elasticity in Bearing Performance: Abstract Cost $43
The Viscoelastic Properties of Multigrade Oils and Their Effect on Journal-Bearing Characteristics: Abstract Cost $39
Piston Ring Oil Film Thickness - The Effect of Viscosity: Abstract Cost $23
Influence of Piston Ring Gaps on Lubricating Oil Flow into the Combustion Chamber: Abstract Cost $23
I presume that you have read each of these abstracts, and that you have copies available. I'm happy to read them all. Otherwise, it is impossible to gauge either their relevance or weight to your position.
______________________
However, your last abstract, Improved Fuel Efficiency by Lubricant Design : A Review, R.I. Taylor & R.C. Coy, is apparently available and in public domain. And I did take the time to read it. Appropriate credit is given to the authors as cited below.
It speaks principally to the use of 20 weight oils to achieve fuel economy savings. The principal discussion headings present the thesis that a 20 weight engine oil will afford significant efficiency and friction advantages over heavier oils:
Modelling of Engine Friction & Fuel Economy Engine Tests
Detailed Engine Friction Modelling
Empirical Fuel Economy Engine Test Modelling
Engine Test Results
The authors' prime argument for improved fuel efficiency and reduced friction with the use of such lubricants appears well-evidenced. It is not necessary to cite these sections at length. It is well-established that oils of lighter viscosity present a reduced friction footprint over a heavier weight alternative.
But as to durability and wear, this article states specifically the following:
Impact on Durability
Durability In Gasoline Engines
"The potential disadvantage of moving to lower viscosity lubricants is the thinner oil film that is expected to exist between lubricated contacts within the engine. However, it should be remembered that in Europe, current oils have a relatively high viscosity (>3.5 mPa.s)compared to those marketed in the US and Japan. The move from oils that have High Temperature High Shear Viscosities (HTHSV) of 3.5 mPa.s to oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s is not expected to have a major effect on engine durability for modern gasoline engines. Indeed, some of these engines may well be running on 2.9 mPa.s oils in the USA or Japan. Durability may well be of more concern when moving from oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s to lower values (e.g. to 2.6 mPa.s)."
As to supporting field test data, it further states the following:
"It must be pointed out, however, that despite the arguments outlined above, lower viscosity lubricants still have to be extensively field tested to ensure that durability is maintained."
(emphasis added).
Additionally noteworthy as to durability field testing, it states under "Durability In Heavy Duty Diesel Engines":
"OEMs such as Volvo and Scania prefer to qualify oils using long duration field trials. The trials typically take 2 years, which is becoming an issue since that is typically the timescale between new lubricant specifications! However, this approach does at least ensure that the lubricant performs adequately in the field, under realistic operating conditions, and the trials involve engine strip downs to ensure that component durability is acceptable."
_________________________
While this one article supports the use of 20 weight oils as a means to improve fuel efficiency, other than the Ford Mondeo engine specifically referenced, the study does not present meaningful quantifiable data confirming or denying the durability consequences resulting from the use of such oils generally.
However, it is a fair extrapolation from the study that where a manufacturer has conducted sufficient long duration field trials, the use of such oils may present acceptable durability.
But of greatest relevance to your instant issue, this study does not support the thesis that oils of lower viscosity than manufacturer recommended for any specific engine are appropriate or acceptable from a durability perspective. If you can point out where in any of these materials that position is supported, I would be interested.
In that regard, these materials do not evidence any support for the use of thinner oils in most applications as you opine.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
The Ford turbos have water jackets in the turbocharger bearing jackets, and it's done to prevent coking of the turbocharger on shutdown
You just don't get it do you? 20w is not spec for the 2012/2013 Taurus ecoboost (look it up, i did). My question is simple why the heck isn't it if the bearings are water cooled and have little impact on oil heating.
Troll?
OK, fair enough--not trolling, just misunderstanding. The main journal bearings are not water-cooled, the bearing jackets in the actual turbocharger are water-cooled. This of course has nothing to do with oil viscosity, but cooling the turbocharger after shutdown. I don't think Tig adequately explained that in his post.
Ford specs a heavier oil because oil temps are generally higher overall in turbos, and exponentially higher at certain points in the system. Using a thicker oil makes sense in turbo, unless there are some serious oil-cooling strategies in place.
Quote:
The Ford turbos have water jackets in the turbocharger bearing jackets, and it's done to prevent coking of the turbocharger on shutdown
You just don't get it do you? 20w is not spec for the 2012/2013 Taurus ecoboost (look it up, i did). My question is simple why the heck isn't it if the bearings are water cooled and have little impact on oil heating.
Troll?
OK, fair enough--not trolling, just misunderstanding. The main journal bearings are not water-cooled, the bearing jackets in the actual turbocharger are water-cooled. This of course has nothing to do with oil viscosity, but cooling the turbocharger after shutdown. I don't think Tig adequately explained that in his post.
Ford specs a heavier oil because oil temps are generally higher overall in turbos, and exponentially higher at certain points in the system. Using a thicker oil makes sense in turbo, unless there are some serious oil-cooling strategies in place.
Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
Caterham,
Caterham, how did you estimate the viscosities when you said the following? Thanks.
Quote:
For a low VI 5W-20 2.6cP rated oil, that will happen with oil temp's of nominally 130C but at a typical 90C operating temp' that 5W-20 oil will have a HTHSV of about 7cP. I suspect the lightest 0W-20 oil available, Sustina with it's 229 VI likely has a HTHSV at 90C closer to 5.5cP if my experience with the oil is anything to go by. Still with a large enough safety margin to handle much higher oil temp's and possible fuel dilution. For a typical 5W-30 (HTHSV 3.1cP) bearing wiping will happen when oil temp's approach 140C under load and have a HTHSV at 90C of about 9cP.
The 5W-20 (2.6cP) and 5W-30 (3.1cP) HTHS viscosities at lower oil temp's came from a post of friendly_jacek I think last summer. I'm quoting from memory and there were some other HTHS viscosities quoted as well. The bearing wiping at 130C for the 20wt oil was from the same post. I took a quick look for it but couldn't find it. If you PM f_j he should remember.
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
Caterham,
Caterham, how did you estimate the viscosities when you said the following? Thanks.
Quote:
For a low VI 5W-20 2.6cP rated oil, that will happen with oil temp's of nominally 130C but at a typical 90C operating temp' that 5W-20 oil will have a HTHSV of about 7cP. I suspect the lightest 0W-20 oil available, Sustina with it's 229 VI likely has a HTHSV at 90C closer to 5.5cP if my experience with the oil is anything to go by. Still with a large enough safety margin to handle much higher oil temp's and possible fuel dilution. For a typical 5W-30 (HTHSV 3.1cP) bearing wiping will happen when oil temp's approach 140C under load and have a HTHSV at 90C of about 9cP.
The 5W-20 (2.6cP) and 5W-30 (3.1cP) HTHS viscosities at lower oil temp's came from a post of friendly_jacek I think last summer. I'm quoting from memory and there were some other HTHS viscosities quoted as well. The bearing wiping at 130C for the 20wt oil was from the same post. I took a quick look for it but couldn't find it. If you PM f_j he should remember.
Turbos also increase torque considerably and many do so making the engines' peak torque at 2000 RPM or less. Higher torque and at a lower RPM significantly decreases minimum oil film thickness in various bearings in an engine. Increased temperature matters too, as already said.
Here is a good lesson relevant to this thread: http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Machine_Design_II/pdf/5_3.pdf
It's just one of many available to us all online.
Thank you for your answer, Caterham.
Here is a good lesson relevant to this thread: http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Machine_Design_II/pdf/5_3.pdf
It's just one of many available to us all online.
Thank you for your answer, Caterham.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
JOD,
Now we are moving in the right direction. Let's now drill down on what you have presented with intelligence and mutual reasonableness.
_____________________
Unfortunately, all but one of your identified treatises are purchased abstracts. They are priced as follows:
Effects of Valve Train Design Evolution on Motor Oil Anti-Wear Requirements : Abstract Cost 34£
Engine Friction and Bearing Wear. III. The Role of Elasticity in Bearing Performance: Abstract Cost $43
The Viscoelastic Properties of Multigrade Oils and Their Effect on Journal-Bearing Characteristics: Abstract Cost $39
Piston Ring Oil Film Thickness - The Effect of Viscosity: Abstract Cost $23
Influence of Piston Ring Gaps on Lubricating Oil Flow into the Combustion Chamber: Abstract Cost $23
I presume that you have read each of these abstracts, and that you have copies available. I'm happy to read them all. Otherwise, it is impossible to gauge either their relevance or weight to your position.
______________________
However, your last abstract, Improved Fuel Efficiency by Lubricant Design : A Review, R.I. Taylor & R.C. Coy, is apparently available and in public domain. And I did take the time to read it. Appropriate credit is given to the authors as cited below.
It speaks principally to the use of 20 weight oils to achieve fuel economy savings. The principal discussion headings present the thesis that a 20 weight engine oil will afford significant efficiency and friction advantages over heavier oils:
Modelling of Engine Friction & Fuel Economy Engine Tests
Detailed Engine Friction Modelling
Empirical Fuel Economy Engine Test Modelling
Engine Test Results
The authors' prime argument for improved fuel efficiency and reduced friction with the use of such lubricants appears well-evidenced. It is not necessary to cite these sections at length. It is well-established that oils of lighter viscosity present a reduced friction footprint over a heavier weight alternative.
But as to durability and wear, this article states specifically the following:
Impact on Durability
Durability In Gasoline Engines
"The potential disadvantage of moving to lower viscosity lubricants is the thinner oil film that is expected to exist between lubricated contacts within the engine. However, it should be remembered that in Europe, current oils have a relatively high viscosity (>3.5 mPa.s)compared to those marketed in the US and Japan. The move from oils that have High Temperature High Shear Viscosities (HTHSV) of 3.5 mPa.s to oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s is not expected to have a major effect on engine durability for modern gasoline engines. Indeed, some of these engines may well be running on 2.9 mPa.s oils in the USA or Japan. Durability may well be of more concern when moving from oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s to lower values (e.g. to 2.6 mPa.s)."
As to supporting field test data, it further states the following:
"It must be pointed out, however, that despite the arguments outlined above, lower viscosity lubricants still have to be extensively field tested to ensure that durability is maintained."
(emphasis added).
Additionally noteworthy as to durability field testing, it states under "Durability In Heavy Duty Diesel Engines":
"OEMs such as Volvo and Scania prefer to qualify oils using long duration field trials. The trials typically take 2 years, which is becoming an issue since that is typically the timescale between new lubricant specifications! However, this approach does at least ensure that the lubricant performs adequately in the field, under realistic operating conditions, and the trials involve engine strip downs to ensure that component durability is acceptable."
_________________________
While this one article supports the use of 20 weight oils as a means to improve fuel efficiency, other than the Ford Mondeo engine specifically referenced, the study does not present meaningful quantifiable data confirming or denying the durability consequences resulting from the use of such oils generally.
However, it is a fair extrapolation from the study that where a manufacturer has conducted sufficient long duration field trials, the use of such oils may present acceptable durability.
But of greatest relevance to your instant issue, this study does not support the thesis that oils of lower viscosity than manufacturer recommended for any specific engine are appropriate or acceptable from a durability perspective. If you can point out where in any of these materials that position is supported, I would be interested.
In that regard, these materials do not evidence any support for the use of thinner oils in most applications as you opine.
I have access to the full texts, so I have actually looked at them all. I haven't read any of them front to back. Stuff like this is a curiosity, not my job. If you want to talk about drivetrain efficiencies in a chain-drive bicycle or the effects of altitude on human performance,I can talk in a lot more detail... You should be able to access any of the journals via the library if you're interested. I can tell you the upshot though: thinner oils equal less wear, until they don't...and when you reach the "till they don't" stage, wear goes up exponentially. So, headroom is important. An infinitesimal increase in wear is worth complete failure.
The review article is fairly old ('94, I think?), and I agree with the conclusion it made at the time: more field data was needed. Well, much of that field data is in now in the public domain in terms of real-world performance. Engines spec'd with thin oils peform well in the field. Again, if you disagree, provide some examples to the contrary. Meanwhile, I look to see if I can find some more recent publications.
Lastly, it's a bit of a mischaracterization of my position to say I think thinner oils will work in "most" applications, so if I wasn't clear, I will be now: They're appropriate for *almost all* applications in which they're specified. I'm not suggesting to run a 20W oil in a car specified for a thicker oil, unless you have a darned good reason to do so.
JOD,
Now we are moving in the right direction. Let's now drill down on what you have presented with intelligence and mutual reasonableness.
_____________________
Unfortunately, all but one of your identified treatises are purchased abstracts. They are priced as follows:
Effects of Valve Train Design Evolution on Motor Oil Anti-Wear Requirements : Abstract Cost 34£
Engine Friction and Bearing Wear. III. The Role of Elasticity in Bearing Performance: Abstract Cost $43
The Viscoelastic Properties of Multigrade Oils and Their Effect on Journal-Bearing Characteristics: Abstract Cost $39
Piston Ring Oil Film Thickness - The Effect of Viscosity: Abstract Cost $23
Influence of Piston Ring Gaps on Lubricating Oil Flow into the Combustion Chamber: Abstract Cost $23
I presume that you have read each of these abstracts, and that you have copies available. I'm happy to read them all. Otherwise, it is impossible to gauge either their relevance or weight to your position.
______________________
However, your last abstract, Improved Fuel Efficiency by Lubricant Design : A Review, R.I. Taylor & R.C. Coy, is apparently available and in public domain. And I did take the time to read it. Appropriate credit is given to the authors as cited below.
It speaks principally to the use of 20 weight oils to achieve fuel economy savings. The principal discussion headings present the thesis that a 20 weight engine oil will afford significant efficiency and friction advantages over heavier oils:
Modelling of Engine Friction & Fuel Economy Engine Tests
Detailed Engine Friction Modelling
Empirical Fuel Economy Engine Test Modelling
Engine Test Results
The authors' prime argument for improved fuel efficiency and reduced friction with the use of such lubricants appears well-evidenced. It is not necessary to cite these sections at length. It is well-established that oils of lighter viscosity present a reduced friction footprint over a heavier weight alternative.
But as to durability and wear, this article states specifically the following:
Impact on Durability
Durability In Gasoline Engines
"The potential disadvantage of moving to lower viscosity lubricants is the thinner oil film that is expected to exist between lubricated contacts within the engine. However, it should be remembered that in Europe, current oils have a relatively high viscosity (>3.5 mPa.s)compared to those marketed in the US and Japan. The move from oils that have High Temperature High Shear Viscosities (HTHSV) of 3.5 mPa.s to oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s is not expected to have a major effect on engine durability for modern gasoline engines. Indeed, some of these engines may well be running on 2.9 mPa.s oils in the USA or Japan. Durability may well be of more concern when moving from oils with a HTHSV of 2.9 mPa.s to lower values (e.g. to 2.6 mPa.s)."
As to supporting field test data, it further states the following:
"It must be pointed out, however, that despite the arguments outlined above, lower viscosity lubricants still have to be extensively field tested to ensure that durability is maintained."
(emphasis added).
Additionally noteworthy as to durability field testing, it states under "Durability In Heavy Duty Diesel Engines":
"OEMs such as Volvo and Scania prefer to qualify oils using long duration field trials. The trials typically take 2 years, which is becoming an issue since that is typically the timescale between new lubricant specifications! However, this approach does at least ensure that the lubricant performs adequately in the field, under realistic operating conditions, and the trials involve engine strip downs to ensure that component durability is acceptable."
_________________________
While this one article supports the use of 20 weight oils as a means to improve fuel efficiency, other than the Ford Mondeo engine specifically referenced, the study does not present meaningful quantifiable data confirming or denying the durability consequences resulting from the use of such oils generally.
However, it is a fair extrapolation from the study that where a manufacturer has conducted sufficient long duration field trials, the use of such oils may present acceptable durability.
But of greatest relevance to your instant issue, this study does not support the thesis that oils of lower viscosity than manufacturer recommended for any specific engine are appropriate or acceptable from a durability perspective. If you can point out where in any of these materials that position is supported, I would be interested.
In that regard, these materials do not evidence any support for the use of thinner oils in most applications as you opine.
I have access to the full texts, so I have actually looked at them all. I haven't read any of them front to back. Stuff like this is a curiosity, not my job. If you want to talk about drivetrain efficiencies in a chain-drive bicycle or the effects of altitude on human performance,I can talk in a lot more detail... You should be able to access any of the journals via the library if you're interested. I can tell you the upshot though: thinner oils equal less wear, until they don't...and when you reach the "till they don't" stage, wear goes up exponentially. So, headroom is important. An infinitesimal increase in wear is worth complete failure.
The review article is fairly old ('94, I think?), and I agree with the conclusion it made at the time: more field data was needed. Well, much of that field data is in now in the public domain in terms of real-world performance. Engines spec'd with thin oils peform well in the field. Again, if you disagree, provide some examples to the contrary. Meanwhile, I look to see if I can find some more recent publications.
Lastly, it's a bit of a mischaracterization of my position to say I think thinner oils will work in "most" applications, so if I wasn't clear, I will be now: They're appropriate for *almost all* applications in which they're specified. I'm not suggesting to run a 20W oil in a car specified for a thicker oil, unless you have a darned good reason to do so.
Originally Posted By: JOD
. . . so if I wasn't clear, I will be now: They're appropriate for *almost all* applications in which they're specified. I'm not suggesting to run a 20W oil in a car specified for a thicker oil, unless you have a darned good reason to do so.
JOD,
With that statement I will agree -- with the caveat that a specified application is one where the manufacturer has conducted adequate and satisfactory durability field testing. In today's industry, I will presume that. If Honda specifies a 20wt, they will have to stand behind that recommendation. Where a durability problem then arises, there is recourse to the manufacturer.
But advocating a lighter viscosity than recommended by a manufacturer remains a rogue opinion contrary to the mainstream -- and obviously one unsupported by manufacturer durability field testing.
Where that is being advocated here, the persons following such advice, and their vehicles, are the field test group for that rogue theory.
I think it is this last practice, and where it is propounded with a false dressing of engineering data acceptability, that is bothering some people here the most.
JOD, I appreciate and respect your honesty and candor in our exchange.
. . . so if I wasn't clear, I will be now: They're appropriate for *almost all* applications in which they're specified. I'm not suggesting to run a 20W oil in a car specified for a thicker oil, unless you have a darned good reason to do so.
JOD,
With that statement I will agree -- with the caveat that a specified application is one where the manufacturer has conducted adequate and satisfactory durability field testing. In today's industry, I will presume that. If Honda specifies a 20wt, they will have to stand behind that recommendation. Where a durability problem then arises, there is recourse to the manufacturer.
But advocating a lighter viscosity than recommended by a manufacturer remains a rogue opinion contrary to the mainstream -- and obviously one unsupported by manufacturer durability field testing.
Where that is being advocated here, the persons following such advice, and their vehicles, are the field test group for that rogue theory.
I think it is this last practice, and where it is propounded with a false dressing of engineering data acceptability, that is bothering some people here the most.
JOD, I appreciate and respect your honesty and candor in our exchange.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm not sure what your problem with me is, you're admitting its CAFE, so we agree. Let me say it once again for the record, all I'm asking for is a choice. Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam. I really don't care about CAFE credits. I care about what is best for my engine, but still want to maintain a warranty. I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004. I don't want to hire F. Lee Bailey and The Dream Team to go to battle for me if I have a problem.
Ford did state in your article all applications from 2004 on would be using 20 grade oil. They made the statement I didn't. A bold but stupid contradictory statement wouldn't you say? They should have left that comment out altogether, it would have given them more credibility. I honestly think that article was a lot of hype to deal with concerned consumers, so they published a report to help comfort them. I'm not denying they did the testing, maybe just embellished it a bit. For the record I'm a Ford fan.
Quote:Q. Why not put 5W-20 in all the motors to make it more standardized for the technician?
A. 5W-20 is the oil of the future, 100% of factory fills will be 5W-20 by 2004.
My problem is that you're asking questions that are answered already and essentially complaining that the government is telling you what to do when it's not. I think what you're complaining about is more an emotional dislike of the current government than anything else. I mean this change to 5w20 happened 8 years ago. The timing of your desire for freedom of choice has taken a bit of time.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam
You have the information. Now go and decide. Uncle Sam isn't stopping you choosing what to put in your engine.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I care about what is best for my engine but still want to maintain a warranty
Ford have told you what is best for your engine and that will maintain your warranty. I've posted some things they've said including the fact that in some cases 5w20 outperformed 5w30.
For me, I have the information I need. You obviously don't. Call up Ford and ask them more questions to do with your particular concerns. Of course, if your concern is that Uncle Sam is making you choose your oil, you may not get the response that you're after from Ford. Do tell us what happens.
Btw which vehicle do you have that is under warranty that you're worried about? You haven't mentioned that.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004.
You're really beginning to sound paranoid. Also, you're asking me questions you should be asking them or investigating yourself if you are truly worried about them.
I don't have a Ford under warranty. I've run 5w30 in my 5w20 spec'd Ford for 3 years without a problem, after mostly running 5w20. I used it because that's what I had after a rebate deal and after I sold another car that used 5w30. I looked into the issue and felt there wasn't going to be an issue using 5w30 or 5w20. I see people will hundreds of thousands of miles on both weights. I see the torture testing on 5w20 syn blend that's 3 times more mileage than I would do using loads and speeds that I'll never do. I see Ford excluding 15% of previous vehicles and some newer ones from the 5w20 spec for valid engineering reasons. I see I have a choice of oils and have decided I can use 5w20 or 5w30. I don't sit here saying that Uncle Sam is making my choice for me.
I think the rest of your response is more paranoia. Yes they did state they would put 5w20 as factory fill in all motors by 2004. Maybe it was true at the time, maybe things they expected to do did not happen. It's probably a mistake by marketing. The fact that they didn't do that is immaterial to me. Only someone looking for a conspiracy would disect that statement rather than conclude that it's an honest mistake / error and the fact that they spec'd a few engines to take something different reinforces the fact that they base oil choice on engineering decisions. For gods sake, someone said that the high performance Mustangs take 5w50. So let's beat on Ford for saying all motors would take 5w20 and thin oil is the devil! It's crazy paranoid conspiracy theory on BITOG!
I'm not sure what your problem with me is, you're admitting its CAFE, so we agree. Let me say it once again for the record, all I'm asking for is a choice. Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam. I really don't care about CAFE credits. I care about what is best for my engine, but still want to maintain a warranty. I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004. I don't want to hire F. Lee Bailey and The Dream Team to go to battle for me if I have a problem.
Ford did state in your article all applications from 2004 on would be using 20 grade oil. They made the statement I didn't. A bold but stupid contradictory statement wouldn't you say? They should have left that comment out altogether, it would have given them more credibility. I honestly think that article was a lot of hype to deal with concerned consumers, so they published a report to help comfort them. I'm not denying they did the testing, maybe just embellished it a bit. For the record I'm a Ford fan.
Quote:Q. Why not put 5W-20 in all the motors to make it more standardized for the technician?
A. 5W-20 is the oil of the future, 100% of factory fills will be 5W-20 by 2004.
My problem is that you're asking questions that are answered already and essentially complaining that the government is telling you what to do when it's not. I think what you're complaining about is more an emotional dislike of the current government than anything else. I mean this change to 5w20 happened 8 years ago. The timing of your desire for freedom of choice has taken a bit of time.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam
You have the information. Now go and decide. Uncle Sam isn't stopping you choosing what to put in your engine.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I care about what is best for my engine but still want to maintain a warranty
Ford have told you what is best for your engine and that will maintain your warranty. I've posted some things they've said including the fact that in some cases 5w20 outperformed 5w30.
For me, I have the information I need. You obviously don't. Call up Ford and ask them more questions to do with your particular concerns. Of course, if your concern is that Uncle Sam is making you choose your oil, you may not get the response that you're after from Ford. Do tell us what happens.
Btw which vehicle do you have that is under warranty that you're worried about? You haven't mentioned that.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004.
You're really beginning to sound paranoid. Also, you're asking me questions you should be asking them or investigating yourself if you are truly worried about them.
I don't have a Ford under warranty. I've run 5w30 in my 5w20 spec'd Ford for 3 years without a problem, after mostly running 5w20. I used it because that's what I had after a rebate deal and after I sold another car that used 5w30. I looked into the issue and felt there wasn't going to be an issue using 5w30 or 5w20. I see people will hundreds of thousands of miles on both weights. I see the torture testing on 5w20 syn blend that's 3 times more mileage than I would do using loads and speeds that I'll never do. I see Ford excluding 15% of previous vehicles and some newer ones from the 5w20 spec for valid engineering reasons. I see I have a choice of oils and have decided I can use 5w20 or 5w30. I don't sit here saying that Uncle Sam is making my choice for me.
I think the rest of your response is more paranoia. Yes they did state they would put 5w20 as factory fill in all motors by 2004. Maybe it was true at the time, maybe things they expected to do did not happen. It's probably a mistake by marketing. The fact that they didn't do that is immaterial to me. Only someone looking for a conspiracy would disect that statement rather than conclude that it's an honest mistake / error and the fact that they spec'd a few engines to take something different reinforces the fact that they base oil choice on engineering decisions. For gods sake, someone said that the high performance Mustangs take 5w50. So let's beat on Ford for saying all motors would take 5w20 and thin oil is the devil! It's crazy paranoid conspiracy theory on BITOG!
Originally Posted By: JAG
Turbos also increase torque considerably and many do so making the engines' peak torque at 2000 RPM or less. Higher torque and at a lower RPM significantly decreases minimum oil film thickness in various bearings in an engine. Increased temperature matters too, as already said.
Here is a good lesson relevant to this thread: http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Machine_Design_II/pdf/5_3.pdf
It's just one of many available to us all online.
Thank you for your answer, Caterham.
Yes in fact I think someone who was anti thin oil posted a study that said wear was greater at torque peaks. Makes intuitive sense of course. Diesels have their peak torque much earlier too as well as compressing the oil far more than a gasoline engine.
My Lexus had nice low end torque and so does my Mercedes. So driving those cars gently is not as gentle as one may think if you don't know exactly where that peak torque is.
The lesson is to keep those engines above peak torque and near red line for reduced engine wear!
Turbos also increase torque considerably and many do so making the engines' peak torque at 2000 RPM or less. Higher torque and at a lower RPM significantly decreases minimum oil film thickness in various bearings in an engine. Increased temperature matters too, as already said.
Here is a good lesson relevant to this thread: http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Machine_Design_II/pdf/5_3.pdf
It's just one of many available to us all online.
Thank you for your answer, Caterham.
Yes in fact I think someone who was anti thin oil posted a study that said wear was greater at torque peaks. Makes intuitive sense of course. Diesels have their peak torque much earlier too as well as compressing the oil far more than a gasoline engine.
My Lexus had nice low end torque and so does my Mercedes. So driving those cars gently is not as gentle as one may think if you don't know exactly where that peak torque is.
The lesson is to keep those engines above peak torque and near red line for reduced engine wear!
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: JOD
. . . so if I wasn't clear, I will be now: They're appropriate for *almost all* applications in which they're specified. I'm not suggesting to run a 20W oil in a car specified for a thicker oil, unless you have a darned good reason to do so.
JOD,
With that statement I will agree -- with the caveat that a specified application is one where the manufacturer has conducted adequate and satisfactory durability field testing. In today's industry, I will presume that. If Honda specifies a 20wt, they will have to stand behind that recommendation. Where a durability problem then arises, there is recourse to the manufacturer.
But advocating a lighter viscosity than recommended by a manufacturer remains a rogue opinion contrary to the mainstream -- and obviously one unsupported by manufacturer durability field testing.
Where that is being advocated here, the persons following such advice, and their vehicles, are the field test group for that rogue theory.
I think it is this last practice, and where it is propounded with a false dressing of engineering data acceptability, that is bothering some people here the most.
JOD, I appreciate and respect your honesty and candor in our exchange.
Nicely put. But most of this thread concentrates on folks who are saying that the spec given by US manufacturers is wrong and purely a government dictate (CAFE). This is despite the evidence presented that those manufacturers have field tested the lower weights.
Originally Posted By: JOD
. . . so if I wasn't clear, I will be now: They're appropriate for *almost all* applications in which they're specified. I'm not suggesting to run a 20W oil in a car specified for a thicker oil, unless you have a darned good reason to do so.
JOD,
With that statement I will agree -- with the caveat that a specified application is one where the manufacturer has conducted adequate and satisfactory durability field testing. In today's industry, I will presume that. If Honda specifies a 20wt, they will have to stand behind that recommendation. Where a durability problem then arises, there is recourse to the manufacturer.
But advocating a lighter viscosity than recommended by a manufacturer remains a rogue opinion contrary to the mainstream -- and obviously one unsupported by manufacturer durability field testing.
Where that is being advocated here, the persons following such advice, and their vehicles, are the field test group for that rogue theory.
I think it is this last practice, and where it is propounded with a false dressing of engineering data acceptability, that is bothering some people here the most.
JOD, I appreciate and respect your honesty and candor in our exchange.
Nicely put. But most of this thread concentrates on folks who are saying that the spec given by US manufacturers is wrong and purely a government dictate (CAFE). This is despite the evidence presented that those manufacturers have field tested the lower weights.
Has the question been answered, simply, why manufacturers specify a different weight oil in two different countries with at least marginally similar climate/driving habits? I'm not trying to engage in this debate, but I have been curious and there's no real answer anywhere, just lots of people asking the question.
Yes. CAFE pushes the drive to lighter oils. The manufacturers develop those oils with the oil manufacturers, they test it and it works. EPA say that you have to actually implement the change to get credit. So the manufacturers help to get adoption of the lighter oil through their distribution efforts (supply side) and their recommendation (demand side).
Outside the US, no such push exists so the distribution change doesn't happen (because it is a switching cost that nobody needs to incur).
In the US, the CAFE credits incentivize the manufacturer and offset the testing and switching costs.
Outside the US, no credits, no reason to incur switching costs.
Outside the US, no such push exists so the distribution change doesn't happen (because it is a switching cost that nobody needs to incur).
In the US, the CAFE credits incentivize the manufacturer and offset the testing and switching costs.
Outside the US, no credits, no reason to incur switching costs.
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Don't forget Fords high performance Mustangs. They specify a 5W-50 and aren't turbocharged.
Ed
Only the boss does. And that particular engine does not have piston cooling jets,in case that matters.
And if it's relevant ford spec'd a 5w-20 for the 03-04 terminator cobra,which has an eaton twin screw bolted to the top.
So yes the tt fords spec a 5w-30 but this behemoth only sips on 5w-20.
I just bought one of these superchargers for my mustang. Pretty excited
Don't forget Fords high performance Mustangs. They specify a 5W-50 and aren't turbocharged.
Ed
Only the boss does. And that particular engine does not have piston cooling jets,in case that matters.
And if it's relevant ford spec'd a 5w-20 for the 03-04 terminator cobra,which has an eaton twin screw bolted to the top.
So yes the tt fords spec a 5w-30 but this behemoth only sips on 5w-20.
I just bought one of these superchargers for my mustang. Pretty excited
Seems there should be more than one person regarded as an expert.
I have been on this forum a very short time and already seeing a trend....[censored] i guess around here people with most opinions and paper clipings i.e. links, are then regarded as knowing everything. when i tell someone what they should do, or use, i dont fight to the death that im right and link pointless things to try and prove it. If they ask i simply tell them what i would do or am already doing in said App.
I have been on this forum a very short time and already seeing a trend....[censored] i guess around here people with most opinions and paper clipings i.e. links, are then regarded as knowing everything. when i tell someone what they should do, or use, i dont fight to the death that im right and link pointless things to try and prove it. If they ask i simply tell them what i would do or am already doing in said App.
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm not sure what your problem with me is, you're admitting its CAFE, so we agree. Let me say it once again for the record, all I'm asking for is a choice. Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam. I really don't care about CAFE credits. I care about what is best for my engine, but still want to maintain a warranty. I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004. I don't want to hire F. Lee Bailey and The Dream Team to go to battle for me if I have a problem.
Ford did state in your article all applications from 2004 on would be using 20 grade oil. They made the statement I didn't. A bold but stupid contradictory statement wouldn't you say? They should have left that comment out altogether, it would have given them more credibility. I honestly think that article was a lot of hype to deal with concerned consumers, so they published a report to help comfort them. I'm not denying they did the testing, maybe just embellished it a bit. For the record I'm a Ford fan.
Quote:Q. Why not put 5W-20 in all the motors to make it more standardized for the technician?
A. 5W-20 is the oil of the future, 100% of factory fills will be 5W-20 by 2004.
My problem is that you're asking questions that are answered already and essentially complaining that the government is telling you what to do when it's not. I think what you're complaining about is more an emotional dislike of the current government than anything else. I mean this change to 5w20 happened 8 years ago. The timing of your desire for freedom of choice has taken a bit of time.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam
You have the information. Now go and decide. Uncle Sam isn't stopping you choosing what to put in your engine.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I care about what is best for my engine but still want to maintain a warranty
Ford have told you what is best for your engine and that will maintain your warranty. I've posted some things they've said including the fact that in some cases 5w20 outperformed 5w30.
For me, I have the information I need. You obviously don't. Call up Ford and ask them more questions to do with your particular concerns. Of course, if your concern is that Uncle Sam is making you choose your oil, you may not get the response that you're after from Ford. Do tell us what happens.
Btw which vehicle do you have that is under warranty that you're worried about? You haven't mentioned that.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004.
You're really beginning to sound paranoid. Also, you're asking me questions you should be asking them or investigating yourself if you are truly worried about them.
I don't have a Ford under warranty. I've run 5w30 in my 5w20 spec'd Ford for 3 years without a problem, after mostly running 5w20. I used it because that's what I had after a rebate deal and after I sold another car that used 5w30. I looked into the issue and felt there wasn't going to be an issue using 5w30 or 5w20. I see people will hundreds of thousands of miles on both weights. I see the torture testing on 5w20 syn blend that's 3 times more mileage than I would do using loads and speeds that I'll never do. I see Ford excluding 15% of previous vehicles and some newer ones from the 5w20 spec for valid engineering reasons. I see I have a choice of oils and have decided I can use 5w20 or 5w30. I don't sit here saying that Uncle Sam is making my choice for me.
I think the rest of your response is more paranoia. Yes they did state they would put 5w20 as factory fill in all motors by 2004. Maybe it was true at the time, maybe things they expected to do did not happen. It's probably a mistake by marketing. The fact that they didn't do that is immaterial to me. Only someone looking for a conspiracy would disect that statement rather than conclude that it's an honest mistake / error and the fact that they spec'd a few engines to take something different reinforces the fact that they base oil choice on engineering decisions. For gods sake, someone said that the high performance Mustangs take 5w50. So let's beat on Ford for saying all motors would take 5w20 and thin oil is the devil! It's crazy paranoid conspiracy theory on BITOG!
You came across as an expert. You posted the info, the info said in 2004 all Ford vehicles would be using 5W20 oil. I stated a simple fact, the article was wrong there are Ford vehicles still using thicker oils. You decided to continue the debate, I played along. Paranoid, you're clueless. You challenge me by still quoting a 2004 article. Call Ford you say. Why? I don't own a Ford with a warranty so there's nothing in it for me. Besides I already know the answer, use what's listed in the OM and on the fill cap. Prove me wrong with something from 2012. My argument still remains the same, because of CAFE the US consumer can't make an oil choice w/o the possibility of voiding a warranty. That is my beef. Is that simple enough for you? I've only said it about 10 times now.
One last question, were you there when Ford conducted the test? Seeing some of the problems some car makers have with new technology it seems the consumer is the one doing the real testing.
As far as what I drive with a warranty. My 08 Jeep has a lifetime power train warranty. I had it in for service last week and asked about changing to a 30 grade oil, I was politely told if I want to keep the warranty to follow the OM. I'm reasonably certain that is the same position all the car makers have when they offer only one oil choice.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm not sure what your problem with me is, you're admitting its CAFE, so we agree. Let me say it once again for the record, all I'm asking for is a choice. Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam. I really don't care about CAFE credits. I care about what is best for my engine, but still want to maintain a warranty. I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004. I don't want to hire F. Lee Bailey and The Dream Team to go to battle for me if I have a problem.
Ford did state in your article all applications from 2004 on would be using 20 grade oil. They made the statement I didn't. A bold but stupid contradictory statement wouldn't you say? They should have left that comment out altogether, it would have given them more credibility. I honestly think that article was a lot of hype to deal with concerned consumers, so they published a report to help comfort them. I'm not denying they did the testing, maybe just embellished it a bit. For the record I'm a Ford fan.
Quote:Q. Why not put 5W-20 in all the motors to make it more standardized for the technician?
A. 5W-20 is the oil of the future, 100% of factory fills will be 5W-20 by 2004.
My problem is that you're asking questions that are answered already and essentially complaining that the government is telling you what to do when it's not. I think what you're complaining about is more an emotional dislike of the current government than anything else. I mean this change to 5w20 happened 8 years ago. The timing of your desire for freedom of choice has taken a bit of time.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Let me decide what's best, not Uncle Sam
You have the information. Now go and decide. Uncle Sam isn't stopping you choosing what to put in your engine.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I care about what is best for my engine but still want to maintain a warranty
Ford have told you what is best for your engine and that will maintain your warranty. I've posted some things they've said including the fact that in some cases 5w20 outperformed 5w30.
For me, I have the information I need. You obviously don't. Call up Ford and ask them more questions to do with your particular concerns. Of course, if your concern is that Uncle Sam is making you choose your oil, you may not get the response that you're after from Ford. Do tell us what happens.
Btw which vehicle do you have that is under warranty that you're worried about? You haven't mentioned that.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I don't have that choice. You keep quoting Ford from 2004, how are they today with oil related warranty issues? Have any facts what they'd say if 30 grade oil was used in a 20 grade application and the engine failed? I want to know about now, not 2004.
You're really beginning to sound paranoid. Also, you're asking me questions you should be asking them or investigating yourself if you are truly worried about them.
I don't have a Ford under warranty. I've run 5w30 in my 5w20 spec'd Ford for 3 years without a problem, after mostly running 5w20. I used it because that's what I had after a rebate deal and after I sold another car that used 5w30. I looked into the issue and felt there wasn't going to be an issue using 5w30 or 5w20. I see people will hundreds of thousands of miles on both weights. I see the torture testing on 5w20 syn blend that's 3 times more mileage than I would do using loads and speeds that I'll never do. I see Ford excluding 15% of previous vehicles and some newer ones from the 5w20 spec for valid engineering reasons. I see I have a choice of oils and have decided I can use 5w20 or 5w30. I don't sit here saying that Uncle Sam is making my choice for me.
I think the rest of your response is more paranoia. Yes they did state they would put 5w20 as factory fill in all motors by 2004. Maybe it was true at the time, maybe things they expected to do did not happen. It's probably a mistake by marketing. The fact that they didn't do that is immaterial to me. Only someone looking for a conspiracy would disect that statement rather than conclude that it's an honest mistake / error and the fact that they spec'd a few engines to take something different reinforces the fact that they base oil choice on engineering decisions. For gods sake, someone said that the high performance Mustangs take 5w50. So let's beat on Ford for saying all motors would take 5w20 and thin oil is the devil! It's crazy paranoid conspiracy theory on BITOG!
You came across as an expert. You posted the info, the info said in 2004 all Ford vehicles would be using 5W20 oil. I stated a simple fact, the article was wrong there are Ford vehicles still using thicker oils. You decided to continue the debate, I played along. Paranoid, you're clueless. You challenge me by still quoting a 2004 article. Call Ford you say. Why? I don't own a Ford with a warranty so there's nothing in it for me. Besides I already know the answer, use what's listed in the OM and on the fill cap. Prove me wrong with something from 2012. My argument still remains the same, because of CAFE the US consumer can't make an oil choice w/o the possibility of voiding a warranty. That is my beef. Is that simple enough for you? I've only said it about 10 times now.
One last question, were you there when Ford conducted the test? Seeing some of the problems some car makers have with new technology it seems the consumer is the one doing the real testing.
As far as what I drive with a warranty. My 08 Jeep has a lifetime power train warranty. I had it in for service last week and asked about changing to a 30 grade oil, I was politely told if I want to keep the warranty to follow the OM. I'm reasonably certain that is the same position all the car makers have when they offer only one oil choice.
Originally Posted By: fauxchemist
Seems there should be more than one person regarded as an expert.
...............................................
If they ask i simply tell them what i would do or am already doing in said App.
So you're saying we should have more experts and the way to get there is to assign equal weight to the people who say things with only 1 data point?
Seems there should be more than one person regarded as an expert.
...............................................
If they ask i simply tell them what i would do or am already doing in said App.
So you're saying we should have more experts and the way to get there is to assign equal weight to the people who say things with only 1 data point?
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Paranoid, you're clueless.
................................
One last question, were you there when Ford conducted the test?
Says it all really.
It sure does, you're clueless. You know nothing about me.
Where you there when Ford conducted the test? You believe everything you read? If you do you have a lot to learn.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Paranoid, you're clueless.
................................
One last question, were you there when Ford conducted the test?
Says it all really.
It sure does, you're clueless. You know nothing about me.
Where you there when Ford conducted the test? You believe everything you read? If you do you have a lot to learn.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
As far as what I drive with a warranty. My 08 Jeep has a lifetime power train warranty.
Are you seriously telling us that with a LIFETIME warranty, you're complaining that the manufacturer wants you to use pretty much any 5w20 out there and that the government is compromising your choice? Seriously?
Reminds me of this sketch:
As far as what I drive with a warranty. My 08 Jeep has a lifetime power train warranty.
Are you seriously telling us that with a LIFETIME warranty, you're complaining that the manufacturer wants you to use pretty much any 5w20 out there and that the government is compromising your choice? Seriously?
Reminds me of this sketch:
Originally Posted By: JOD
As the wedge gets smaller (because of the less viscous oil), the pressure increases. As the pressure increases, the less viscous oil provides higher relative film strength (until it doesn't!).
Nope, the pressure in a bearing is the load, divided by the projected surface area...if the load is being supported by the oil, then the pressure is the same.
A thinner oil will require a higher rate of shear to achieve that pressure, and thus reach a thinner equilibrium film thickness.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Thing is, the logic that "if thinner works, thicker must work better" is flawed on its face, since engine lubrication works in many regimes. The boundry regime (say at start-up when you have metal-to-metal contact) relies on oil flow (and AW additives left on the metal parts). That's *one* of the reasons that start-up wear constitutes most of the wear on an engine (even though it's probably not the main one). Thinner, more pumpable oils reach those areas more quickly. No, it's not a big enough difference to "ruin your engine", so that's not what I'm saying--but the reality is that a lighter oil is going to increase the speed at which bearings go from boundary lubrication to hydrodynamic lubrication. So, thicker oils come with a cost (that's not the only one, but since we're talking about journal bearings I'll leave it at that).
Not quite, it depends on the balancing act between new oil getting there, and the oil providing hydrodynamic lift...thicker oil, more gap, at the point that the journal first receives oil...pretty moot when cold oil is so thick in the first place.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Think of it like this. You have a rubber super ball (remember those?). You drop it from an inch. It doesn't bounce very high, because it doesn't have much pressure on it. Then drop it from 10 inches. It not only bounces higher, but it bounces more than 10 times as high, i.e. the increase isn't linear. That's how multiviscosity oils work under pressure, and why a thinner oil can support proportionally higher loads. This isn't a perfect analogy by any means, I'm just trying to add some clarity.
Not clarity, obfuscation.
A thicker film has a lower "spring rate", there is a lower rate of pressure rise for a given increase in load...as stated before, pressure=load/projected area, so in a bearing at equilibrium, it's meaningless.
A cycling load, yes, the thinner oil will have a higher stiffness, and less change in film thickness with changeing load, but still thinner than the thicker oil.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Now for the flip side and a little humor. As far as the Gub'ment, at least the people down under have a choice. They won't forfeit a warranty if they make an oil decision based on a list they have in their OM. They can pick from that list depending on how the vehicle is used, and the conditions of that use. There lies my beef, I have no choice unless I want to risk a warranty. Why did they take the choice away from Americans in many instances? [Coincidentally as CAFE grew stronger]. Do they think Americans are stupid and better off not deciding for themselves? I hope not. Do you think the OZ Gub'ment, and many other Gub'ments all over this world are trying to ruin engines by offering a choice? LOL
Or Toyota, putting 20W-50 in their manuals ?
Originally Posted By: JOD
Serious question: how much choice do they really have? I mean, really have. How easy is it to find 20W oils down there (we both know the answer, it's not that easy). As I said before, it wasn't even common hear 5-6 years ago when I bought my Ford. So, if it weren't for the OEM requirements for 20W oils, I doubt we'd really have much "choice". And I honestly don't consider the warranty requirement a big impingement on my freedom! The very limited distribution of 20W oils versus the snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks that I'll have a warranty claim denied because I used the improper viscosity oil? Personally, I'm glad for the choice we have
You've said it before, and I've answered your condescension before.
I can buy anything from 0W-30 to 40W-70, and beyond, pretty much anywhere...I can get 0W-20 here in town, if I buy 20L...Valvoline Next Gen is only available in 15W-40 (petrol and diesel), and once again...it's fully imported, by an American company...that makes oil...
We are not the backwaters, we get stuff...even Oreos, which are imported...
If Toyota honestly thought that their cars were going to benefit from 0W-20 under Australian conditions, they could fill the trunk with 200,000 miles worth of oil before they put it on the boat for less than 1% of the Prius retail price, bypassing the camel train, and let the dealer/owner rest assured that the 20W-50 that's acceptable in the Prius manual.
Particularly if they thought that the camel train delivered 20W-50 was going to expose them to warranty claims delivered over the telegraph.
As the wedge gets smaller (because of the less viscous oil), the pressure increases. As the pressure increases, the less viscous oil provides higher relative film strength (until it doesn't!).
Nope, the pressure in a bearing is the load, divided by the projected surface area...if the load is being supported by the oil, then the pressure is the same.
A thinner oil will require a higher rate of shear to achieve that pressure, and thus reach a thinner equilibrium film thickness.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Thing is, the logic that "if thinner works, thicker must work better" is flawed on its face, since engine lubrication works in many regimes. The boundry regime (say at start-up when you have metal-to-metal contact) relies on oil flow (and AW additives left on the metal parts). That's *one* of the reasons that start-up wear constitutes most of the wear on an engine (even though it's probably not the main one). Thinner, more pumpable oils reach those areas more quickly. No, it's not a big enough difference to "ruin your engine", so that's not what I'm saying--but the reality is that a lighter oil is going to increase the speed at which bearings go from boundary lubrication to hydrodynamic lubrication. So, thicker oils come with a cost (that's not the only one, but since we're talking about journal bearings I'll leave it at that).
Not quite, it depends on the balancing act between new oil getting there, and the oil providing hydrodynamic lift...thicker oil, more gap, at the point that the journal first receives oil...pretty moot when cold oil is so thick in the first place.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Think of it like this. You have a rubber super ball (remember those?). You drop it from an inch. It doesn't bounce very high, because it doesn't have much pressure on it. Then drop it from 10 inches. It not only bounces higher, but it bounces more than 10 times as high, i.e. the increase isn't linear. That's how multiviscosity oils work under pressure, and why a thinner oil can support proportionally higher loads. This isn't a perfect analogy by any means, I'm just trying to add some clarity.
Not clarity, obfuscation.
A thicker film has a lower "spring rate", there is a lower rate of pressure rise for a given increase in load...as stated before, pressure=load/projected area, so in a bearing at equilibrium, it's meaningless.
A cycling load, yes, the thinner oil will have a higher stiffness, and less change in film thickness with changeing load, but still thinner than the thicker oil.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Now for the flip side and a little humor. As far as the Gub'ment, at least the people down under have a choice. They won't forfeit a warranty if they make an oil decision based on a list they have in their OM. They can pick from that list depending on how the vehicle is used, and the conditions of that use. There lies my beef, I have no choice unless I want to risk a warranty. Why did they take the choice away from Americans in many instances? [Coincidentally as CAFE grew stronger]. Do they think Americans are stupid and better off not deciding for themselves? I hope not. Do you think the OZ Gub'ment, and many other Gub'ments all over this world are trying to ruin engines by offering a choice? LOL
Or Toyota, putting 20W-50 in their manuals ?
Originally Posted By: JOD
Serious question: how much choice do they really have? I mean, really have. How easy is it to find 20W oils down there (we both know the answer, it's not that easy). As I said before, it wasn't even common hear 5-6 years ago when I bought my Ford. So, if it weren't for the OEM requirements for 20W oils, I doubt we'd really have much "choice". And I honestly don't consider the warranty requirement a big impingement on my freedom! The very limited distribution of 20W oils versus the snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks that I'll have a warranty claim denied because I used the improper viscosity oil? Personally, I'm glad for the choice we have
You've said it before, and I've answered your condescension before.
I can buy anything from 0W-30 to 40W-70, and beyond, pretty much anywhere...I can get 0W-20 here in town, if I buy 20L...Valvoline Next Gen is only available in 15W-40 (petrol and diesel), and once again...it's fully imported, by an American company...that makes oil...
We are not the backwaters, we get stuff...even Oreos, which are imported...
If Toyota honestly thought that their cars were going to benefit from 0W-20 under Australian conditions, they could fill the trunk with 200,000 miles worth of oil before they put it on the boat for less than 1% of the Prius retail price, bypassing the camel train, and let the dealer/owner rest assured that the 20W-50 that's acceptable in the Prius manual.
Particularly if they thought that the camel train delivered 20W-50 was going to expose them to warranty claims delivered over the telegraph.
- Status
Similar threads
