Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
So let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya...
Hey Jim we never did get to sing! Happy Thanksgiving!
So let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya...
Hey Jim we never did get to sing! Happy Thanksgiving!
thin perhaps not as good as i thought
- Thread starter salgra
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.
Frank has some questions and thoughts about what best for his vehicle and you tell him get back on the meds because he disagrees with someone or questions what they say?
Agree or disagree there is no need to insinuate that someone has issues and needs meds.
Frank is a friend of mine and i know him to be a very reasonable guy. He deserves an apology.
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.
Frank has some questions and thoughts about what best for his vehicle and you tell him get back on the meds because he disagrees with someone or questions what they say?
Agree or disagree there is no need to insinuate that someone has issues and needs meds.
Frank is a friend of mine and i know him to be a very reasonable guy. He deserves an apology.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
So let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya...
Hey Jim we never did get to sing! Happy Thanksgiving!
Here you go then. It's the special btog adapted version:
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's running too thin an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thin an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thin an oil, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's wiping their bearings, kum bay ya;
Someone's wiping their bearings, kum bay ya;
Someone's wiping their bearings, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's running too thick an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thick an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thick an oil, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's producing 0.6% more greenhouse gases than they really should, my lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's producing 0.6% more greenhouse gases than they really should, my lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's producing 0.6% more greenhouse gases than they really should, my lord, kum bay ya;
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Dam-it, I just couldn't make that last verse fit the meter properly.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
So let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya...
Hey Jim we never did get to sing! Happy Thanksgiving!
Here you go then. It's the special btog adapted version:
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's running too thin an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thin an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thin an oil, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's wiping their bearings, kum bay ya;
Someone's wiping their bearings, kum bay ya;
Someone's wiping their bearings, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's running too thick an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thick an oil, kum bay ya;
Someone's running too thick an oil, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's producing 0.6% more greenhouse gases than they really should, my lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's producing 0.6% more greenhouse gases than they really should, my lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's producing 0.6% more greenhouse gases than they really should, my lord, kum bay ya;
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Dam-it, I just couldn't make that last verse fit the meter properly.
Last edited:
I just am again constantly amazed at how out of perspective so many folks get these things.
In many many fields, statistical principles are used to establish probabilities and margins of error.
These fields are things like medicine, pharmaceuticals, health and safety, infrastructure investment, economic analysis, retail industries, consumer research, war games and even engineering.
Because so many systems are so complicated, scientists / engineers / statisticians, take all the theory out there, and then run tests and / or collect real data. With supercomputers they might even simulate real world conditions to model things that are impractical or expensive in the real world.
Scientists and engineers and statisticians have been doing this kind of thing for decades now. As as time has progressed and computing power has increased, their methods get more and more comprehensive and accurate.
So with lighter oils, believe it or not, the engineers have access to a whole host of information that we don't. They've crunched data that we don't have access to. Frankly, they've used scientific and statistical methods that most here would never comprehend.
So very honestly, anyone here arguing about whether the viscosity recommended by a manufacturer is or is not valid, needs to be doing it in the context of the scientific methods employed, the statistical findings and the trade offs being assumed.
Denying that testing took place or just disagreeing because of a feeling and then asking others what they believe as a way of defending their own feeling, invoking CAFE as the reason - all of these do not get you any closer to the real truth.
As a recent example, during the election, I was getting quite tired of all the opinions about who would win. All the conspiracy style theory talk from one pundit to another. So I found out that there was a chap called Nate Silver and another called Drew Linzer who simply used scientific principles and statistics to aggregate polls with some modelling to correct biases. They made their methodology transparent, they gave a range of probablities. This is because that's how statistics works. There's no agenda in good statistics.
So I pretty much knew what was going to happen in the election because of sound statistical analysis. I knew what the probabilities were. I didn't do the work myself, but when I saw the methods that these particular statisticians were using, and combined it what I knew about numbers and statistics both theoretically and practically, the probabilities they outlined were logically believable.
And that's what this whole argument should be based on.
1) What is the probability difference that something is more likely to go wrong with xw20 than xw30?
2) Is that difference significant
3) Is that difference significant to me
4) Was there a lack of testing or a flaw in the statistical methods used in the testing or the extrapolation from that testing?
If those folks who disagree with the manufacturer specs can argue on those lines, then they're going to get a lot more respect from their so called thin oil opponents.
In many many fields, statistical principles are used to establish probabilities and margins of error.
These fields are things like medicine, pharmaceuticals, health and safety, infrastructure investment, economic analysis, retail industries, consumer research, war games and even engineering.
Because so many systems are so complicated, scientists / engineers / statisticians, take all the theory out there, and then run tests and / or collect real data. With supercomputers they might even simulate real world conditions to model things that are impractical or expensive in the real world.
Scientists and engineers and statisticians have been doing this kind of thing for decades now. As as time has progressed and computing power has increased, their methods get more and more comprehensive and accurate.
So with lighter oils, believe it or not, the engineers have access to a whole host of information that we don't. They've crunched data that we don't have access to. Frankly, they've used scientific and statistical methods that most here would never comprehend.
So very honestly, anyone here arguing about whether the viscosity recommended by a manufacturer is or is not valid, needs to be doing it in the context of the scientific methods employed, the statistical findings and the trade offs being assumed.
Denying that testing took place or just disagreeing because of a feeling and then asking others what they believe as a way of defending their own feeling, invoking CAFE as the reason - all of these do not get you any closer to the real truth.
As a recent example, during the election, I was getting quite tired of all the opinions about who would win. All the conspiracy style theory talk from one pundit to another. So I found out that there was a chap called Nate Silver and another called Drew Linzer who simply used scientific principles and statistics to aggregate polls with some modelling to correct biases. They made their methodology transparent, they gave a range of probablities. This is because that's how statistics works. There's no agenda in good statistics.
So I pretty much knew what was going to happen in the election because of sound statistical analysis. I knew what the probabilities were. I didn't do the work myself, but when I saw the methods that these particular statisticians were using, and combined it what I knew about numbers and statistics both theoretically and practically, the probabilities they outlined were logically believable.
And that's what this whole argument should be based on.
1) What is the probability difference that something is more likely to go wrong with xw20 than xw30?
2) Is that difference significant
3) Is that difference significant to me
4) Was there a lack of testing or a flaw in the statistical methods used in the testing or the extrapolation from that testing?
If those folks who disagree with the manufacturer specs can argue on those lines, then they're going to get a lot more respect from their so called thin oil opponents.
I'm an engineer, and understand hydrodynamic lubrication.
When I say that in reducing the viscosity, the car manufacturers have reduced the margin between a happy bearing and a damaged bearing under adverse conditions, it's a simple fact of the physics within a bearing that they have.
It will take less of an upset to cause damage than it would with a thicker oil.
Thus the risk of damage has changed, and been sent in the direction of the consumer.
Statistically does this mean that "0W-20 is destroying YOUR engine", or leading to a "pile of failed engines" ?
No, of course not, and you would never find me saying that.
Statistically, do the vast majority of users ever have an event that tests the oil to that level ?
Probably not, but a coolant leak in high temperature conditions might, and the headroom in terms of the protection that the oil offers will be reduced.
The statistics to which you are referring are failure rates, and every manufacturer of everything in your possession will (should) have an understanding of their product.
Have they decided that 1:10,000, 20,000, 30,000 is an acceptable rate, and accept an increase to 1.2 in the same number is OK for CAFE credits etc. you can guarantee that they are never going to tell you how many are budgetted to fail in the first place, nor the second.
If those folks who argue thin would at least acknowledge the simple laws of physics, that demonstrate that a reduction in viscosity pushes the bearing operating parameters closer to the edge of the envelope (while still being within it), then they're going to get a lot more respect from people who know physics.
When I say that in reducing the viscosity, the car manufacturers have reduced the margin between a happy bearing and a damaged bearing under adverse conditions, it's a simple fact of the physics within a bearing that they have.
It will take less of an upset to cause damage than it would with a thicker oil.
Thus the risk of damage has changed, and been sent in the direction of the consumer.
Statistically does this mean that "0W-20 is destroying YOUR engine", or leading to a "pile of failed engines" ?
No, of course not, and you would never find me saying that.
Statistically, do the vast majority of users ever have an event that tests the oil to that level ?
Probably not, but a coolant leak in high temperature conditions might, and the headroom in terms of the protection that the oil offers will be reduced.
The statistics to which you are referring are failure rates, and every manufacturer of everything in your possession will (should) have an understanding of their product.
Have they decided that 1:10,000, 20,000, 30,000 is an acceptable rate, and accept an increase to 1.2 in the same number is OK for CAFE credits etc. you can guarantee that they are never going to tell you how many are budgetted to fail in the first place, nor the second.
If those folks who argue thin would at least acknowledge the simple laws of physics, that demonstrate that a reduction in viscosity pushes the bearing operating parameters closer to the edge of the envelope (while still being within it), then they're going to get a lot more respect from people who know physics.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I did a straight 30 over summer, and 25W-70 over winter...it DID give everyone here a fit.
He he, if I had winters like yours, I'd worry a lot less, not that I worry too terribly much in the first place.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I guess I can't convey my point clearly. It is about not having a choice, especially for a hands on kind of guy, that's it. Are you a believer of matching oil viscosity to how an engine is used, and one size fits all?
That's really the issue here, and perhaps I'm no better at conveying my point either, since I'm kind of on the fence. I do the maintenance on my vehicle. I understand how viscosity grades and API/ILSAC service categories work. I know that 20w-50 in the summer may not be optimal but it won't blow up my motor; I also know that it would be a darned poor choice in -40. I know that, temperature and conditions dependent, for my car, a 0w-30, 5w-30, 10w-30, 0w-40, 5w-40, and 15w-40 would all be "reasonable" choices, even though Nissan/Infiniti certainly wouldn't agree, at least on paper in North America.
On the other hand, I have a good deal of confidence that the specified 5w-30 is doing the job correctly for my driving conditions. So, maybe one size does fit all, at least from certain perspectives.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Truth is i don't think it would bother it at all.
Absolutely - match the weather and driving conditions to the oil choice, no big deal. That being said, folks, tonight my car was outside in ambient -16 C for a few hours. Dino 5w-30 didn't make any odd noises or fire a rod through my block upon starting it. And this will not be the coldest night of the year by a long shot.
Originally Posted By: richport29
Would using a 0w20 oil be ok for the cold winter months, Canada.
For your GP, possibly. I'm always a little reluctant to go out of spec. It certainly depends upon your driving conditions. Just being "cold" isn't necessarily a good enough reason. The cab fleet ran 10w-30 all year, regardless of the cold, since the things never shut down. A monograde 30 word have worked just as well. If you're short tripping, and doing lots of cold starts, it might be reasonable. If you do a fifty mile commute each time and park in a heated garage, I'd hesitate.
I did a straight 30 over summer, and 25W-70 over winter...it DID give everyone here a fit.
He he, if I had winters like yours, I'd worry a lot less, not that I worry too terribly much in the first place.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I guess I can't convey my point clearly. It is about not having a choice, especially for a hands on kind of guy, that's it. Are you a believer of matching oil viscosity to how an engine is used, and one size fits all?
That's really the issue here, and perhaps I'm no better at conveying my point either, since I'm kind of on the fence. I do the maintenance on my vehicle. I understand how viscosity grades and API/ILSAC service categories work. I know that 20w-50 in the summer may not be optimal but it won't blow up my motor; I also know that it would be a darned poor choice in -40. I know that, temperature and conditions dependent, for my car, a 0w-30, 5w-30, 10w-30, 0w-40, 5w-40, and 15w-40 would all be "reasonable" choices, even though Nissan/Infiniti certainly wouldn't agree, at least on paper in North America.
On the other hand, I have a good deal of confidence that the specified 5w-30 is doing the job correctly for my driving conditions. So, maybe one size does fit all, at least from certain perspectives.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Truth is i don't think it would bother it at all.
Absolutely - match the weather and driving conditions to the oil choice, no big deal. That being said, folks, tonight my car was outside in ambient -16 C for a few hours. Dino 5w-30 didn't make any odd noises or fire a rod through my block upon starting it. And this will not be the coldest night of the year by a long shot.
Originally Posted By: richport29
Would using a 0w20 oil be ok for the cold winter months, Canada.
For your GP, possibly. I'm always a little reluctant to go out of spec. It certainly depends upon your driving conditions. Just being "cold" isn't necessarily a good enough reason. The cab fleet ran 10w-30 all year, regardless of the cold, since the things never shut down. A monograde 30 word have worked just as well. If you're short tripping, and doing lots of cold starts, it might be reasonable. If you do a fifty mile commute each time and park in a heated garage, I'd hesitate.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: JOD
I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why it matters to someone operating their car in the U.S.?
Ummmm... because the physical laws that govern engine lubrication are the same in the U.S. as on the rest of the planet?
Ed
Sure they do. But no one has been able to demonstrate that the recommendations in the U.S. are not suitable, so why are we worried about what they do elsewhere? Other countries have their own limitations which factor into their oil recommendations. Why is it the concern of someone who lives here?
From my persepective, when I bought my Caprice, the owners manual specifies 20W-50, with 15W-40 allowable in cold conditions...bear in mind that cold in Australia...coldest temperature recorded in the country is -10F, and coldest I've seen with 20W-50 is about 10F (happy start), and 20F (25W-70).
So Holden recommends 20W-50 as their basic oil, 15W-40 in "extreme" for Oz cold weather.
However, the L67 is an American engine, so as an enquiring owner, I like to see what they run in other places...surprise surprise, it's not 20W-50.
So I'm happily running 5W-30 GrIII synthetic in it (well I was up 'till I did the LIM, and filled it full of 10W-30 10W-40 and 15W-40 dregs for a couple of weeks, will do a filter change, and a high SAPS GrII+ 15W-40 for a couple of months, and back to 5W-30).
In my case, I feel that the OEM of the car is being overly conservative in their oil recommendation, and using what I've learned on BITOG, and what the recommendations overseas are, I've deviated from their recommendation.
Because yes, understanding the issues, I think I've made a better choice, for my car, in my operating conditions than General Motors did for that particular engine, operated in my country.
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: JOD
I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why it matters to someone operating their car in the U.S.?
Ummmm... because the physical laws that govern engine lubrication are the same in the U.S. as on the rest of the planet?
Ed
Sure they do. But no one has been able to demonstrate that the recommendations in the U.S. are not suitable, so why are we worried about what they do elsewhere? Other countries have their own limitations which factor into their oil recommendations. Why is it the concern of someone who lives here?
From my persepective, when I bought my Caprice, the owners manual specifies 20W-50, with 15W-40 allowable in cold conditions...bear in mind that cold in Australia...coldest temperature recorded in the country is -10F, and coldest I've seen with 20W-50 is about 10F (happy start), and 20F (25W-70).
So Holden recommends 20W-50 as their basic oil, 15W-40 in "extreme" for Oz cold weather.
However, the L67 is an American engine, so as an enquiring owner, I like to see what they run in other places...surprise surprise, it's not 20W-50.
So I'm happily running 5W-30 GrIII synthetic in it (well I was up 'till I did the LIM, and filled it full of 10W-30 10W-40 and 15W-40 dregs for a couple of weeks, will do a filter change, and a high SAPS GrII+ 15W-40 for a couple of months, and back to 5W-30).
In my case, I feel that the OEM of the car is being overly conservative in their oil recommendation, and using what I've learned on BITOG, and what the recommendations overseas are, I've deviated from their recommendation.
Because yes, understanding the issues, I think I've made a better choice, for my car, in my operating conditions than General Motors did for that particular engine, operated in my country.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'm an engineer, and understand hydrodynamic lubrication.
When I say that in reducing the viscosity, the car manufacturers have reduced the margin between a happy bearing and a damaged bearing under adverse conditions, it's a simple fact of the physics within a bearing that they have.
It will take less of an upset to cause damage than it would with a thicker oil.
Thus the risk of damage has changed, and been sent in the direction of the consumer.
Statistically does this mean that "0W-20 is destroying YOUR engine", or leading to a "pile of failed engines" ?
No, of course not, and you would never find me saying that.
Statistically, do the vast majority of users ever have an event that tests the oil to that level ?
Probably not, but a coolant leak in high temperature conditions might, and the headroom in terms of the protection that the oil offers will be reduced.
The statistics to which you are referring are failure rates, and every manufacturer of everything in your possession will (should) have an understanding of their product.
Have they decided that 1:10,000, 20,000, 30,000 is an acceptable rate, and accept an increase to 1.2 in the same number is OK for CAFE credits etc. you can guarantee that they are never going to tell you how many are budgetted to fail in the first place, nor the second.
If those folks who argue thin would at least acknowledge the simple laws of physics, that demonstrate that a reduction in viscosity pushes the bearing operating parameters closer to the edge of the envelope (while still being within it), then they're going to get a lot more respect from people who know physics.
I totally agree with you and respect your knowledge.
In your opinion, is it fair to say that oil technology improvements over decades have given a modern 20 weight oil the same headroom as an older 30 weight oil?
On balance, do you feel that the engine wear reduction during warm up from lighter oils poses less benefit to the average driver than the slightly increased risk from running a lighter oil all the time?
I'm an engineer, and understand hydrodynamic lubrication.
When I say that in reducing the viscosity, the car manufacturers have reduced the margin between a happy bearing and a damaged bearing under adverse conditions, it's a simple fact of the physics within a bearing that they have.
It will take less of an upset to cause damage than it would with a thicker oil.
Thus the risk of damage has changed, and been sent in the direction of the consumer.
Statistically does this mean that "0W-20 is destroying YOUR engine", or leading to a "pile of failed engines" ?
No, of course not, and you would never find me saying that.
Statistically, do the vast majority of users ever have an event that tests the oil to that level ?
Probably not, but a coolant leak in high temperature conditions might, and the headroom in terms of the protection that the oil offers will be reduced.
The statistics to which you are referring are failure rates, and every manufacturer of everything in your possession will (should) have an understanding of their product.
Have they decided that 1:10,000, 20,000, 30,000 is an acceptable rate, and accept an increase to 1.2 in the same number is OK for CAFE credits etc. you can guarantee that they are never going to tell you how many are budgetted to fail in the first place, nor the second.
If those folks who argue thin would at least acknowledge the simple laws of physics, that demonstrate that a reduction in viscosity pushes the bearing operating parameters closer to the edge of the envelope (while still being within it), then they're going to get a lot more respect from people who know physics.
I totally agree with you and respect your knowledge.
In your opinion, is it fair to say that oil technology improvements over decades have given a modern 20 weight oil the same headroom as an older 30 weight oil?
On balance, do you feel that the engine wear reduction during warm up from lighter oils poses less benefit to the average driver than the slightly increased risk from running a lighter oil all the time?
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
In your opinion, is it fair to say that oil technology improvements over decades have given a modern 20 weight oil the same headroom as an older 30 weight oil?
On balance, do you feel that the engine wear reduction during warm up from lighter oils poses less benefit to the average driver than the slightly increased risk from running a lighter oil all the time?
Firstly, I've got to say that after being on BITOG for a few years, and analysing my behaviours (20W-50 was in every owners manual, and I used STP to "boost" it), then seeing in the '80s the Oz trend towards xW-60s and 70s (which was happening while I was at Uni, in the late 80s, and I could really not understand in any way, shape or form at the time) I don't ever see an Xw-50 oil in my future...the 25W-70 in winter was to show at the time that it wouldn't grenade on a 20F morning, as was being proclaimed.
A modern 20 providing more headroom than an older 30. Not really confident to make that call either way, as viscosity and film thickness are worked together with bearing load. It's when the film becomes really thin that it doesn't matter what the visocsity was at the time that contact was made, additives kick in.
Have long been a loather of the xW-y system, as it promotes arguments like "oil A behaves like a B, at a certain point in it's curve"...I'd like to see some sort of cold performance/hot performance that didn't stick to "grades" that have
I like HTHS as a measure, as it's working where the engine is working, not in squirters and the like, but where the engine is actually using hydrodynamic principals...
https://www.oronite.com/paratone/shearrates.aspx
So if a new 20 had a better HTHS than an old 30, I'd say that it DOES have better means to prevent contact than the old 30.
As to lower wear in warmup, I don't see a fraction of a second longer for the oil to pump through the galleries are really significant. I've never pulled apart any engine that isn't wet with oil.
I've used straight Lucas to keep turbine bearings lubricated during maintenance (30 tonnes on two bearings), and the high viscosity "oil" that hasn't squeezed out between the surfaces allows the shaft t be turned very easily, when with the residual from the ISO32, they can't be budged.
IMO, the residual from an "overly" thick oil will reduce start-up wear by getting the parts apart quickly, while the oil catches up.
Having had a dinner with an ex Castrol engineer on the Magnatec/Start-up philosphy, I think it's esters and their ilk that really give improvements in start-up wear.
In your opinion, is it fair to say that oil technology improvements over decades have given a modern 20 weight oil the same headroom as an older 30 weight oil?
On balance, do you feel that the engine wear reduction during warm up from lighter oils poses less benefit to the average driver than the slightly increased risk from running a lighter oil all the time?
Firstly, I've got to say that after being on BITOG for a few years, and analysing my behaviours (20W-50 was in every owners manual, and I used STP to "boost" it), then seeing in the '80s the Oz trend towards xW-60s and 70s (which was happening while I was at Uni, in the late 80s, and I could really not understand in any way, shape or form at the time) I don't ever see an Xw-50 oil in my future...the 25W-70 in winter was to show at the time that it wouldn't grenade on a 20F morning, as was being proclaimed.
A modern 20 providing more headroom than an older 30. Not really confident to make that call either way, as viscosity and film thickness are worked together with bearing load. It's when the film becomes really thin that it doesn't matter what the visocsity was at the time that contact was made, additives kick in.
Have long been a loather of the xW-y system, as it promotes arguments like "oil A behaves like a B, at a certain point in it's curve"...I'd like to see some sort of cold performance/hot performance that didn't stick to "grades" that have
I like HTHS as a measure, as it's working where the engine is working, not in squirters and the like, but where the engine is actually using hydrodynamic principals...
https://www.oronite.com/paratone/shearrates.aspx
So if a new 20 had a better HTHS than an old 30, I'd say that it DOES have better means to prevent contact than the old 30.
As to lower wear in warmup, I don't see a fraction of a second longer for the oil to pump through the galleries are really significant. I've never pulled apart any engine that isn't wet with oil.
I've used straight Lucas to keep turbine bearings lubricated during maintenance (30 tonnes on two bearings), and the high viscosity "oil" that hasn't squeezed out between the surfaces allows the shaft t be turned very easily, when with the residual from the ISO32, they can't be budged.
IMO, the residual from an "overly" thick oil will reduce start-up wear by getting the parts apart quickly, while the oil catches up.
Having had a dinner with an ex Castrol engineer on the Magnatec/Start-up philosphy, I think it's esters and their ilk that really give improvements in start-up wear.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: JOD
I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why it matters to someone operating their car in the U.S.?
Ummmm... because the physical laws that govern engine lubrication are the same in the U.S. as on the rest of the planet?
Ed
Sure they do. But no one has been able to demonstrate that the recommendations in the U.S. are not suitable, so why are we worried about what they do elsewhere? Other countries have their own limitations which factor into their oil recommendations. Why is it the concern of someone who lives here?
From my persepective, when I bought my Caprice, the owners manual specifies 20W-50, with 15W-40 allowable in cold conditions...bear in mind that cold in Australia...coldest temperature recorded in the country is -10F, and coldest I've seen with 20W-50 is about 10F (happy start), and 20F (25W-70).
So Holden recommends 20W-50 as their basic oil, 15W-40 in "extreme" for Oz cold weather.
However, the L67 is an American engine, so as an enquiring owner, I like to see what they run in other places...surprise surprise, it's not 20W-50.
So I'm happily running 5W-30 GrIII synthetic in it (well I was up 'till I did the LIM, and filled it full of 10W-30 10W-40 and 15W-40 dregs for a couple of weeks, will do a filter change, and a high SAPS GrII+ 15W-40 for a couple of months, and back to 5W-30).
In my case, I feel that the OEM of the car is being overly conservative in their oil recommendation, and using what I've learned on BITOG, and what the recommendations overseas are, I've deviated from their recommendation.
Because yes, understanding the issues, I think I've made a better choice, for my car, in my operating conditions than General Motors did for that particular engine, operated in my country.
I think you've made the better choice too. I don't really think it took rocket science to do it either, although you do have an advantage over most of us here with your background. I made the choice too for several decades, as did many of our older BITOG members. Knowing the failure rates the mfg uses would be extremely interesting. A 20 grade oil from 2012, should be better than a 30 grade oil from 1992, or even 2002 for that matter. The 30 grade oils from today have come a long way too.
Just out of curiosity how much more of a safety margin would a 30 grade oil provide over a 20 grade oil when a radiator hose lets go? Is there any testing that can be done to calculate at what extreme bearing temperature the different thicker or thinner oils have a real world advantage? Would the safety margin you mentioned in another thread allow you to run the engine any longer w/o damage using a thicker, or thinner oil? Just to be fair lets compare oils from 2012, since most of us don't have 10 or 20 year old oil in our stash that we use in our cars. Thanks
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: JOD
I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why it matters to someone operating their car in the U.S.?
Ummmm... because the physical laws that govern engine lubrication are the same in the U.S. as on the rest of the planet?
Ed
Sure they do. But no one has been able to demonstrate that the recommendations in the U.S. are not suitable, so why are we worried about what they do elsewhere? Other countries have their own limitations which factor into their oil recommendations. Why is it the concern of someone who lives here?
From my persepective, when I bought my Caprice, the owners manual specifies 20W-50, with 15W-40 allowable in cold conditions...bear in mind that cold in Australia...coldest temperature recorded in the country is -10F, and coldest I've seen with 20W-50 is about 10F (happy start), and 20F (25W-70).
So Holden recommends 20W-50 as their basic oil, 15W-40 in "extreme" for Oz cold weather.
However, the L67 is an American engine, so as an enquiring owner, I like to see what they run in other places...surprise surprise, it's not 20W-50.
So I'm happily running 5W-30 GrIII synthetic in it (well I was up 'till I did the LIM, and filled it full of 10W-30 10W-40 and 15W-40 dregs for a couple of weeks, will do a filter change, and a high SAPS GrII+ 15W-40 for a couple of months, and back to 5W-30).
In my case, I feel that the OEM of the car is being overly conservative in their oil recommendation, and using what I've learned on BITOG, and what the recommendations overseas are, I've deviated from their recommendation.
Because yes, understanding the issues, I think I've made a better choice, for my car, in my operating conditions than General Motors did for that particular engine, operated in my country.
I think you've made the better choice too. I don't really think it took rocket science to do it either, although you do have an advantage over most of us here with your background. I made the choice too for several decades, as did many of our older BITOG members. Knowing the failure rates the mfg uses would be extremely interesting. A 20 grade oil from 2012, should be better than a 30 grade oil from 1992, or even 2002 for that matter. The 30 grade oils from today have come a long way too.
Just out of curiosity how much more of a safety margin would a 30 grade oil provide over a 20 grade oil when a radiator hose lets go? Is there any testing that can be done to calculate at what extreme bearing temperature the different thicker or thinner oils have a real world advantage? Would the safety margin you mentioned in another thread allow you to run the engine any longer w/o damage using a thicker, or thinner oil? Just to be fair lets compare oils from 2012, since most of us don't have 10 or 20 year old oil in our stash that we use in our cars. Thanks
Quote:
Quote:
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.
Frank has some questions and thoughts about what best for his vehicle and you tell him get back on the meds because he disagrees with someone or questions what they say?
Agree or disagree there is no need to insinuate that someone has issues and needs meds.
Frank is a friend of mine and i know him to be a very reasonable guy. He deserves an apology.
Pot kettle here dude. At least he didn't "insinuate" that a long time Bitog poster who also happens to be a Disabled American Veteran is a 'traitor' for shopping and purchasing products from Harbor Freight. He deserved an apology too imo, and I never once saw one posted. And unlike that bitter absurd insinuation, JA made his comment some humor attached to it.
And, just as Frank has a right to change his mind on the topic of using thin oil, others here should have the right to an opposing, yet just as informed opinion, without being labeled epithets like "fan boys". Just sayin.
Quote:
demarpaint: Sorry old chum, but you need to get back onto your medication. ( : < ) I'm saying that with a smile in the hopes that you will snap back to your normal analytical self.
Frank has some questions and thoughts about what best for his vehicle and you tell him get back on the meds because he disagrees with someone or questions what they say?
Agree or disagree there is no need to insinuate that someone has issues and needs meds.
Frank is a friend of mine and i know him to be a very reasonable guy. He deserves an apology.
Pot kettle here dude. At least he didn't "insinuate" that a long time Bitog poster who also happens to be a Disabled American Veteran is a 'traitor' for shopping and purchasing products from Harbor Freight. He deserved an apology too imo, and I never once saw one posted. And unlike that bitter absurd insinuation, JA made his comment some humor attached to it.
And, just as Frank has a right to change his mind on the topic of using thin oil, others here should have the right to an opposing, yet just as informed opinion, without being labeled epithets like "fan boys". Just sayin.
Quote:
Because so many systems are so complicated, scientists / engineers / statisticians, take all the theory out there, and then run tests and / or collect real data. With supercomputers they might even simulate real world conditions to model things that are impractical or expensive in the real world.
Scientists and engineers and statisticians have been doing this kind of thing for decades now. As as time has progressed and computing power has increased, their methods get more and more comprehensive and accurate.
So with lighter oils, believe it or not, the engineers have access to a whole host of information that we don't. They've crunched data that we don't have access to. Frankly, they've used scientific and statistical methods that most here would never comprehend.
So very honestly, anyone here arguing about whether the viscosity recommended by a manufacturer is or is not valid, needs to be doing it in the context of the scientific methods employed, the statistical findings and the trade offs being assumed.
Denying that testing took place or just disagreeing because of a feeling and then asking others what they believe as a way of defending their own feeling, invoking CAFE as the reason - all of these do not get you any closer to the real truth.
That all sounds well and good but even in the engineering field there are disagreements as to testing protocols and the implementation of findings and conclusions.
In one case Dr Von Braun advised NASA not to use sold rocket boosters. His basic argument was a simple one, once its started it cant be shut off if something goes wrong with it.
Other engineers much younger and better educated in the latests and greatest decided he was wrong and went ahead anyway.
Keep in mind it was some of the greatest engineering minds in the world that gave us the shuttle accident and with it the set backs to the program could have been avoided if they stuck to the basic sound principals set forth by Von Braun over two decades before.
It appears the crux of your argument is based on the fact that engineers tested xw20 in all these conditions and it worked.
That may be true i wont dispute that as i have nothing to dispute it with but..
Once the engineering is done in the automotive industry anyway and I'm sure in many others the bean counter step in.
This is where the problems find their way into an otherwise well engineered product.
If the bean counters, marketing people and management didn't get involved auto makers probably wouldn't have the sludge debacle that so many have encountered over the years.
Lets take two examples.
Toyota and VW. Both have good engineering departments no one questions that, so how did it happen that both were cursed with such a massive sludge problem in their engines when owners followed their equally well engineered OLM using spec oil?
Its certain the Toyota and VW engineers ran the engines with spec oil in all conditions they thought the engine would encounter and with the recommended OCI. So what went wrong?
The answer is a simple one and it has nothing to do with poor engineering. It was a failure in every other department after the engineers were done.
The bean counters concluded a smaller pan would be just as good.
The marketing dept concluded that an even longer OCI would make their car appear less maintenance needy.
Management had a desire to appear "green" to the consumer.
It all fell apart from the top down, none of it an engineering defect.
This is not to say there is not some horrible examples of poor engineering there are many. Cadillac 8-6-4, Vega engines, Ford gas tanks placed in front of a spike all come to mind just to mention a few.
But more often than not its what happened after the engineers were finished that causes the most problems.
I think Shannow is really on the mark with his conclusions. It follows a simple basic theory that has proven to be true.
Because so many systems are so complicated, scientists / engineers / statisticians, take all the theory out there, and then run tests and / or collect real data. With supercomputers they might even simulate real world conditions to model things that are impractical or expensive in the real world.
Scientists and engineers and statisticians have been doing this kind of thing for decades now. As as time has progressed and computing power has increased, their methods get more and more comprehensive and accurate.
So with lighter oils, believe it or not, the engineers have access to a whole host of information that we don't. They've crunched data that we don't have access to. Frankly, they've used scientific and statistical methods that most here would never comprehend.
So very honestly, anyone here arguing about whether the viscosity recommended by a manufacturer is or is not valid, needs to be doing it in the context of the scientific methods employed, the statistical findings and the trade offs being assumed.
Denying that testing took place or just disagreeing because of a feeling and then asking others what they believe as a way of defending their own feeling, invoking CAFE as the reason - all of these do not get you any closer to the real truth.
That all sounds well and good but even in the engineering field there are disagreements as to testing protocols and the implementation of findings and conclusions.
In one case Dr Von Braun advised NASA not to use sold rocket boosters. His basic argument was a simple one, once its started it cant be shut off if something goes wrong with it.
Other engineers much younger and better educated in the latests and greatest decided he was wrong and went ahead anyway.
Keep in mind it was some of the greatest engineering minds in the world that gave us the shuttle accident and with it the set backs to the program could have been avoided if they stuck to the basic sound principals set forth by Von Braun over two decades before.
It appears the crux of your argument is based on the fact that engineers tested xw20 in all these conditions and it worked.
That may be true i wont dispute that as i have nothing to dispute it with but..
Once the engineering is done in the automotive industry anyway and I'm sure in many others the bean counter step in.
This is where the problems find their way into an otherwise well engineered product.
If the bean counters, marketing people and management didn't get involved auto makers probably wouldn't have the sludge debacle that so many have encountered over the years.
Lets take two examples.
Toyota and VW. Both have good engineering departments no one questions that, so how did it happen that both were cursed with such a massive sludge problem in their engines when owners followed their equally well engineered OLM using spec oil?
Its certain the Toyota and VW engineers ran the engines with spec oil in all conditions they thought the engine would encounter and with the recommended OCI. So what went wrong?
The answer is a simple one and it has nothing to do with poor engineering. It was a failure in every other department after the engineers were done.
The bean counters concluded a smaller pan would be just as good.
The marketing dept concluded that an even longer OCI would make their car appear less maintenance needy.
Management had a desire to appear "green" to the consumer.
It all fell apart from the top down, none of it an engineering defect.
This is not to say there is not some horrible examples of poor engineering there are many. Cadillac 8-6-4, Vega engines, Ford gas tanks placed in front of a spike all come to mind just to mention a few.
But more often than not its what happened after the engineers were finished that causes the most problems.
I think Shannow is really on the mark with his conclusions. It follows a simple basic theory that has proven to be true.
BTW never called anyone a "traitor" i said it was treacherous.
I still believe that regardless of who it is veteran or not.
The word you are confusing treacherous with is traitorous which i never used or implied.
Quote:
treacherous may be more common, but Traitorous is the more correct answer to the question. Treacherous doesn't necessarily refer to a Traitor.
Dude? I think you English is worse than mine so i wouldn't expect you to know the difference.
Last edited:
Sematics dude, most who read that thread knew what you were "insunating". But, I'd expect nothing less than for you to be in total denial and then question my English.
Quite frankly couldn't care less you labeling me a troll because coming from you it's laughable. Again, pot kettle. Using your 'logic' jcwit and others deserved an apology too.
Quite frankly couldn't care less you labeling me a troll because coming from you it's laughable. Again, pot kettle. Using your 'logic' jcwit and others deserved an apology too.
Quote:
most who read that thread knew what you were "insunating".
Now your a mind reader too? Go read some tea leaves or something and stop trolling the thread with this sort of garbage.
most who read that thread knew what you were "insunating".
Now your a mind reader too? Go read some tea leaves or something and stop trolling the thread with this sort of garbage.
Wow we're drifting a bit, this time the drift wasn't caused by me. LOL
I was looking for an answer for this hopefully someone with an engineering or mechanical background and not from a Google search.
I'll ask again.
Just out of curiosity how much more of a safety margin would a 30 grade oil provide over a 20 grade oil when a radiator hose lets go? Is there any testing that can be done to calculate at what extreme bearing temperature the different thicker or thinner oils have a real world advantage? Would the safety margin you mentioned in another thread allow you to run the engine any longer w/o damage using a thicker, or thinner oil? Just to be fair lets compare oils from 2012, since most of us don't have 10 or 20 year old oil in our stash that we use in our cars. Thanks
Hopefully an answer to my question will help me become my analytical self, with a
I was looking for an answer for this hopefully someone with an engineering or mechanical background and not from a Google search.
I'll ask again.
Just out of curiosity how much more of a safety margin would a 30 grade oil provide over a 20 grade oil when a radiator hose lets go? Is there any testing that can be done to calculate at what extreme bearing temperature the different thicker or thinner oils have a real world advantage? Would the safety margin you mentioned in another thread allow you to run the engine any longer w/o damage using a thicker, or thinner oil? Just to be fair lets compare oils from 2012, since most of us don't have 10 or 20 year old oil in our stash that we use in our cars. Thanks
Hopefully an answer to my question will help me become my analytical self, with a
Quote:
stop trolling the thread with this sort of garbage.
More proof that your biggest forte seems to be labeling folks who don't happen to agree with you. And my post no more garbage than your off topic apology post which I just replied to, and then went back on topic in that post, unlike you.
stop trolling the thread with this sort of garbage.
More proof that your biggest forte seems to be labeling folks who don't happen to agree with you. And my post no more garbage than your off topic apology post which I just replied to, and then went back on topic in that post, unlike you.
Quote:
Just out of curiosity how much more of a safety margin would a 30 grade oil provide over a 20 grade oil when a radiator hose lets go?
Great question Frank i want to know the answer too.
Watch it we will both be told to go take the meds. LOL
Oh that reminds me, where are the darn bottles, i had them yesterday...
Just out of curiosity how much more of a safety margin would a 30 grade oil provide over a 20 grade oil when a radiator hose lets go?
Great question Frank i want to know the answer too.
Watch it we will both be told to go take the meds. LOL
Oh that reminds me, where are the darn bottles, i had them yesterday...
Look I will explain this to you just once.
I like and respect JC Witt and thank him for his service and have said as much.
I believe it is treacherous (not traitorous) to the economy of the US and its workers for any one living in the US to buy Cheap Chinese goods period.
I also understand his position and understand it. He only needs the tool for 4 or 5 nails and thats it so why should he buy an expensive tool. I have also conveyed this to him.
Since you choose to post only what you think is the truth which it isn't then yes you are trolling. Back on topic please.
I like and respect JC Witt and thank him for his service and have said as much.
I believe it is treacherous (not traitorous) to the economy of the US and its workers for any one living in the US to buy Cheap Chinese goods period.
I also understand his position and understand it. He only needs the tool for 4 or 5 nails and thats it so why should he buy an expensive tool. I have also conveyed this to him.
Since you choose to post only what you think is the truth which it isn't then yes you are trolling. Back on topic please.
Nice try, but please do stay on topic and not ask for an off topic apology that you're not willing to give.
To the topic again and repeating what I posted in my response to apology post,"... just as Frank has a right to change his mind on the topic of using thin oil, others here should have the right to an opposing, yet just as informed opinion, without being labeled epithets like "fan boys".
To the topic again and repeating what I posted in my response to apology post,"... just as Frank has a right to change his mind on the topic of using thin oil, others here should have the right to an opposing, yet just as informed opinion, without being labeled epithets like "fan boys".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked