thin perhaps not as good as i thought

[Trav]

Dude? Please I'm not 16.
Yes i do know why the pan was reduced from 4.5 qts to 3.2 qts,thats when the problem appeared.
Toyota had PCV issues IIRC they used a valve that was too small and spec'd too long an OCI.

 

[demarpaint]

Trav when they changed the pan over to the smaller size did they bother to alter the OCI any, change the oil grade, or just roll with it until problems arose?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: JAG
If an engine blows its coolant hose and oil temperatures rise very high, a thicker oil will keep the bearings in the hydrodynamic lubrication regime to a higher temperature than a thinner oil that is otherwise formulated very similarly.


That's what reading lead to believe I just wanted to confirm it. Thanks the reply.


A guy who is an expert in this field already address this in your other 9 page thread:

Originally Posted By: modularv8
One thing I've noticed about automotive engineers, is that they think about every possible scenario then build a safety margin. As for Ford, they know the operating range for each engine based on its design, then build safety margins around it. Fords have a "Fail Safe Cooling System" that sets off chimes, CEL, computer message, and temp guage pegs to red zone when engine enters a preset temperature before an overheat develops. Then as the engine temperature continues to rise, the engine goes into limp mode with alternate cylinder air pumping to keep engine below another preset tempersture. And if engine temperature reaches another preset temperature, then computer shuts engine down and will permit restart when temperature goes below a preset. Even at the shut down temperature, there is still a margin of safety to prevent engine damage. There are also redundant control systems. They really have done all the thinking for the customer, we just need to drive.


So, if your ONLY concern is having the most headroom in the event of a mechanical failure, not only of the cooling system but of the redundant systems which activate in case of a cooling system failure, then a 30W oil will probably offer a tiny, fractional advantage to help prevent engine failure. That seems like a questionable way to choose a motor oil viscosity, since engine failures due to inadequate oil viscosity are exceedingly rare.

As a matter of fact, Modularv8 answered many of these questions in your past thread on the same subject.
___________________

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: JAG
If an engine blows its coolant hose and oil temperatures rise very high, a thicker oil will keep the bearings in the hydrodynamic lubrication regime to a higher temperature than a thinner oil that is otherwise formulated very similarly.


That's what reading lead to believe I just wanted to confirm it. Thanks the reply.


A guy who is an expert in this field already address this in your other 9 page thread:

Originally Posted By: modularv8
One thing I've noticed about automotive engineers, is that they think about every possible scenario then build a safety margin. As for Ford, they know the operating range for each engine based on its design, then build safety margins around it. Fords have a "Fail Safe Cooling System" that sets off chimes, CEL, computer message, and temp guage pegs to red zone when engine enters a preset temperature before an overheat develops. Then as the engine temperature continues to rise, the engine goes into limp mode with alternate cylinder air pumping to keep engine below another preset tempersture. And if engine temperature reaches another preset temperature, then computer shuts engine down and will permit restart when temperature goes below a preset. Even at the shut down temperature, there is still a margin of safety to prevent engine damage. There are also redundant control systems. They really have done all the thinking for the customer, we just need to drive.


So, if your ONLY concern is having the most headroom in the event of a mechanical failure, not only of the cooling system but of the redundant systems which activate in case of a cooling system failure, then a 30W oil will probably offer a tiny, fractional advantage to help prevent engine failure. That seems like a questionable way to choose a motor oil viscosity, since engine failures due to inadequate oil viscosity are exceedingly rare.

As a matter of fact, Modularv8 answered many of these questions in your past thread on the same subject.
___________________


Did he really? That thread was about the 3.6L Pentastar engine, not about a hose failure causing an engine to overheat. I have my answer thanks.

 

[weebl]

Originally Posted By: il_signore97
In my opinion, if you blow a coolant hose, you will need to get the car to the side quickly and shut it off to prevent damage.


And perhaps this is where the crux of the extra protection argument lies? Let's take a scenario where this indeed does happen to a vehicle. The amount of time it takes to do this from when the vehicle operator notices there is a problem, let's call "x". It applies to this event with this operator only, as another event and/or another operator will have different variables, and the number could be "a" or "q" or some other value.

Assume also, that we can re-do the exact event with all variables being exactly the same. I know, not possible in the real world, but for theory's sake, we do this academically. The engine let's say, is spec'd for either 5W-30 or 5W-20.

In the first variation of this scenario, the vehicle has 5W-30. With this 5W-30, in order to avoid catastrophic failure, the operator must notice and stop, as mentioned above, in a time length not more than "x + y". "y" is an extremely small number. And because it took the operator only "x" time, he is safe, but just barely so.

In the second variation of this secnario, the oil in use is now 5W-20. The time now is "x - w" and again, "w" is an extremely small number. But, because it takes "x" to do something, the operator is SOL, but just barely so.

In the above scenarios, the differences in performance of the two oils may well be negligibly different, and that is how I intended to present it.

But, in certain circumstances, this negligible difference may be just enough to make a difference in that particular circumstance.

I believe this is along the lines of what Shannow is arguing.

As one of the many who are watching this debate, and weighing the merits of arguments from both sides in order to make our own informed decisions, I would like to see the flip side of this discussed. Is this a plausible scenario? Other similar scenarios where a normally negligible difference might just make a difference? How likely for such an occurence to happen where the 5W-20 doesn't protect, but the 5W-30 does? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000,000,000? Just how significant are the differences? Perhaps none of us really has that answer?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: weebl
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
In my opinion, if you blow a coolant hose, you will need to get the car to the side quickly and shut it off to prevent damage.


And perhaps this is where the crux of the extra protection argument lies? Let's take a scenario where this indeed does happen to a vehicle. The amount of time it takes to do this from when the vehicle operator notices there is a problem, let's call "x". It applies to this event with this operator only, as another event and/or another operator will have different variables, and the number could be "a" or "q" or some other value.

Assume also, that we can re-do the exact event with all variables being exactly the same. I know, not possible in the real world, but for theory's sake, we do this academically. The engine let's say, is spec'd for either 5W-30 or 5W-20.

In the first variation of this scenario, the vehicle has 5W-30. With this 5W-30, in order to avoid catastrophic failure, the operator must notice and stop, as mentioned above, in a time length not more than "x + y". "y" is an extremely small number. And because it took the operator only "x" time, he is safe, but just barely so.

In the second variation of this secnario, the oil in use is now 5W-20. The time now is "x - w" and again, "w" is an extremely small number. But, because it takes "x" to do something, the operator is SOL, but just barely so.

In the above scenarios, the differences in performance of the two oils may well be negligibly different, and that is how I intended to present it.

But, in certain circumstances, this negligible difference may be just enough to make a difference in that particular circumstance.

I believe this is along the lines of what Shannow is arguing.

As one of the many who are watching this debate, and weighing the merits of arguments from both sides in order to make our own informed decisions, I would like to see the flip side of this discussed. Is this a plausible scenario? Other similar scenarios where a normally negligible difference might just make a difference? How likely for such an occurence to happen where the 5W-20 doesn't protect, but the 5W-30 does? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000,000,000? Just how significant are the differences? Perhaps none of us really has that answer?


Interesting. It might not be that difficult, although expensive, and won't ever happen because no one is willing to trash 2 engines, but food for thought all the same. Take 2 engines identical in every way, disable the safeguards to send them in limp home mode and whatever else is designed to protect them. Fill one with a 5W20 oil, one with a 5W30 oil, synthetic from the same company, drain the cooling systems and run them at a controlled speed until they seize. See which seizes first, then shut the running engine off. Tear them down and see which has the most internal damage. To be fair use engines calling for 5W20 oil. Anyone care to guess which engine and oil will do better? No comment here, after all it would only be my opinion. I'll leave the real answer to the experts.

As a side note Ford's testing was mentioned a lot, I wonder if they intentionally destroy engines? If so I'd love to see those results.

The same can test can be done with a small B&S engine, but I don't think they call for 30 grade oil so the test might be considered unfair to some people.

 

[il_signore97]

Originally Posted By: weebl
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
In my opinion, if you blow a coolant hose, you will need to get the car to the side quickly and shut it off to prevent damage.


And perhaps this is where the crux of the extra protection argument lies? Let's take a scenario where this indeed does happen to a vehicle. The amount of time it takes to do this from when the vehicle operator notices there is a problem, let's call "x". It applies to this event with this operator only, as another event and/or another operator will have different variables, and the number could be "a" or "q" or some other value.

Assume also, that we can re-do the exact event with all variables being exactly the same. I know, not possible in the real world, but for theory's sake, we do this academically. The engine let's say, is spec'd for either 5W-30 or 5W-20.

In the first variation of this scenario, the vehicle has 5W-30. With this 5W-30, in order to avoid catastrophic failure, the operator must notice and stop, as mentioned above, in a time length not more than "x + y". "y" is an extremely small number. And because it took the operator only "x" time, he is safe, but just barely so.

In the second variation of this secnario, the oil in use is now 5W-20. The time now is "x - w" and again, "w" is an extremely small number. But, because it takes "x" to do something, the operator is SOL, but just barely so.

In the above scenarios, the differences in performance of the two oils may well be negligibly different, and that is how I intended to present it.

But, in certain circumstances, this negligible difference may be just enough to make a difference in that particular circumstance.

I believe this is along the lines of what Shannow is arguing.

As one of the many who are watching this debate, and weighing the merits of arguments from both sides in order to make our own informed decisions, I would like to see the flip side of this discussed. Is this a plausible scenario? Other similar scenarios where a normally negligible difference might just make a difference? How likely for such an occurence to happen where the 5W-20 doesn't protect, but the 5W-30 does? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000,000,000? Just how significant are the differences? Perhaps none of us really has that answer?



I follow exactly what you are saying, I think, but I don't think that is the type of extra protection that Shannow was referring to. He was most probably talking about an event causing detriment to the bearings themselves, as that is his area of expertise. Such an event may be a particle streak, temporary spike in oil temp, temporary fall in oil pressure, etc, etc. In any of these situations, I would absolutely agree that a thicker oil would be more tolerant and would offer some additional amount of time prior to damage occurring than a thinner variant.

But in demarpaint's example, the coolant hose breaking, the time required to get the car to the side of the road does not change because it has little to do with the oil. The oil would not get hot enough in that short time to cause any detriment to the bearings. However, the cylinder head can warp if the vehicle is driven with no coolant (or no cooling). This warping of the head is of no consequence to the type or viscosity of oil that you have, but is because of lack of coolant. Thus, I don't believe any oil would help with preventing a cylinder head warping.

Now, let's say that someone still kept driving, warped their cylinder head, but kept driving anyway with no coolant. At this point, the oil would continue to heat (assuming no fail-safe system on the particular vehicle in question), and yes, a thicker oil would then offer greater protection for a longer amount of time for the "rest" of the engine, (not the already damaged cylinder head).

I'm not sure if I explained this well. Does that kind of make sense? lol

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: il_signore97
Originally Posted By: weebl
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
In my opinion, if you blow a coolant hose, you will need to get the car to the side quickly and shut it off to prevent damage.


And perhaps this is where the crux of the extra protection argument lies? Let's take a scenario where this indeed does happen to a vehicle. The amount of time it takes to do this from when the vehicle operator notices there is a problem, let's call "x". It applies to this event with this operator only, as another event and/or another operator will have different variables, and the number could be "a" or "q" or some other value.

Assume also, that we can re-do the exact event with all variables being exactly the same. I know, not possible in the real world, but for theory's sake, we do this academically. The engine let's say, is spec'd for either 5W-30 or 5W-20.

In the first variation of this scenario, the vehicle has 5W-30. With this 5W-30, in order to avoid catastrophic failure, the operator must notice and stop, as mentioned above, in a time length not more than "x + y". "y" is an extremely small number. And because it took the operator only "x" time, he is safe, but just barely so.

In the second variation of this secnario, the oil in use is now 5W-20. The time now is "x - w" and again, "w" is an extremely small number. But, because it takes "x" to do something, the operator is SOL, but just barely so.

In the above scenarios, the differences in performance of the two oils may well be negligibly different, and that is how I intended to present it.

But, in certain circumstances, this negligible difference may be just enough to make a difference in that particular circumstance.

I believe this is along the lines of what Shannow is arguing.

As one of the many who are watching this debate, and weighing the merits of arguments from both sides in order to make our own informed decisions, I would like to see the flip side of this discussed. Is this a plausible scenario? Other similar scenarios where a normally negligible difference might just make a difference? How likely for such an occurence to happen where the 5W-20 doesn't protect, but the 5W-30 does? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000,000,000? Just how significant are the differences? Perhaps none of us really has that answer?



I follow exactly what you are saying, I think, but I don't think that is the type of extra protection that Shannow was referring to. He was most probably talking about an event causing detriment to the bearings themselves, as that is his area of expertise. Such an event may be a particle streak, temporary spike in oil temp, temporary fall in oil pressure, etc, etc. In any of these situations, I would absolutely agree that a thicker oil would be more tolerant and would offer some additional amount of time prior to damage occurring than a thinner variant.

But in demarpaint's example, the coolant hose breaking, the time required to get the car to the side of the road does not change because it has little to do with the oil. The oil would not get hot enough in that short time to cause any detriment to the bearings. However, the cylinder head can warp if the vehicle is driven with no coolant (or no cooling). This warping of the head is of no consequence to the type or viscosity of oil that you have, but is because of lack of coolant. Thus, I don't believe any oil would help with preventing a cylinder head warping.

Now, let's say that someone still kept driving, warped their cylinder head, but kept driving anyway with no coolant. At this point, the oil would continue to heat (assuming no fail-safe system on the particular vehicle in question), and yes, a thicker oil would then offer greater protection for a longer amount of time for the "rest" of the engine, (not the already damaged cylinder head).

I'm not sure if I explained this well. Does that kind of make sense? lol


It makes a lot of sense, and as you know engines can still run with a warped head. In my torture test, warped head and all I'd like to see what the cylinder walls, pistons, rings, bearings, cam, etc. looks like in the engine that seized and the one that was shut off when its partner in the test died.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
Trav when they changed the pan over to the smaller size did they bother to alter the OCI any, change the oil grade, or just roll with it until problems arose?

The cars came in small lots to replace older ones so by the time the first batch of replacements were having issues yes the revised the OCI and on later deliveries they went back to the previous oil pan and pickup tube.

I talked to my cousin an engine engineer with a major German auto makers sport div just a few months ago and we got to talking about seals that had been problematic.
Engineering did in fact spec a different type of seal material but the bean counters changed it to a lower and much cheaper grade.

With very few exceptions (there are a few) every car and everything in it is built to a price point.
Every dept has its own bean counter, engineering, body, interior, electrical, paint, suspension you name it.

Now throw in the companies desired consumer image eg Honda goes out of its way to promote themselves as a "green" company, ditto Subaru and Toyota but in another way.
This is where marketing gets to throw their frog in the pot.
Promoting longer and longer OCI, lifetime transmission fills and so on.

How many times have we seen companies back track their OLM with recalibration and/or recommend OCI.
GM, Toyota in recent memory and i am sure most of the others at one time or another but only when it was too late and issues had already arose.
I guarantee you engineering had nothing to do with the fiasco's that developed over that.
Basically all i am saying is you don't necessarily get something the way it was originally engineered sometimes.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
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.


Sorry but you are asking for a comparison that deviates from the original supposition.

The supposition is that engines that once spec'd 30 weight are now spec'ing 20 weight and that this has or hasn't resulted in a change in wear rates.

Folks on this thread have said multiple times that oil has improved and that is why we can move to lighter oils.

We haven't been arguing that an engine running on 30 weight is now running on exactly the same oil just at a 20 weight.

The argument is that engineers used improved 20 weight oil to successfully substitute for older 30 weight oil.

So, on the same engine, you need to compare the wear rates using the 30 weight oil that met the specifications at the time when you were convinced that that oil was providing you the protection you needed against the wear rates using the 20 weight oil that was specified as part of the engineering effort to move to 20 weight oil.

I don't know what the means in Jeep's case but with Ford & I believe Toyota, they have brought out specific oils as part of their move to lighter oils.

You must really learn to not bring bias into your discovery process if you want to get to the truth.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
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.


Sorry but you are asking for a comparison that deviates from the original supposition.

The supposition is that engines that once spec'd 30 weight are now spec'ing 20 weight and that this has or hasn't resulted in a change in wear rates.

Folks on this thread have said multiple times that oil has improved and that is why we can move to lighter oils.

We haven't been arguing that an engine running on 30 weight is now running on exactly the same oil just at a 20 weight.

The argument is that engineers used improved 20 weight oil to successfully substitute for older 30 weight oil.

So, on the same engine, you need to compare the wear rates using the 30 weight oil that met the specifications at the time when you were convinced that that oil was providing you the protection you needed against the wear rates using the 20 weight oil that was specified as part of the engineering effort to move to 20 weight oil.

I don't know what the means in Jeep's case but with Ford & I believe Toyota, they have brought out specific oils as part of their move to lighter oils.

You must really learn to not bring bias into your discovery process if you want to get to the truth.


We're talking engines from 2012, why would you want to use 10-20 year old oil? Run the test on a new Ford or Toyota engine that calls for API SN oil, pick your favorite brand oil API SN oils in 5W20 and 5W30 and have it at. You can use 0W20 if you like. Or take the Jeep engine that called for 5W30 in 2006, the 2007 engine called for 5W20. How about the 2007 engine for the test? Ford, Honda, or Toyota is fine too. You already stated you don't like Chrysler products. Find API SM and use that since that was the oil of that time. I have a feeling you already know the outcome.

No problem with what your asking, 2007 seems like a good year. It fits your criteria, or pick another year where there was a change in oil viscosity spec and the engine remained the same like the 2006-2007, 3.7L engine. Any brand car or oil would be fine. I spelled the test out, seems simple and fair. The good news is no one here will fund the test, so no worries from either camp.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The good news is no one here will fund the test, so no worries from either camp.


The good news is that the test has already been carried out.

The interesting news is that you denied it took place.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The good news is no one here will fund the test, so no worries from either camp.


The good news is that the test has already been carried out.

The interesting news is that you denied it took place.


Post the results, I must have missed them.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
The good news is that the test has already been carried out.


Post it!

 

[MarkStock]

Already did. Earlier in this thread.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Already did. Earlier in this thread.


I guess I missed those test results, care to copy and paste them for me? I think there's a few others who'd like to see them too.

 

[Trav]

Before i go chasing through 28 pages you mean you posted a test that compared 2 identical engines in the same conditions one with 20w and the other with 30w?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Before i go chasing through 28 pages you mean you posted a test that compared 2 identical engines in the same conditions one with 20w and the other with 30w?


I looked, I can't find it either.

 

[MarkStock]

No, and as you well know, I posted Ford's statements refering to their testing with new 20 weight oil where they said that in some cases it performed better than the then current 30 weight oil. 15k oil change intervals, fully loaded suv's going 250,000 miles in extreme heat and taxis tested in extreme cold.

I know that's not good enough for you. It may not even have happened. But you have to take the evidence you can get and make a conclusion, otherwise you'll never move forward.

I would presume that to come up with the statement that wear was in some cases better and with the conclusion that 20 weight was ok, that those tests would have been comparative ie new 20 weight vs current 30 weight in identical engines in identical conditions.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
No, and as you well know, I posted the results of testing that Ford did with their new 20 weight oil where they said that in some cases it performed better than the then current 30 weight oil. 15k oil change intervals, fully loaded suv's going 250,000 miles in extreme heat and taxis tested in extreme cold.

I know that's not good enough for you. It may not even have happened. But you have to take the evidence you can get and make a conclusion, otherwise you'll never move forward.


Well I'm glad I didn't miss those results. I'm pretty certain of the outcome though.