thin perhaps not as good as i thought

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Well I'm glad I didn't miss those results. I'm pretty certain of the outcome though.


Well it's now over 10 years ago.

We can google the internet and check complaints on multiple websites that customers have for all sorts of vehicles.

I actually went to look at a particular website that collected information on my year's Taurus. I found transmission issues were a widespread issue, and in other years, transmission and coolant issues.

I also went on the Taurus Club forums.

I never saw an engine failure complaint.

Here's an case where anecdotal evidence would be helpful. We have google, and people love to complain. I can find out about so many things on BITOG and on the net at large - FRAM filters, Purolator filters, Jiffy Lube, dealership mistakes, Chinese rotors.

Where are all the people complaining about the effects of 20 weight oil in Fords over the last decade?

You're clearly a person who forms his scientific opinions through anecdotes. And you can't find the science and you can't find the anecdotes. By your own standards you've failed and that's why you're left with just hints and insinuations.

 

[demarpaint]

^^ I was asking a question hoping for an answer. IIRC you were asking questions the other day, its how we learn isn't it?

 

[MarkStock]

So you doubt that Ford did testing to establish that 20 weight oil was suitable.

Then you ask for detailed test results that you've acknowledged you've got no change of getting.

So the only way left to prove your contention would be to find a meaningful number of actual engine failure caused by the lighter oil. Something that is reasonable because we can easily find examples of failure for almost anything else to do with motor vehicles.

You don't attempt to do that, but keep going back to your original questions.

You have any idea how you're coming across?

 

[Trav]

IMHO your right to be a little sceptical of these test that are mainly for marketing and advertising.
Almost any engine will do fine in a short term high mileage test.
On the other hand look at some of the MB taxis running for more than a decade and a million Km+ stop and go on 5w40. Now that's a real world test!
The real test results are coming years down the road after the thing has been in the hands of a soccer mom or on the job.

 

[demarpaint]

Sorry if my question bothered you, I'm just looking for answers, or expert opinions. Lots of smart minds here, maybe a similar test was done? Compaines do torture tests, mine would be a great way to see just how well an oil protects when things go really bad. It can also be used to see who builds a better engine. What's cool is it wouldn't take long for the results.

Some people aren't happy with how I'm coming across, others might be thinking and wondering about the outcome of a test like the one I mentioned.I bet there are a lot of people pretty sure of the outcome that don't want to get involved. How do you think you came across telling us you posted the results of my test a few pages back?

 

[Trav]

Just throw this out for laughs.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/01/12/ford-ecoboost-tear-down-gimmick/

 

[Shannow]

Oh Dear...

 

[CarbonSteel]

Out of curiosity, what is the expectation for the life of an engine that is specified to use xW-20 versus using xW- in the same engine under the same operating conditions? Would it last 250K, 300K, etc. on xW-20 and that would be increased to ???K by using xW-30, xW-40, xW-50, etc? I just want to hear the general consensus, because it would seem there must be a wide disparity of life expectation between these oils...

What are your thoughts?

 

[MarkStock]

So we've moved from the torture test did not take place to it wasn't really a torture test.

Nice.

Eventually, demarpaint talked about towing a 5000lb boat for a trip he was taking. We eventually got out of him that this was the scenario he was worried about. Well the Ford test was with Expeditions to full towing capacity going 15k between oil changes in the Arizona desert. And at the end of 250,000 miles they found it performed as well if not better than 30 weight.

So, according to Trav, demarpaint's boat towing trip is merely a marketing and advertising exercise. So he has nothing to worry about!

Secondly, I would think that the decision to move to 20 weight oil so significantly (85% of prior year models and a target of 100% of factory fill by 2004), that executives would have been involved throughout the process.

Yes they wanted to get CAFE credits but they also had a huge task to execute on given the obvious attitudes they would get in their ecosystem and even internally and their reputation was riding on the change. You can be sure that if failures had begun to happen, it would have come out. Just look at the Toyota brake pedal furore.

Isn't it interesting that the dealer service depts back then were the ones calling 5w20 "brown water" and requiring hand holding in order to deal with customers, and were given the green light by Ford to fill with 30 weight if a customer objected. And now they tell you adamently you must use 20 weight oil.

What do you think the dealers have seen over the last decades?

I may have a low opinion of dealers but they haven't seen the phantom piles of failed engines that you have, and had the good sense to conclude from that the engineering folks got it right.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Out of curiosity, what is the expectation for the life of an engine that is specified to use xW-20 versus using xW- in the same engine under the same operating conditions? Would it last 250K, 300K, etc. on xW-20 and that would be increased to ???K by using xW-30, xW-40, xW-50, etc? I just want to hear the general consensus, because it would seem there must be a wide disparity of life expectation between these oils...

What are your thoughts?


Good question, the trade off if any was probably calculated. Finding it will be tough.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
So we've moved from the torture test did not take place to it wasn't really a torture test.

Nice.


Isn't it? Hey you don't like the article complain to them. I didn't write it. But the points are valid like them or not.
Quote:
Secondly, I would think that the decision to move to 20 weight oil so significantly (85% of prior year models and a target of 100% of factory fill by 2004),

But it didn't happen did it? In fact more Ford engines are using 30w now than they were then.
Just a talking point article to appease the dealers service dept IMO.

Time for a mercy lock on this thread though i agree.

 

[uart]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Just throw this out for laughs.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/01/12/ford-ecoboost-tear-down-gimmick/


A good quote from that article is this:
Quote:
The thing is, most engine failures start with either a cooling problem, a lubrication problem, or an engine management problem.

This is my opinion exactly. It's seldom regular wear and tear that kills an engine.

Referring to the earlier discussion of an engine blowing a hose and whether or not a thicker oil provides more safety margin. It doesn't have to be something as dramatic as a complete loss of coolant. There are lots of less dramatic examples.

- partially blocked radiator core and driving mountains on a summer day.

- partial loss of coolant

- broken or slipping fan belt

- seized or partially seized water pump

- broken or badly worn impeller etc

These events give a slower temperature rise (compared with blown hose) and the oil temperature rise could be a critical factor in determining how much damage is done before you notice and pull over.

Notice also that these events all imply some degree of neglected maintenance and are all much more likely to occur after warranty period is over. These are the type of events I had in mind when I referred to a potential safety margin of a thicker oil.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: uart
Originally Posted By: Trav
Just throw this out for laughs.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/01/12/ford-ecoboost-tear-down-gimmick/


A good quote from that article is this:
Quote:
The thing is, most engine failures start with either a cooling problem, a lubrication problem, or an engine management problem.

This is my opinion exactly. It's seldom regular wear and tear that kills an engine.

Referring to the earlier discussion of an engine blowing a hose and whether or not a thicker oil provides more safety margin. It doesn't have to be something as dramatic as a complete loss of coolant. There are lots of less dramatic examples.

- partially blocked radiator core and driving mountains on a summer day.

- partial loss of coolant

- broken or slipping fan belt

- seized or partially seized water pump

- broken or badly worn impeller etc

These events give a slower temperature rise (compared with blown hose) and the oil temperature rise could be a critical factor in determining how much damage is done before you notice and pull over.

Notice also that these events all imply some degree of neglected maintenance and are all much more likely to occur after warranty period is over. These are the type of events I had in mind when I referred to a potential safety margin of a thicker oil.


Good points, I was looking for a quick easy way to seize an engine, which is why I came up with that idea for the test I aksed about. Running w/o coolant would do just that.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Out of curiosity, what is the expectation for the life of an engine that is specified to use xW-20 versus using xW- in the same engine under the same operating conditions? Would it last 250K, 300K, etc. on xW-20 and that would be increased to ???K by using xW-30, xW-40, xW-50, etc? I just want to hear the general consensus, because it would seem there must be a wide disparity of life expectation between these oils...

What are your thoughts?


My thoughts are that you're off-base on both assertions. 1) I doubt there would be a wide disparity in engine life. After all, engines are tolerant of a wide range of viscosity and 2) pretty much all of the available research suggested lowest wear with oils in the 2.4 to 2.8 hths range. So, the logical inference would be that there would be marginally less wear with the specified oil. Whether or not that increase is enough to matter? My guess is "it depends".

Of course, now the goalposts have moved, and the discussion is "what works best in the case of a catastrophic failure.", not "what is optimal". And yes, this isn't a "slow leak" or "coolant blockage", but catastrophic failure, since all modern engines (at least of which I'm aware) have sophisticated fail-safes to shut the engine down in the case of elevated coolant and oil temps, and to cool the engine in the case of highly-elevated temperatures . So, all of those fail-safes have to fail as well. This is probably why engine damage from overheating in modern engines which spec 20W oil seems to be exceedingly rare. No doubt, some brands have relied on oil viscosity to be a line of defense around poorly-designed cooling system. Manufacturers spec'ing 20W oils don't really have that luxury, and have designed their engine systems accordingly--and the proof seems to be in the pudding.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: JOD
My thoughts are that you're off-base on both assertions. 1) I doubt there would be a wide disparity in engine life. After all, engines are tolerant of a wide range of viscosity and 2) pretty much all of the available research suggested lowest wear with oils in the 2.4 to 2.8 hths range.

I based my "assertion" on the information in this thread and the wide swings of opinion have led me to think there is a wide disparity. My own thought is the difference in engine life would be negligible and no, I do not have a quadruple peer-reviewed paper to back up my thoughts. However, if the general consensus is the same (no appreciable difference in engine life), then the question becomes why all of the chest pounding over something that would not matter in the long run anyway?

Perhaps, I am not seeing the big picture here...

 

[KD0AXS]

I would have to guess that if you were to experience a catastrophic event that led to engine failure, it wouldn't much matter if you were running 5W-20 or 5W-30. There's just not enough difference in the two that you would have an engine failure on 5W-20, but your engine would be fine if you were running 5W-30.

It's also been covered many times that a 5W-30 tends to shear rather quickly, so after about 1000 miles you would pretty much have a 5W-20 anyway. If you are running 5W-30 and 5K OCIs, you're pretty much running 5W-20 about 80% of the time.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
pretty much all of the available research suggested lowest wear with oils in the 2.4 to 2.8 hths range

So the manufactures that spec 0w40 or even 5w30 are allowing more wear when they could easily reduce it just by specing lighter oil?
Sorry there is just to much evidence against that. That kite wont fly.

UOA's on many engines running HTHS 3.8 0w40 show much better results than with lighter oils.

As far all all this desert testing and fail safe stuff goes all i have to say is North Star!
Desert tested absolutely fail safe cooling system. We all know how that turned out.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

Perhaps, I am not seeing the big picture here...


Well, the "chest pounding" on my part has to do with what I view as a ridiculous assertion: that the government, via CAFE standards, is forcing people to run sub-optimal oil in their cars. I've seen zero evidence to support it, yet it gets thrown around non-stop. In the end of the day, as long has you have enough in there and you change it every now and then, most engines will be just fine...

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
pretty much all of the available research suggested lowest wear with oils in the 2.4 to 2.8 hths range

So the manufactures that spec 0w40 or even 5w30 are allowing more wear when they could easily reduce it just by specing lighter oil?
Sorry there is just to much evidence against that. That kite wont fly.



Sorry, I should have been more clear: "lowest wear in engines for which 20W oils are approved." That said, one of the tests which another poster linked in another thread showed the lowest wear rates for a GM3800 with oils in the 2.4-2.8 range.

No, I'm not saying that your engine calling for an A3-rated oil will show less wear with oils in the 2.4-2.8 range. Engines that call for an API 5W30? Yeah, they very well may be "calling for more wear", but as I've said (repeatedly), we're talking about very small differences. Choices of oil viscosity has many facets. I doubt "absolute lowest wear" isn't the only consideration for ANY manufacturer.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
It's also been covered many times that a 5W-30 tends to shear rather quickly, so after about 1000 miles you would pretty much have a 5W-20 anyway. If you are running 5W-30 and 5K OCIs, you're pretty much running 5W-20 about 80% of the time.

Its also been posted many times that 20w doesn't shear much.
This brings me back to a question i had.
If 30w shears so easily and 20w doesn't why not spec 20w in the first place?

Ford wouldn't dare try 20w in the 2004 4.0 even though every other engine they offered that year was spec for 20w.
Its not like they didn't have time to make "improvements" to the oiling system but according to you it shouldn't matter because it was running 20w 80% of the time anyway.

Why does Ford spec 5w30 today in many more engines than they did in 04?
Almost 9 years has gone by since then for 20w to be even more improved but no, they spec 30w and even 50w in some engines.