Thinner oil = Increased wear?

[Shipo]

Hey androbot2084,

Do you ever take the time to provide supporting references to some of the outrageous claims that you make?

I ask because you've made some rather questionable comments/claims in the last week or so, and each time when somebody has challenged you, you've seemingly disappeared from that thread or ignored the request for supporting references in later posts.

Currently I'm waiting on you to provide supporting your claim that a "0W-50 synthetic oil" can meet the obsolete "MIL-L-22851D piston aviation specifications". You said that there are some that do, and while I'm skeptical, I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong. So please; which fully synthetic 0W-50 oils are certified to meet MIL-L-22851D?

 

[androbot2084]

For non combat use for gasoline engines the military uses 5w20 engine oil.

 

[androbot2084]

Its a known fact that for combat use the military uses MIL-46167 OW30 100% synthetic motor oil for the -50 F to 90 F temperature range.

 

[androbot2084]

And the military uses combat grade mil-prf-2104 5w40 100% synthetic oil for temperature ranges from -30 F to 120 F. These oils meet the requirements of high performance engines such as the Detroit Diesel 2 stroke engine.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shipo:
Hey androbot2084,

Do you ever take the time to provide supporting references to some of the outrageous claims that you make?

I ask because you've made some rather questionable comments/claims in the last week or so, and each time when somebody has challenged you, you've seemingly disappeared from that thread or ignored the request for supporting references in later posts.

Currently I'm waiting on you to provide supporting your claim that a "0W-50 synthetic oil" can meet the obsolete "MIL-L-22851D piston aviation specifications". You said that there are some that do, and while I'm skeptical, I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong. So please; which fully synthetic 0W-50 oils are certified to meet MIL-L-22851D?

---

I suspect that was a rhetorical question, but since I checked the cancelation date on the spec and found it to be 1 Nov 1995, I'll post this anyway for the 'bots education.

There would be no synthetics that are certified to meet the spec in question. You can't certify an oil to met a spec that was officially cancelled nearly 11 years ago.

Not even Amsoil can do that unless they have a time machine

 

[Gary Allan]

Oh ..I don't know about that. Some enterprising retiring official could have handed them out for a supplimental income. He/she figured if you want a Mil spec ..you should have one. In the fine print ..the "no assurance of merchanability is expressed or implied".

It's kinda like the Star Registry.

 

[Shipo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
I suspect that was a rhetorical question, but since I checked the cancelation date on the spec and found it to be 1 Nov 1995, I'll post this anyway for the 'bots education.

---

Gee, was I that obvious?

 

[b_rubenstein]

FYI – Part of Military Acquisition Reform has been to cancel many Mil Standards and Requirements and replace them with commercial ones. Many existing programs will still reference standards and requirements that were in effect at the time that the program was started. New programs will invoke the new standards and requirements.

In the case of MIL-L-22851D it was replaced with SAE J1899. The scope description of the SAE spec (http://engineers.ihs.com/document/abstract/GMPIIBAAAAAAAAAA) states: This document covers the same lubricating oil requirements as the former military specification MIL-L-22851. The two specs may in fact be identical.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by b_rubenstein:
FYI – Part of Military Acquisition Reform has been to cancel many Mil Standards and Requirements and replace them with commercial ones.

---

Do you have a generic description of what changes when they go from a traditional mil spec designation to a mil performance spec? For instance form MIL-L-2104G to MIL-PRF-2104F. FWIW, there are the same number of pages in both specs. Is there some fundamental ddifferance or is it just a name change going from -L- to -PRF-

 

[androbot2084]

Synlube with its radical 0w50 viscosity does in fact meet the mil-prf-46167c specification and
probably even the 46167d specification. Remember there is no upper limit on viscosity so a 0w40 0w50 or even a 0w60 weight oil could potentially quallify.

The vendors list is a different story and has nothing to do with quality as long as the product meets the minimim specifications and I think that you already know that. To get on an approved vendors list a product has to meet a certain price point and Amsoil and Synlube are not known for their low prices. Even if the product met the price point there may be doubts that a 0w50 grade oil would in fact meet the viscosity requirements of the 46167d specification and may be considered out of grade and out of specification because it is not a 0w30. However this would be an error on the part of the person assembling the vendors list and if the specification were closely looked at it would be found that a 0w50 oil conforms to the specification and is in fact eligible to be placed on the vendors list if the price is right.

 

[androbot2084]

As far as Amsoil products are concerned people love to say that Amsoil does not meet the specifications as advertised. This simply is not true. Amsoil 5w30 heavy duty diesel oil fully meets mil-prf-2104g specification and its viscosity conforms to the requirements of an SAE 30 grade oil. However with the revised mil-prf-2104h specification SAE 30 grade oils were dropped and the only remaining oils were the 5w40 15w40 and SAE 40 grade oils. Amsoil however has a 15w40 oil that meets the 2104 specification.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by b_rubenstein:
FYI – Part of Military Acquisition Reform has been to cancel many Mil Standards and Requirements and replace them with commercial ones. Many existing programs will still reference standards and requirements that were in effect at the time that the program was started. New programs will invoke the new standards and requirements.

---

Still working on it, huh? They started that reform about 2 decades ago. COTS was the buzzword. Commercial Off The Shelf.

 

[androbot2084]

As far as 0w50 grade oil meeting mil-prf-2104g specifications again it would seem that 5w40 oil is required and a 0w50 would be out of grade. However the 5w-40 limitation may be just a minimum viscosity and 5w50 grade oils or 5w60 grade oils may be allowed. Remember Synlube is marketed as a 5w50 grade oil with all the performance advantages of a 0w oil and it fails the 0w grade by only 50 centistrokes which is not significant so for all practical purposes it can be considered a 0w50 grade oil. Remember that the mil-prf-46167d specification does not require an oil to meet the 0w grade but rather certain performance requiremants some of which are more rigourous than 0w.

 

[Gary Allan]

and all that means

I can't quite filter for the punch line.

You've got way too much "may" and "might" type usage. Can you move to "is" and "does" so that you're either wrong or right?

..and all to what end? It's not like you're going to make MIL spec sales HERE. Can I ask, "What's your point?"??

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Still working on it, huh? They started that reform about 2 decades ago. COTS was the buzzword. Commercial Off The Shelf.

---

Yep, we hear it every day. Go Navy!!

JMH

 

[androbot2084]

Interestingly the temperature limit of a mil-prf-46167d is from -50 degrees F to 90 degrees F. However if an oil is dual rated to meet the mil-prf-46167d and the mil-prf-2104h specification its temperature range can be increased to -50 degrees farenheight to 120 degrees farenheight. A 5w40 oil that has the cold weather performance of a 0 weight oil could easily be dual rated to meet both of these specifications.

 

[b_rubenstein]

MIL-PRF-2104H, LUBRICATING OIL, INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, COMBAT/TACTICAL SERVICE per para 1.2 pertains to oil of the following viscosities: 40 , 15W-40 and 5W-40, Military Symbols OE/HDO-40, OE/HDO-15/40 and OE/HDO-5/40.

MIL-PRF-46167D, LUBRICATING OIL, INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, ARCTIC per para 1.1 pertains to 30 weight oil, Military Symbol OEA-30.

By definition no oil can meet both specs.


MIL-L-22851D, LUBRICATING OIL, AIRCRAFT PISTON ENGINE (ASHLESS DISPERSANT) dates to 1990. The performance specifications for the oil viscosities that it covers are so old and out of date that they could probably be met by a current $.89/qt oil.


If anyone is interested in reading the specs, they can be found here: http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/

 

[dek]

I just switched to M1 5W20 in my 2002 Civic at 76k with a M1 oil filter. I've been running random dino oils and Fram filters the whole time with 3k OCI because I wasn't very educated about this stuff. The best I ever put in it was Castrol GTX 5W20 and an OEM filter right before switching 3k miles later. I also dumped in a can of Lubro Moly MoS2. I was afraid to once I saw how opaque and dark it was, but it was super slippery in my fingers (like graphite). I've got 230 miles on the combo so far, and I don't think that my engine has ever run smoother and quieter. The 7th gen Civics have crappy noise insulation, and I can hear the difference when accelerating. I've been keeping track of mpg, so we'll see if it helps. I have no financial interest in M1 or Lubro Moly (maybe I should); I'm just sharing my anecdotal observations.

One thing that people seem to ignore is that the viscosity partly determines how well the oil flows through the oil filter. The lower the viscosity, the better it will flow. Flow resistance in a tube is directly proportional to viscosity and inversely proportional to the fourth power of the tube radius. So obviously pore size is the main factor, but flow will be better for 5W20 vs higher weight oils in the same filter. This might be part of the reason why Honda filters are smaller than they used to be. The filter area can be proportionally reduced as the viscosity is reduced.

-dek

 

[androbot2084]

After carefull review of the revised mil-prf-2104h specification I have concluded that the widely cross graded (0w)5w50 Synlube motor oil does not meet the current 2104h specification because there is indeed a viscosity limitation of less than 16.3 centistrokes at 100 degrees centigrade and the SAE 50 grade exceeds those limitations. However the Synlube (0w)5w50 does meet the mil-prf-2104f and the mil-prf-46167c specifications.

With slight modifications a widely cross graded dual usage (0w)5w40 oil could be developed that conforms to both the current mil-prf-2104h and the mil-prf-46167d and would allow a temperature range of -50F to 120F. It would seem at first that since the 2104h 5w40 viscosity requirements would impose limitation that a minimum viscosity of 6200 centipose at -35C is required thus precluding a 0w oil. However the mil-prf-46167d specification does allow a maximum viscosity of 6200 cp at -35c so a 5w40 could meet this specification. However this 5w40 oil would also have to meet the rigourous low temperature viscosity requirements which exceeds what is required of a 0w motor oil which are a maximum 18,000 centipose at -40c 55,00cp at -48c

[ August 01, 2006, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: androbot2084 ]

 

[b_rubenstein]

Bot - you've got to learn how to read a Mil-Spec. Section I is the Scope of the specification. MIL-PRF-46167D only covers a 30 weight oil, it doesn't apply to 5W-50 regardless of the 5W-50's other properties.