Tribologist discusses 0W8 motor oil

[Hall]

But you seem to be missing his point.

I'm not missing anything. I have nothing against "thin" oils I just meant strictly on an apples-to-apples comparison, that scenario isn't valid. I fully believe that the automakers know much, much more about their engines and oil and wear than anyone else and if they are confident that 0W-8 or 0W-16 is fully safe at protecting the engine, then it is.

 

[kschachn]

I'm not missing anything. I have nothing against "thin" oils I just meant strictly on an apples-to-apples comparison, that scenario isn't valid. I fully believe that the automakers know much, much more about their engines and oil and wear than anyone else and if they are confident that 0W-8 or 0W-16 is fully safe at protecting the engine, then it is.

Yes they provide adequate wear protection under most circumstances.

 

[benjy]

i REALLY enjoy his vids as well as from other "in the know" posters!! remember the gapless total seal rings from years past, + had them installed in my great running Racing Head Service "crate" engine. tech never stands still but theres a learning curve that can BITE $$$ early adopters of new untested things!!

 

[benjy]

i am a thickie + prefer more PROTECTION + LONGER life + of course these "special" oils are costlier.

 

[buster]

"There is not a magical drain interval number." - LSJ

I agree with that. I finally watched the part where he's talking about drain intervals. Oil analysis should dictate the interval otherwise you're guessing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's a great presentation. And Toyota knows how to design an engine for such oils.

And as usual it's not about the oil. It's about an engine that is able to withstand a low HT/HS oil without excessive wear, under these circumstances.

Yep, engines specifying 0W-16 and 0W-8 have special design features to run that low viscosity - journal bearings design, special materials and coating, etc. Those oils may also have a more stout AF/AW additive package. That's why those two viscosities have their own API designation suffix and unique identifying logo on the bottle ... so people don't put those oils in engines not specifying them which could issues. Of course, unless you want to do some experimentation on your own, you could even get some 0W-5.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I found it interesting when he shared what was learned from trials at GM, that a 0W-12 resulted in less wear than a Gen 2 Dexos 1 5W-30, showing that additive package can make enough difference, so that a thinner oil can protect better than a thicker oil. This sure goes against the grain of a lot of personal opinions shared here.

With a super stout AF/AW add package, that can help mitigate wear better when the viscosity can't mitigate it anymore ... ie, when the oil film thickness becomes too thin due to lack of viscosity, then the AF/AW tribofilm between the rubbing parts kicks in and helps prevent wear. Viscosity is the main wear mitigator for parts in hydrodynamic and mix boundary lubrication. Parts that operate mostly in the boundary lubrication realm are made of very hard surfaced parts, like cams and followers, rings, etc, and the AF/AW package is always working hard on those engine components to mitigate wear when the film thickness can't. But it still boils down to more HTHS viscosity results in more MOFT and more wear protection. That will always be the case in Tribology.

 

[dubber09]

Every time .... I read it as Fake Speed Jr. ......

 

[chris719]

No. He stated that the 0W-12 had a new "top secret" additive pack, when the 5W-30 had a gen 2 Dexos 1 compliant add pack. But you seem to be missing his point.

Clearly, a "thin" motor oil can be made to significantly outperform an oil that is accepted to meet a well established and respected specification. So many times we see comments made as an absolute, that these thinner motor oils just won't protect an engine, and will lead to early engine failure. But in truth, at least based upon this example he shares, nothing could be further from the truth.

I would still be concerned with journal bearings which rely on hydrodynamic lubrication. Engines designed for low HTHS oils probably have wider journals and possibly coated bearings. I would think most additives are not going to be all that helpful for the bearings.

 

[ATex7239]

I feel like such a thickie now using 0W16 and 0W20… or middie (middle.) Um, no… maybe a meddie (medium.) Eh, centie (center.) Wait, wait, no, halfie (halfway?) An innie (intermediate?) Nope, that sounds gross.

I don’t know. Might need some time to sort this out.

 

[OVERKILL]

No. He stated that the 0W-12 had a new "top secret" additive pack, when the 5W-30 had a gen 2 Dexos 1 compliant add pack. But you seem to be missing his point.

Clearly, a "thin" motor oil can be made to significantly outperform an oil that is accepted to meet a well established and respected specification.

So, if the "overkill" 0W-20 that HPL put together for me with the A40/LL-01/229.5/502 additive package produced considerably lower wear than a generic D1 G2 offering, which is effectively the same as this situation, is the conclusion that D1 G2 isn't sufficiently robust or that 0W-20 is awesome sauce?

 

[ZeeOSix]

So, if the "overkill" 0W-20 that HPL put together for me with the A40/LL-01/229.5/502 additive package produced considerably lower wear than a generic D1 G2 offering, which is effectively the same as this situation, is the conclusion that D1 G2 isn't sufficiently robust or that 0W-20 is awesome sauce?

What's the HTHS of that 0W-20 that HPL? Probably closer to a xW-30 than not.

 

[OVERKILL]

What's the HTHS of that 0W-20 that HPL? Probably closer to a xW-30 than not.

2.742cP

 

[ZeeOSix]

I would still be concerned with journal bearings which rely on hydrodynamic lubrication. Engines designed for low HTHS oils probably have wider journals and possibly coated bearings. I would think most additives are not going to be all that helpful for the bearings.

The AF/AW package still helps those journal bearings when the MOFT gets super small or goes to zero ... which is more possible with a thinner viscosity inside the bearing.

 

[bbhero]

Better question…

Why does Lake Speed Jr look a whole, whole like that Fox NASCAR race day critter from back in the day ?

The one that they called Digger ?

 

[BHopkins]

So, if the "overkill" 0W-20 that HPL put together for me with the A40/LL-01/229.5/502 additive package produced considerably lower wear than a generic D1 G2 offering, which is effectively the same as this situation, is the conclusion that D1 G2 isn't sufficiently robust or that 0W-20 is awesome sauce?

Haha. I would say neither. But I would say that when I see comments here on BITOG making blanket claims, that these newer thin motor oils can't protect an engine, and are going to lead to early engine failure, I'm going to be inclined to not put too much weight in that person's opinion.

 

[bbhero]

So, if the "overkill" 0W-20 that HPL put together for me with the A40/LL-01/229.5/502 additive package produced considerably lower wear than a generic D1 G2 offering, which is effectively the same as this situation, is the conclusion that D1 G2 isn't sufficiently robust or that 0W-20 is awesome sauce?

Combination of a truly tremendously good base oil with… A truly superior additive package compared to the typical Dexos approved base oil and constrained Dexos additive package..

 

[ZeeOSix]

Haha. I would say neither. But I would say that when I see comments here on BITOG making blanket claims, that these newer thin motor oils can't protect an engine, and are going to lead to early engine failure, I'm going to be inclined to not put too much weight in that person's opinion.

Putting those xW-16 and thinner oils in engines not built for or specified for it could result in more engine wear. Just going with UOA data isn't really going to show long term wear. Need more sophisticated test methods for that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Haha. I would say neither. But I would say that when I see comments here on BITOG making blanket claims, that these newer thin motor oils can't protect an engine, and are going to lead to early engine failure, I'm going to be inclined to not put too much weight in that person's opinion.

Sure, but he's using a unicorn additive package in the 0W-16, which is the point I was driving at. Sure, you can use additives to overcome the use of thinner base oils, but there are also all kinds of constraints (including cost) placed on your typical API approved oil that limits things like phosphorous, so probably not the best comparison.

IMHO, you'd need to see both a 0W-16 and 5W-30 blended the same way with both additive packages to really showcase the difference.

 

[chris719]

The AF/AW package still helps those journal bearings when the MOFT gets super small or goes to zero ... which is more possible with a thinner viscosity inside the bearing.

I assume it depends on what additive. For example, I have read that ZDDP does not help much on non-ferrous surfaces and it seems it would be unable to form durable phosphate glass films on the now-typical Sn and Al top layer bearing material, or polymer if coated. Maybe esters, boron compounds, moly, ionic liquids, etc. would help. Slightly skeptical since people have been trying various oils and adding Ceratec and other additives to BMW S65 engines to try to get them to stop eating bearings forever, but no one has demonstrated any level of success. Not sure what kind of EP additives can be safely added to engine oils. There does seem to be a trend toward wider journals in Euro engines.