Upcoming 0W5 Grade Red Line Oil Experiment- 2019 Lincoln Navigator 4WD 3.5L V6 Twin Turbo

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm going to drain out the straight 50 from my Lycoming IO360 powered Cessna 177RG and pour in some 0W-5. Then go fly. Let's guess my life expectancy in minutes or hours...

I44TTsX.jpg
If it doesn’t work out, please let us know. Or your next of kin, as applicable.
 
Here is another link…

It shows power loss.
Read the conclusions. The bearing clearance has optimum value linked to viscosity.
Did you see this part in that link?:
"The behavior of the most fluid oil (0W5) is quite different. At relatively great clearances its viscosity is too low to create hydrodynamic force sufficient for maintaining the required level of min. oil film thickness. This effect is the most prominent at low rotation speed 2000 RPM. The greatest value of oil film thickness is achieved at the lowest clearance of 0.0004” (1/5000 of the bearing diameter)."

Show me one passenger car on the road that has journal bearing clearances of 0.0004".

What this says, and what the corresponding graphs show, is that running a very thin oil in anything but a super tight bearing is going to not provide adequate MOFT to protect the bearing from wear. The graph also shows that all thicker oils above 0W-5 gives more MOFT, regardless of the bearing clearance.

And note (as I mentioned before) that low RPM makes MOFT even less. So even just "cruising around" at low RPM with very low viscosity is giving the smallest MOFT, especially in bearings that are not super tight - again, it's worse to run thin oil in large clearances than it is to run thick oil in tight clearances. Most passenger car journal bearings are in the 0.0015-0.0020" range - about where the peaks of MOFT are shown for the two thicker oils in the graph.

1674246648655.png
 
Last edited:
This Mahle link is great info. Keep in mind bearing clearance is a ratio you need to adapt. The bearing clearance on my post from King Bearing only has 3 points measured and has 3 viscosities. One bearing size. These are not random points. The optimum MOFT is centered to 0w5 at .0004 inch, 10w30 to .002 inch and 10w60 to .004 inch. It only applies to that bearing dimensions and is optimum MOFT there. Just to throw out a thicker oil is better goes against these two links.
Re: Bolded part. It also shows that the thicker oils give a bearing with 0.0004" clearance even more MOFT regardless of RPM. And at 8000 RPM with 0W-5, a bearing with 0.002" clearance gives the highers MOFT ... but again, the thicker oils still give more MOFT in all cases.

Still waiting for the graph that shows more MOFT with thinner oil used in any journal bearing clearance.
 
Yes and why there is no global "optimal" for the bearings.
And also why the claim by some people that "engines are built around an oil viscosity" is total nonsense. The only exception that might fit that mantra are the engines that specify 0W-16 and below. Some design factors (like wider journal bearings and maybe bearing materials) and other engine component materials/coatings changes are involves with using oils that thin. Also why API has a separate unique logo for oils that are 0W-16 and thinner because they don't want people pouring a 0W-16 into any vehicle not specifying a 0W-16. But even the makers of those engines (ie, Toyota) still say that a thicker oil can be used if the engine is used in more severe use conditions (high speeds, towing, etc). Engines can run thicker oils (as long as the W rating is correct) without negative incidents, but may not be able to run thinner oils without negative incidents.

Engine clearances have basically been the same for decades, and engines used in the USA are not built "specially for" a thin viscosity when the same engines used in other countries specify a whole spectrum of oil viscosity. If engines were "built around a viscosity", then car makers also wouldn't specify much thicker oil for track use. The reason they specify thicker oil for track use it to protect the engine better from wear and damage. The tribology of journal bearings discussed in this thread show why a thicker oil protects journal bearings better.
 
Last edited:
Did you see this part in that link?:
"The behavior of the most fluid oil (0W5) is quite different. At relatively great clearances its viscosity is too low to create hydrodynamic force sufficient for maintaining the required level of min. oil film thickness. This effect is the most prominent at low rotation speed 2000 RPM. The greatest value of oil film thickness is achieved at the lowest clearance of 0.0004” (1/5000 of the bearing diameter)."

Show me one passenger car on the road that has journal bearing clearances of 0.0004".

What this says, and what the corresponding graphs show, is that running a very thin oil in anything but a super tight bearing is going to not provide adequate MOFT to protect the bearing from wear. The graph also shows that all thicker oils above 0W-5 gives more MOFT, regardless of the bearing clearance.

And note (as I mentioned before) that low RPM makes MOFT even less. So even just "cruising around" at low RPM with very low viscosity is giving the smallest MOFT, especially in bearings that are not super tight - again, it's worse to run thin oil in large clearances than it is to run thick oil in tight clearances. Most passenger car journal bearings are in the 0.0015-0.0020" range - about where the peaks of MOFT are shown for the two thicker oils in the graph.

View attachment 136435
Because engine metal goes from cold to hot and it is not possible to get metal bearings perfectly round, not there yet. And that is the reason for the three viscosities. The spread just gives a view of relationships. Ensim is a computer software program by King Bearing to find the right product for application. My guess is that is how these graphs were manufactured.


 
Last edited:
Because engine metal goes from cold to hot and it is not possible to get metal bearings perfectly round, not there yet. And that is the reason for the three viscosities. The spread just gives a view of relationships. Ensim is a computer software program by King Bearing to find the right product for application. My guess is that is how these graphs were manufactured.

Show us anywhere in the King Bearing journal bearing information where they show that thinner oil will result in more MOFT regardless of bearing clearance. It doesn't happen ... higher viscosity always gives more MOFT in all bearing clearances. Show where it doesn't, because experts like King Bearing does not show that happening in any of their journal bearing technical information.
 
I see you added this link after I did the reply above. Yes, there may be an "optiimim" oil viscosity for a specific bearing clearance ... but that does not show or prove that thicker oil always produces a thicker MOFT in any bearing clearance as shown by the other information on the King Bearing website.

Where is the information that clearly shows that more MOFT is created by a thinner oil vs a thicker oil with all other variables held constant except for the bearing clearance? All the King Bearing graphs show just the opposite ... thicker oil always creates more MOFT regardless of bearing clearance. Yes, the MOFT difference becomes less and less with thicker oil as the bearing clearance gets tighter, but the trend is still there that more MOFT is associate with thicker oil.
 
Last edited:
I see you added this link after I did the reply above. Yes, there may be an "optiimim" oil viscosity for a specific bearing clearance ... but that does not show or prove that thicker oil always produces a thicker MOFT in any bearing clearance as shown by the other information on the King Bearing website.

Where is the information that clearly shows that more MOFT is created by a thinner oil vs a thicker oil with all other variables held constant except for the bearing clearance? All the King Bearing graphs show just the opposite ... thicker oil always creates more MOFT regardless of bearing clearance. Yes, the MOFT difference becomes less and less with thicker oil as the bearing clearance gets tighter, but the trend is still there that more MOFT is associate with thicker oil.
What I am is not an expert. But below that link is how to answer any question you have from Dr. Dmitri.
 
What I am is not an expert. But below that link is how to answer any question you have from Dr. Dmitri.
What do you think his response would be if he was asked if running a 0W-5 in a 2019 Lincoln Navigator 3.5L V6 Twin Turbo would be OK? :unsure:

I'm pretty sure he would say that 0W-5 would not produced anything close to the "optimum" MOFT in those journal bearings.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to drain out the straight 50 from my Lycoming IO360 powered Cessna 177RG and pour in some 0W-5. Then go fly. Let's guess my life expectancy in minutes or hours...

I44TTsX.jpg

It glides! Just the tow off the highway will be expensive.
 
I’m a fan of DrH (Ali). His posts are interesting and provocative. I’ve been following him for years. Don’t think he’s ever had an engine failure (oil related). 20w in a Ferrari! I am looking forward to the upcoming UOA.
 
Wanted to point out this piece in that King Bearing PDF.

"The advantages of small clearances are: low
values of oil peak pressure and low oil leakage.
However there are clear drawbacks.
First of all, min. oil film thickness at tight
clearances may be too low (Figures 1 and 2).
The second adverse factor is related to possible
distortions of the bearing housing and crankshaft
in high performance engines working at high
loads and high rotation speeds. The distortions
are much more dangerous in bearings with small
clearances.
The third disadvantage of tight clearance is

excessive heating of the oil. The friction energy
generated by the bearing at high rotation speeds
may heat the oil to a temperature above its

maximum limit (e.g. 500 °F for synthetic oil). The
graph in Figure 7 illustrates the effect of clearance
on oil temperature rise (delta T)."


Oil temperature inside a journal bearing with too tight clearance can get way out of hand fast - regardless of the oil viscosity used. Too tight of bearing clearance is danger zone, and can smoke bearings in short order. Even at a larger bearing clearance like 0.002", the temperature rise could be over 150F at higher RPM.

1674264853788.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top