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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's concerning is that you think this requires a vivid imagination. You ever see a block get window'd Bill? Because I have. Sometimes the rod goes out the side, sometimes it goes out the pan, sometimes it goes out both. Spinning a rod bearing isn't some uber-rare event, and the results are often very messy.

Edit, here's some idiot windowing the block in his BMW M3. Note the fire and resultant oil slick:

To quote one of the spectators in this video: "You can't drive on from here. You need a tow truck." Genius! :p


That said, a pile-up on the highway requires diligent cooperation from other drivers to happen. Their minimum contributions to be demanded are the conscious negation of any safety distance and igorance of any traffic except the car immedidiately in front of them.
A couple of friends have windowed a block on the Autobahn (because Saab B235R...), one has set his car on fire doing so. No catastrophe ever happened.
On my very first car I have myself had an engine failure* at moderate speed (~180km/h) in moderate traffic, including loss of power steering and brake force amplifier. No big deal: put the car in neutral, put the hazards on and gently coast to the shoulder. If a kid who just got his license half a year before can cope with this, anybody should be able to. (On a narrow, twisty mountain road this would be rather more tricky and the situation would be much more dangerous. But I understand you do not have these in Florida.)

You have one very point though: oil on the tarmac. In a straight line, probably nothing will happen, in a curve that might indeed become dangerous for others. Also not very good for the environment. The fire and the oil spill will negate any environmental benefit from lower fuel consumption.


*The guy who sold me the car a couple of months earlier was super helpful. As he was a high-school-teacher and this happened during the summer holydays, he had some time at hand and just said "get the car to Berlin - I have a donor car that was wrecked in an accident. I can give you the engine for cheap, and I'll show you to get the old one out and the new one in". That was my first engine swap and the first time ever I worked on a car. When we tore the damaged engine down, we found that some sealant had blocked an oil passage. A few weeks prior I had a garage fix an oil leak at the oil filter flange. Turns out they had not used the paper gasket, but liquid sealant, some of which had swelled out to the side into the oil path. Apparently some of this had come lose and wandered through the block.
 
Last edited:
To quote one of the spectators in this video: "You can't drive on from here. You need a tow truck." Genius! :p


That said, a pile-up on the highway requires diligent cooperation from other drivers to happen. Their minimum contributions to be demanded are the conscious negation of any safety distance and igorance of any traffic except the car immedidiately in front of them.
A couple of friends have windowed a block on the Autobahn (because Saab B235R...), one has set his car on fire doing so. No catastrophe ever happened.
On my very first car I have myself had an engine failure* at moderate speed (~180km/h) in moderate traffic, including loss of power steering and brake force amplifier. No big deal: put the car in neutral, put the hazards on and gently coast to the shoulder. If a kid who just got his license half a year before can cope with this, anybody should be able to. (On a narrow, twisty mountain road this would be rather more tricky and the situation would be much more dangerous. But I understand you do not have these in Florida.)

You have one very point though: oil on the tarmac. In a straight line, probably nothing will happen, in a curve that might indeed become dangerous for others. Also not very good for the environment. The fire and the oil spill will negate any environmental benefit from lower fuel consumption.


*The guy who sold me the car a couple of months earlier was super helpful. As he was a high-school-teacher and this happened during the summer holydays, he had some time at hand and just said "get the car to Berlin - I have a donor car that was wrecked in an accident. I can give you the engine for cheap, and I'll show you to get the old one out and the new one in". That was my first engine swap and the first time ever I worked on a car. When we tore the damaged engine down, we found that some sealant had blocked an oil passage. A few weeks prior I had a garage fix an oil leak at the oil filter flange. Turns out they had not used the paper gasket, but liquid sealant, some of which had swelled out to the side into the oil path. Apparently some of this had come lose and wandered through the block.
And Bill thought this stuff never happened ;)

Drivers in the US and Canada aren't of the same calibre (or training) as what you have in Germany. Even then, the odds of it cascading into catastrophe aren't high, but the possibility certainly exists, hence that being presented as a "worst case scenario".
 
Kind of shoots down 0W-5 even more, lol. CAFE pretty much "shoots down" 10W-60. The discussion isn't about how good 10W-60 is or isn't in cars specifying 5W-30. And if you look at that data, a 10W-60 would actually give more MOFT compared to thinner oils, regardless of the bearing clearance (graph in post #147), and would obviously work better in bearings with more clearance than a thinner oil, and in cars that are pushed harder than the average cars.
Kinda shoots down any assumption MOFT is above bearing clearance in importance. Tighter clearance creates wider footprint of support in the bearing. And lower viscosity is the key to tighter clearance. There is only one optimum viscosity.
 
Kinda shoots down any assumption MOFT is above bearing clearance in importance. Tighter clearance creates wider footprint of support in the bearing. And lower viscosity is the key to tighter clearance. There is only one optimum viscosity.
They are two different things which are related to each other. My goodness you grasp for straws.

There is no optimum viscosity either.
 
There is no optimum viscosity either.
It has to do with oil flow and heat transfer. Read the conclusions at the end of the King Bearing link I posted. This bearing is designed for an optimum balance for that bearing dimensions.
 
Last edited:
It has to do with oil flow and heat transfer. Read the conclusions at the end of the King Bearing link I posted. This bearing is designed for an optimum balance for that bearing dimensions.
Bearing dimensions are selected based on myriad factors with minimum anticipated viscosity being but one component. There are many other, more important, factors related to the engine design, power density, block material...etc.

This short article from Mahle would be a good one for you to read on this:

Like so many things discussed on this site that people try to distill down to one parameter and then obsess over, there are myriad factors in play with appropriate bearing selection. Focusing on clearance and concluding that you can just run 0W-8 (I refuse to use the undefined 0W5 grade for what should be obvious reasons) if you make things tight enough betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of this process.

I highly recommend going back and reading some of @Shannow's old posts on bearing design, selection...etc. That's his area of expertise and back when he was posting regularly, he covered it extensively.
 
What's concerning is that you think this requires a vivid imagination. You ever see a block get window'd Bill? Because I have. Sometimes the rod goes out the side, sometimes it goes out the pan, sometimes it goes out both. Spinning a rod bearing isn't some uber-rare event, and the results are often very messy.

Edit, here's some idiot windowing the block in his BMW M3. Note the fire and resultant oil slick:

@AEHaas should get an E92 M3. It can spin rod bearings with 10W-60. It should be the ultimate test with 0W-5. 🤣
 
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
 
Bearing dimensions are selected based on myriad factors with minimum anticipated viscosity being but one component. There are many other, more important, factors related to the engine design, power density, block material...etc.

This short article from Mahle would be a good one for you to read on this:

Like so many things discussed on this site that people try to distill down to one parameter and then obsess over, there are myriad factors in play with appropriate bearing selection. Focusing on clearance and concluding that you can just run 0W-8 (I refuse to use the undefined 0W5 grade for what should be obvious reasons) if you make things tight enough betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of this process.

I highly recommend going back and reading some of @Shannow's old posts on bearing design, selection...etc. That's his area of expertise and back when he was posting regularly, he covered it extensively.
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.
 
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
Awesome plane! I think given the take-off load, you would survive because the engine will seize before it is airborne...
 
Wasn't the E46 just as bad? IIRC, rod bearings are considered a "maintenance item" on those engines by most owners, lol.
Not only e46. Pretty much all M50, M52, M54, and the S-engines derived from those.
Apparently rod bearings can be changed with the engine in the car. That would be very maintenance-friendly indeed! (y)


I'm very exited about the first UOA on the wife's toy. Car was said to be on it's second engine, engine mileage is unknown. Should I see high copper+lead I'll investigate further how easy this maintenance job really is...
 
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.
Thicker oil provides more MOFT, if you have a need for a greater MOFT, then that's "better", if you don't, you are just wasting power. It doesn't make it detrimental however. Going the other way, you of course risk considerable damage or engine failure.

The spec viscosity isn't simply a result of the bearing dimensions I guess is my point. You can have two engines with the same dimensions spec very different viscosities. I've provided the example of the Ford Mustang GT (5W-20) and Ford Mustang GT Track Pack (5W-50) in the past, and this is the exact same engine. The 5.7L HEMI (5W-20/0W-20) and 6.4L HEMI (0W-40) is another example where many components are identical but the spec viscosity is considerably different and this is due to anticipated usage profile.

@ZeeOSix often mentions "headroom" and that's exactly what the manufacturers are shooting for with the above recommendations. They aren't concerned with viscosity selection being "optimal"; 5W-50 is likely suboptimal for 90% of the driving a Mustang GT Track Pack is going to see. They are concerned with it being sufficient when the performance envelope is pushed to its limit, like on a track (hence, Track Pack). This is also why GM has historically spec'd two different viscosities for the Corvette and Camaro, recommending a much heavier oil for track use (15W-50).
 
Thicker oil provides more MOFT, if you have a need for a greater MOFT, then that's "better", if you don't, you are just wasting power. It doesn't make it detrimental however. Going the other way, you of course risk considerable damage or engine failure.

The spec viscosity isn't simply a result of the bearing dimensions I guess is my point. You can have two engines with the same dimensions spec very different viscosities. I've provided the example of the Ford Mustang GT (5W-20) and Ford Mustang GT Track Pack (5W-50) in the past, and this is the exact same engine. The 5.7L HEMI (5W-20/0W-20) and 6.4L HEMI (0W-40) is another example where many components are identical but the spec viscosity is considerably different and this is due to anticipated usage profile.

@ZeeOSix often mentions "headroom" and that's exactly what the manufacturers are shooting for with the above recommendations. They aren't concerned with viscosity selection being "optimal"; 5W-50 is likely suboptimal for 90% of the driving a Mustang GT Track Pack is going to see. They are concerned with it being sufficient when the performance envelope is pushed to its limit, like on a track (hence, Track Pack). This is also why GM has historically spec'd two different viscosities for the Corvette and Camaro, recommending a much heavier oil for track use (15W-50).
Yes and why there is no global "optimal" for the bearings.
 
Kinda shoots down any assumption MOFT is above bearing clearance in importance.
So your saying MOFT doesn't matters to prevent bearing wear? Not sure what you're saying here. In all the journal bearing tribology info linked earlier in this thread, everything says that a thicker oil gives more MOFT - regardless of the bearing clearance - and therefore more protection from metal-to-metal wear in bearings. Can you show one graph from those bearing experts info that show more MOFT is obtained with thinner oil at any bearing clearance?

All the journal bearing tribology data shows that thicker oil always gives more MOFT than thinner oil. As the clearance increases, the difference in MOFT becomes more than when the clearance is tighter, but engine designers/builders need to be cautious on going too tight on bearings because they live is a more dangerous realm in terms of less MOFT, more shearing/heating, etc. A good way to smoke journal bearings is to run them with too tight a clearance, and thinner oil to start with isn't helping the MOFT either, regardless of the bearing clearance.

Tighter clearance creates wider footprint of support in the bearing. And lower viscosity is the key to tighter clearance. There is only one optimum viscosity.
Yes, a tighter clearance creates a wider side-to-side pressure wedge footprint across the bearing, but it also causes a reduction in MOFT, and higher temperature rise in the bearing, which decreases the viscosity even more, ref previous temp rise graph. None of those effects are going in the best direction. As the clearance gets tighter and tighter, there is more shearing, less oil flow, much higher temp rise and less MOFT. Go look at all those graphs again in this link:

From the link I gave in post #157:
"Another problem of low viscosity oils is associated with the distribution of oil pressure over the bearing surface.
Oil viscosity does not exert influence on the average pressure however it does affect the value of the pressure peak. The pressure distribution in low viscosity oil is less uniformthe peak pressure is higher therefore the load applied to the bearing material in this particular area is higher.
This may cause fatigue if the fatigue strength of the material is insufficient.
The effect of low viscosity oil on the pressure distribution may be compensated by a decrease of the bearing clearance."


Note the bolded parts, where they are saying a lower viscosity oil causes a less uniform pressure distribution on the bearing, and can cause more peak pressure on the bearing material which can cause damage. Running a more viscous oil will give a better oil wedge pressure distribution inside the bearing - regardless of the clearance.

What this is also saying is it's much worse to run a thinner oil in bearings with a large clearance than it is to run a thicker oil in bearings with a tighter clearance. Again, all the graphs show an increase in MOFT with increased oil viscosity, regardless of the bearing clearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top