They would be within the same spec. When you buy a spare crank, piston or other critical part you don't know what factory it will be from. It will have one (1) and the same part number for the same engine code.
Using 0W-20 in a 2025 Corolla?
- Thread starter flinter
- Start date
They would be within the same spec. When you buy a spare crank, piston or other critical part you don't know what factory it will be from. It will have one (1) and the same part number for the same engine code.
Parts can be significantly different in two different market, and can and are made to different specs due to various reasons.
Here is the example I am talking about, and even though they are interchangible, your eyes can confirm that they are not the same
I mean, even the dashboard are different between Canada and USA.
Only in regards to requiring a thicker oil to make up for the issue. No API grade is going to be too thick to fit into the bearings. People look at that goofy Driven grade chart and think it’s an upper limit, which for maximum racing performance it may be that sort of recommendation, but it’s not in terms of engine operation or damage. As long as the winter rating is appropriate and will allow pumping then engines are tolerant of viscosity. It’s not just “one or two grades higher” either. That engine which recommends an -8 grade oil will operate fine on a -40 grade. Does it need it? No. But will it be too thick to get into the bearing clearances? No way.
There is more to an engine than bearing clearance, but i guess everything is a nail when you only know a hammer
Of course, and your snarky response doesn't help to explain why it matters. So far I've seen nothing technical out of you to support your claims that an engine "needs" a lower viscosity oil for some reason. I'm going to guess that I know more about engine design that you do, and you're just making it up to try and support an untenable position that you've carved out in this thread.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2025
- Messages
- 19
plausible deniability in the event of a lawsuit.
We are not in a competition, this is just a public forum that hopefully we are adding some value to other members and guests reading these later on. You might very well know more than I do, and I am happy if you do
Just because you don't understand the argument, or don't like the conclusion that derives from its premises does not make it flawed. I'm going to indulge a long post because it's a teachable moment for other readers.
1) What you are asserting here is almost never done in the sense you are suggesting it is. For example, the B series engine Stellantis installs in Ram trucks does differ somewhat from other B series engines sold to industrial markets. But they aren't the "Same" engine. The have different power ratings, different applications, and different bills of material. There's only the same at the most simplistic levels-- it's a Cummins engine, yes, and it's considered a B series engine.
The "foreign manual" examples cited here are for the same engine made in the same factory using the same parts from the same supply base. In the specific case I cite for the 1UR-FE in my GX, every 1UR-FE has been made at the Tahara plant for the 11+ years it was made. No other plant made this engine. And it's a near certainty the the established supply base changed very little over its run; that's the Japanese way to establish quality-- a high resistance to and skepticism of change, just keep polishing the process over and over.
You're suggesting that engines are made like Stratocasters: the "best wood" goes to the Custom Shop, the "good wood" goes to Fullerton or Mexico, and so down the line until you get Chinese guitars made of mystery wood and poor materials. And of course, a $5000 Custom Shop Stratocaster and a $200 Squier Strat are "the same" guitar. But only a small child would consider them to be the same. We aren't children here.
Engines aren't like that at all, they have defined clear requirements and very strict limits within their parts interchange. The wood in a guitar body has no functional requirements. It just has to be wood and be in the right shape. Some higher end makers required the final body to fall within a weight range just for more consistent density. But there are no functional requirements (it doesn't do anything) and the grading process is entirely subjective. Heck, most of the time the only difference between the "best" wood and "inferior" wood is cosmetic-- grain straightness, tightness, absence of knots, etc.
Engine parts have very strict functional requirements, the grading process is objective, not subjective. And it is exhaustive because of the demanding nature of form, fit, and function of the part.
Clearances and surface finish are part of the engine design. They don't change. And as GM is learning, using out of spec parts is a bad idea.
2) The critical clearances in your engine aren't that temperature sensitive. Your steel rods are growing and expanding with temperature, but so are the steel crank pins. They cancel each other out as they have nearly identical CLTE values.
Main bearing a slightly more sensitive, especially when you have an aluminum block with a steel crank. But in the case of the 1UR-FE, Toyota has tuned the linear expansion of the steel crank to match that of the A380 block. The result is a paltry 0.00002" increase in clearance over 150 degrees Fahrenheit of temperature increase. Toyota isn't the only one smart enough to know that you bearing clearances need to be relatively stable across temperatures.
This precisely why I don`t really bother. Your information is factually wrong and I am here providing you insight to the manufacturing process, and you are telling me how we are not doing what we are doing. Showing humility should not be this hard. But if you truly believe from internals to ecu mapping the whole world is receiving exact the same engines, go ahead.
If you would, please circle that back to why a certain grade is required for use. That is what all this is about.
Similar threads
