We finally got some... 0W-8.

[ekpolk]

Fact is, oil used to be amazing, engines lasted forever. Now oil is government oil, is garbage, and engines are dying long before 100,000 miles again. Took the viscosity down to water, took the zinc out, and here we are. Honda engines are been blowing apart too at low milage, in case you haven't noticed. Instead of responding with "please cite" go peruse the forums yourself. I HAD ONE the engine was junk at 80,000 miles despite a 1000 mile break in change, 5,000 mile intervals with high end synthetic, warmed gently and quickly, etc. I thought it was Honda going to hell, but now am beginning to realize IT WAS THE OIL all along.

How an oil centered forum like this, has missed this completely, and still keeps coming up with excuses blows me away.

No, engines didn’t ever last forever. Oils were not “amazing”. Both have steadily improved over the years. I learned to drive in the 1970s when the oil spec-ed for my parents’ Dodge Dart (225 slant-6) was API SE. And it would turn to black sludge if left in place for much more than 5k miles. I know THAT from personal experience. Good ole QS mineral 10w-30. And up to that point, most folks expected car engines would make 60-80k miles before needing a rebuild.

You said you “HAD ONE”. Very sorry to hear that. That said, one data point, even if exactly as you stated, absolutely does not prove that “thin oils” wreck engines. If you wish to assume it was the oil, that’s your choice. Of course, it could have been a huge number of other problems, or a combination thereof. You might just have gotten a bad one — even Honda makes mistakes from time to time. You said it was “junk”. What specifically happened? Did you have a tear-down performed? Where was the damage, and what was the mechanism of failure? I’m NOT going to “peruse forums” to prove YOUR point. If you can, bring it on. And for heaven’s sake, “perusing forums” does not in any way equate to providing proof. There ARE facts to be found out there, but the vast majority of the stuff on “the forums” is opinion, and little more.

You also didn’t mention start up wear at all. Compare the Mobil-1 AFE oils. The M1 0w-8 is 23 cSt cold, the 0w-20 is 43 cSt. In other words, on cold starts, the 0w-8 oil in my engine can be pumped to the moving parts substantially more easily than even a 0w-20 can. That would mean less startup wear with each cold starts.

As I stated above, we’re now THIRTY YEARS into the trend toward lower viscosity oils. There are obviously multiple motives involved, on the part of the makers, and the government regulators. That doesn’t mean there’s a grand conspiracy to wreck engines. My question to you remains: where are the tens of thousands of cars that would have died early deaths if what you claim is true? This should have been — and would be — the public scandal of the century if legions of customers were actually losing engines way early. But they’re not…

 

[Aston4]

People keep demanding cites here, then I spend an hour dredging them up, then they shut up never addressing the cites I post up. I'm over it.

No, it is not a conspiracy to eliminate ICE, it is OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY to get them off the road, in many advanced countries, 6 years from now.

Do you think those same people, who are passing official laws and policies to eliminate all internal combustion engines, give a **** if their oil formulation policies are causing ICE to wear out faster? On the contrary, they applaud it.

Step back and look at the big picture: thinner oil, less zink, reduces emissions, while taking the ICE powered car off the road much sooner. A double win for them.

Just an advanced version of Cash for Clunkers. The big manufacturers win, their serfs (dealers) win, the little people lose.

We're little people. They accumulate wealth by extracting it from the little people, by installing beliefs in the little people that cause us gullible stupids to willingly give it to them.

Instilling the belief that thin oil is "perfectly fine" is just another planned obsolescence scheme, many such schemes have transferred trillions of wealth to a just few people over the last century. They hire the finest psychology firms and experts on earth to figure this stuff out. They are very, very good at it, and infiltrating all social media, including this place, is routine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You also didn’t mention start up wear at all. Compare the Mobil-1 AFE oils. The M1 0w-8 is 23 cSt cold, the 0w-20 is 43 cSt. In other words, on cold starts, the 0w-8 oil in my engine can be pumped to the moving parts substantially more easily than even a 0w-20 can. That would mean less startup wear with each cold starts.

The oil flow time difference to the force fed parts in the oiling system from the PD oil pump won't matter if the right W rated oil is used. What's most critical in getting oil flow is how well the oil flows to the oil pump inlet (the "pumpability"), and the correct W rating for the temperature the vehicle is used in takes that into account. The W rating was invented for a reason, and PD oil pumps are also used on engines for a reason. There are plenty of vehicles what make lots of very cold startups every winter and still rack up 100s of thousands of miles on them.

 

[Aston4]

Why do billionaires who drive million dollar Ferrari and Porsche get specified 40 and 50 weight oil, while little people who drive Toyotas get speced 8 weight? Makes you think, huh?

 

[ekpolk]

People keep demanding cites here, then I spend an hour dredging them up, then they shut up never addressing the cites I post up. I'm over it.

No, it is not a conspiracy to eliminate ICE, it is OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY to get them off the road, in many advanced countries, 6 years from now.

Do you think those same people, who are passing official laws and policies to eliminate all internal combustion engines, give a **** if their oil formulation policies are causing ICE to wear out faster? On the contrary, they applaud it.

Step back and look at the big picture: thinner oil, less zink, reduces emissions, while taking the ICE powered car off the road much sooner. A double win for them.

Just an advanced version of Cash for Clunkers. The big manufacturers win, their serfs (dealers) win, the little people lose.

We're little people. They accumulate wealth by extracting it from the little people, by installing beliefs in the little people that cause us gullible stupids to willingly give it to them.

Instilling the belief that thin oil is "perfectly fine" is just another planned obsolescence scheme, many such schemes have transferred trillions of wealth to a just few people over the last century. They hire the finest psychology firms and experts on earth to figure this stuff out. They are very, very good at it, and infiltrating all social media, including this place, is routine.

YOU need to step back and look at the bigger picture. There are many dozen, perhaps more, variables that bear upon how well an oil will perform in a given application. Viscosity is certainly one of them. Additive packages. Base oil formulations. Contamination. Filter interactions. And on and on. Zinc is the one and only anti wear additive? Really?

Your use of the term “thin oil” belies your prejudice. I am NOT blindly advocating “thin” oils. Thick and thin are, at the end of the day, relative terms. Compared to 0w-8, 0w-16 is pretty thick stuff. What I do suggest is that, in light of the fact that we’ve gone THIRTY YEARS with no massive “thin oil calamity” it might just be OK to use the oil that the manufacturers have tested and validated for use in their engines. 0w-8 has been a thing in Japan for about a decade, and guess what? No 0w-8 oil catastrophe yet. So, don’t select an oil because you think it’s “thick” or “thin”, choose it because those whose reputation as car makers is at stake, recommend it.

Last, cars are machines made by perpetually imperfect humans. Newsflash: they’re going to wear out at some point. All of them. Even the best ones. There is not, and never will be, an “immortality oil”. But above all, seriously, your car is just that. Use whatever oil YOU deem appropriate.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Every car I own or service that calls for xW-20 gets a xW-30. It's a no-brainer if you want some added wear protection.

^This^
Plus, with the 20s, I won't bother with virgin cst @ 100 in the 8's. Give me Liberty and give me cst@100 in the 10s/11s

 

[ekpolk]

The oil flow time difference to the force fed parts in the oiling system from the PD oil pump won't matter if the right W rated oil is used. What's most critical in getting oil flow is how well the oil flows to the oil pump inlet (the "pumpability"), and the correct W rating for the temperature the vehicle is used in takes that into account. The W rating was invented for a reason, and PD oil pumps are also used on engines for a reason. There are plenty of vehicles what make lots of very cold startups every winter and still rack up 100s of thousands of miles on them.

I fully understand what a positive displacement pump is, and how it acts on a non-compressible fluid. Here’s a specific point to consider: in the Airbus A320, we’re not allowed to takeoff until the oil temp rises above -10C. That’s about 40C above the pour point for the oil spec. So even well above the point at which the oil is liquid, flow and pumpability remain serious concerns.

Also, of course, there are are plenty of vehicles making very cold starts that last a long time. Presumably, they’re using the oils the engineers who designed them, recommend. If an engine is designed to use a 40 wt oil and run well in Northern Canada in the winter, well, use the 40 wt oil!

 

[ekpolk]

Why do billionaires who drive million dollar Ferrari and Porsche get specified 40 and 50 weight oil, while little people who drive Toyotas get speced 8 weight? Makes you think, huh?

Well that’s an easy one. The engineers who designed those engines designed them to work with 40 and 50 weight oils. Engineers don’t just blindly throw an engine together and then start speculating about whether to use a “thick” or “thin” oil in it.

 

[Patman]

Why do billionaires who drive million dollar Ferrari and Porsche get specified 40 and 50 weight oil, while little people who drive Toyotas get speced 8 weight? Makes you think, huh?

It’s because they are high performance engines which are driven a lot harder and can see higher oil temperatures.

 

[Aston4]

It’s because they are high performance engines which are driven a lot harder and can see higher oil temperatures.

Nonsensical response unsupported by facts. Just off the top of my head:


Corolla GR is 0w20. 185HP per liter.

New Porsche GT3. 0w40. 125 HP per liter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Nonsensical response unsupported by facts. Just off the top of my head:

Corolla GR is 0w20. 185HP per liter.

New Porsche GT3. 0w40. 125 HP per liter.

Corolla GT probably has some pretty effective oil temperature control, and wider journal bearings to take the loads due to HP density and low oil viscosity. It would still benefit from a xW-30.

The Porsche engineers know thicker oil gives more wear protection on the track when oil temps are pretty elevated. Even if it has an oil cooler - maybe they aren't real effective.

 

[ekpolk]

People keep demanding cites here, then I spend an hour dredging them up, then they shut up never addressing the cites I post up. I'm over it.

No, it is not a conspiracy to eliminate ICE, it is OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY to get them off the road, in many advanced countries, 6 years from now.

Do you think those same people, who are passing official laws and policies to eliminate all internal combustion engines, give a **** if their oil formulation policies are causing ICE to wear out faster? On the contrary, they applaud it.

Step back and look at the big picture: thinner oil, less zink, reduces emissions, while taking the ICE powered car off the road much sooner. A double win for them.

Just an advanced version of Cash for Clunkers. The big manufacturers win, their serfs (dealers) win, the little people lose.

We're little people. They accumulate wealth by extracting it from the little people, by installing beliefs in the little people that cause us gullible stupids to willingly give it to them.

Instilling the belief that thin oil is "perfectly fine" is just another planned obsolescence scheme, many such schemes have transferred trillions of wealth to a just few people over the last century. They hire the finest psychology firms and experts on earth to figure this stuff out.

Nonsensical response unsupported by facts. Just off the top of my head:


Corolla GR is 0w20. 185HP per liter.

New Porsche GT3. 0w40. 125 HP per liter.

Brilliant. You just offered a complete non sequiter (in simple terms, nonsense) at the same time you claimed Patman offered a nonsense response. He has been a valued, knowledgeable contributor since 2002. His response was direct, correct and on point. Yours, not so much… Hp/displacement IS a factor to consider, but far from the only one. And whatever you conclude from those numbers, Patman was still 100% correct in his statement.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I fully understand what a positive displacement pump is, and how it acts on a non-compressible fluid. Here’s a specific point to consider: in the Airbus A320, we’re not allowed to takeoff until the oil temp rises above -10C. That’s about 40C above the pour point for the oil spec. So even well above the point at which the oil is liquid, flow and pumpability remain serious concerns.

It's an airplane with 100s of people onboard, therefore a safety measure.

Also, of course, there are are plenty of vehicles making very cold starts that last a long time. Presumably, they’re using the oils the engineers who designed them, recommend. If an engine is designed to use a 40 wt oil and run well in Northern Canada in the winter, well, use the 40 wt oil!

It's not the KV100 (ie, 40 wt grade) that matters in cold starts …. it's the W grade rating that matters. People who use a W grade higher than what's required for the start up temps could be causing more engine wear at very cold of start ups. Especially if the oil is too cold and thick to be picked up by the oil pump, then you get oil starvation - not good.

 

[Patman]

Nonsensical response unsupported by facts. Just off the top of my head:

Nonsensical response? Do you really want to go down this road with me? Be careful…

 

[ekpolk]

It's an airplane with 100s of people on bored, therefore a safety measure.


It's not the KV100 (ie, 40 wt grade) that matters in cold starts …. it's the W grade rating that matters. People who use a W grade higher than what's required for the start up temps could be causing more engine wear at very cold of start ups. Especially if the oil is too cold and thick to be picked up by the oil pump, then you get oil starvation - not good.

Of course it’s a safety measure — passengers (and crew for that matter) aren’t safe if we try to takeoff in conditions in which the engineers can’t guarantee sufficient oil flow into the engine’s bearings. Insufficient flow ==> engine failure.

Ok, I was a bit sloppy in the terminology. Of course, for cold starting it’s the w that counts. I’ve learned one or two things in TWENTY years on this site (with occasional breaks…). To clarify the point, if the engineers design and build an engine to thrive on a straight weight 40, or even perhaps a 20w-50, whatever RELATIVELY thick oil, then by all means, users of the engine should feel perfectly comfortable using that oil. That was my point. Again, re-reading, I see that I could have made it more clearly.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ok, I was a bit sloppy in the terminology. Of course, for cold starting it’s the w that counts. I’ve learned one or two things in TWENTY years on this site (with occasional breaks…). To clarify the point, if the engineers design and build an engine to thrive on a straight weight 40, or even perhaps a 20w-50, whatever RELATIVELY thick oil, then by all means, users of the engine should feel perfectly comfortable using that oil. That was my point. Again, re-reading, I see that I could have made it more clearly.

And we have seen lots of OMs for the same engine used in other countries that specify a whole range of viscosity. Motorcycles are the same way - no CAFE involved. Only engines specifically designed for thin oils are the ones specifying a 0W-8 or 0W-16. And those can also run on thicker oil viscosity just fine.

Engines don't mind thicker oil, but they may not do well with too thin of oil. In other words, don't run a 0W-8 or 0W-16 in an engine not speced for it. They made a GF-6B spec rating for a reason.

 

[TomYoung]

It’s not outdated. The physics of film thickness and wear are not violated. But there have been changes to engine design and oil formulations that can give “acceptable” wear with low viscosity oils.

The only real downside to a higher grade is a small increase in fuel consumption. Oil passages aren’t too small for higher grade oils, VVT systems won’t implode, engines don’t warm up faster, and engines don’t have electric oil pumps that controlled by the ECM, will shear off the pump drive gear. All those are Internet-amplified fallacies that along with others are common misconceptions about how oil works in the

People keep demanding cites here, then I spend an hour dredging them up, then they shut up never addressing the cites I post up. I'm over it.

No, it is not a conspiracy to eliminate ICE, it is OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY to get them off the road, in many advanced countries, 6 years from now.

Do you think those same people, who are passing official laws and policies to eliminate all internal combustion engines, give a **** if their oil formulation policies are causing ICE to wear out faster? On the contrary, they applaud it.

Step back and look at the big picture: thinner oil, less zink, reduces emissions, while taking the ICE powered car off the road much sooner. A double win for them.

Just an advanced version of Cash for Clunkers. The big manufacturers win, their serfs (dealers) win, the little people lose.

We're little people. They accumulate wealth by extracting it from the little people, by installing beliefs in the little people that cause us gullible stupids to willingly give it to them.

Instilling the belief that thin oil is "perfectly fine" is just another planned obsolescence scheme, many such schemes have transferred trillions of wealth to a just few people over the last century. They hire the finest psychology firms and experts on earth to figure this stuff out. They are very, very good at it, and infiltrating all social media, including this place, is routine.

Thank you. Could you please advise on the brand of tin foil to make a hat.

 

[Jetronic]

On my vehicles over the decades, I have found if I stray too far to the "thick side" oftentimes the engine doesn't respond properly or to the original intent - as it had run when factory new.

I am reminded of this very fact as I recently had to do this with our Ford 2.0L when I installed Mobil 1 5W30. I ended up draining a bit and substituting in its place I chose a companion in Mobil 1 0W16. All to save the newish sump rather that start over.

The opposite can also be true, as the 0w20 508 00 VW 1.4L required some help but toward the more viscous direction.

Have not seen shearing of oil pump shafts (lol) but I have noted weeping filter gaskets - along with the aforementioned performance issues.

I (referencing MOTUL) have come to call this viscosity tailoring. An adjustment sometimes required for optimum performance and response when the engine is at operating temperature. Just as off the shelf trousers are not a one size fits all product, So can be that container of motor oil.

This may all seem odd or unnecessary, but I am at certain time or circumstance compelled to act. - Arco

My MG is specced for 0W-20, which I replaced with 10W-30 of around 3.6 cP HTHS. I feel no difference in response and neither the ford edge or the volvo xc40 trying to overtake me at the lights had any success. If there is a reduction in power it's not substantial. The slowest Ford Edge that I know of has 210 bhp (almost 50 bhp more) but also weighs a fair bit more, they should be evenly matched cars.

There was also no detectable power loss when I used 20W-50 in my diesel (specced for acea C2 originally). And that's almost a doubling in HTHS viscosity.

Noise can be different between low and higher viscosity oils, and a more quiet engine might appear to be more sluggish. More noise, more go, right?.

 

[Aston4]

Thank you. Could you please advise on the brand of tin foil to make a hat.

Don't use American or Soviet foil, it is contaminated by all the testing. Easteen European foil is fine and works well.

 

[OVERKILL]

Fact is, oil used to be amazing, engines lasted forever.

How old are you? Because that's nonsense and I'm in my 40's. I've torn down many oval-bored SBC's, Windsor's with stuck rings and bearings in the copper...etc. Engines most certainly did not last forever, probably the engine with the best longevity was/is the Ford 4.6L Modular, because it's a low-stress roller follower application with mediocre power density that was put into LEO and livery vehicles that tended to accrue obscene mileage. That's quite recent history.

Now oil is government oil, is garbage, and engines are dying long before 100,000 miles again.

The API is not "government", it's the oil industry, with input from the auto manufacturers. Why do you jump immediately at blaming the oil and not direct injection, turbo charging...etc? Things that massively increase the stresses, fuel dilution...etc.

Took the viscosity down to water,

What's your "water" threshold? Because 20 grade has been spec'd since the days of gravity oiling in certain applications. Some engines now spec 0W-16, 0W-12 and 0W-8, but those are predominantly from specific manufacturers, mostly Honda and Toyota.

took the zinc out, and here we are.

Zinc is not restricted by the API, phosphorous is. Phosphorous is the anti-wear component of ZDDP, the zinc is basically the balancing "carrier" part of the compound to allow the phosphorous to do its job.

Honda engines are been blowing apart too at low milage, in case you haven't noticed. Instead of responding with "please cite" go peruse the forums yourself. I HAD ONE the engine was junk at 80,000 miles despite a 1000 mile break in change, 5,000 mile intervals with high end synthetic, warmed gently and quickly, etc. I thought it was Honda going to hell, but now am beginning to realize IT WAS THE OIL all along.

How an oil centered forum like this, has missed this completely, and still keeps coming up with excuses blows me away.

So it's the oil's fault that Honda's current engines, featuring Direct Injection, are dumping obscene amounts of gasoline into it?

You are SO confident that the oil is the problem, but seem completely oblivious as to the underlying mechanisms and mechanical/design changes that have happened in the past 20 years.